From Forbes: Ballmer on Linux and OSS
Roy Schestowitz
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/2006032316354265
,----[ Quote ]
| Forbes:You mention intellectual property. What's going on in terms
| of Microsoft IP showing up in Linux? And what are you going to do
| about it?
|
| Ballmer: Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates
| our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the
| degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders
| to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say,
| you'll be the first to hear it.
|
| I ask the question, "Does Microsoft really have any IP"? No. They have
| Xerox user interface, Digital VMS kernel, OS/2 API and BSD networking
| stack.
`----
John Bailo
> | Ballmer: And when there is something interesting to say,
> | you'll be the first to hear it.
Please, dear God. Let that be his strategy from now on.
--
Get the new
http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Roy Schestowitz
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>
>> | Ballmer: And when there is something interesting to say,
>> | you'll be the first to hear it.
>
> Please, dear God. Let that be his strategy from now on.
*Yawn*
P.
> | Ballmer: Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates
> | our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the
> | degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders
> | to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say,
> | you'll be the first to hear it.
What the bloody hell does this mean?
P.
--
"This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not
God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that
feeds them to dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach, Watchmen
Roy Schestowitz
> Roy Schestowitz mentioned something about:
>
>> | Ballmer: Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates
>> | our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the
>> | degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders
>> | to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say,
>> | you'll be the first to hear it.
>
> What the bloody hell does this mean?
>
> P.
No worries. Ballmer has nothing but lawyers. Not intellect. No property. Even
*lawyers* could not save the ship, which is sinking due to poor management
and development. The departure of the Office head, which is yet to lead
Windows Vista(gnating) makes you wonder if it is related to the one-year
delay of Office (see today's headlines). They can only swap forces while
employees resign and go somewhere with better prospects.
best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Quote when replying in non-real-time dialogues"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
9:05am up 16 days 1:42, 8 users, load average: 2.08, 1.38, 0.79
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
Rex Ballard
Ballmer knows that not only is there no direct proof of intellectual
property being willfully and intentionally copied from Microsoft's
proprietary source archives into Linux, but Microsoft has legally
copied open source software under licenses such as BSD, and
incorporated this software into their kernel.
In fact, Microsoft lawyers have full access to the complete source code
of Linux and Windows and if there are attempts to contribute
proprietary source code from Windows into Linux, that the Linux
community is more that willing to remove the contested code. There
have been examples of this throughout the development of Linux, and in
many cases, when there are multiple candidates for the same function,
the "least risk" solution is usually used. If you take code created as
a freshmen class programming exercise and deploy that into Linux, it's
almost impossible to argue that this technology couldn't have been
intuitively derived by someone familiar with the state of the art. In
many cases, there can be a class of 20-30 students in a class, and
20-30 classes throughout the country in a given year.
By giving these classes a public and unrestricted specification, such
as specifications from X/Open, Posix, or FreeBSD Manual pages, teachers
across the country can get 200-300 different implementations of the
same "device", each different and created.
There have been a few contributions which were challenged, and they
were almost immediately replaced by completely different
implementations designed to solve the same problem.
On the other hand, there are plenty of amateaur lawyers who don't know
the history of Unix or Linux, who see the similar, or even identical
code, who assume that, because they are the same and THEY saw the
Windows code first, that the Linux code MUST have been stolen from
Windows.
The irony is that Microsoft has successfully defended itself against a
number of patent lawsuits by citing examples of GNU and other Open
Source code, along with related documentation - often 20 years old,
that proved that Microsoft did NOT steal from the plaintiff - in fact,
they stole it from GNU.
The trick here is that because GNU did not patent their technology
(software patents were nearly impossible to get until about 1995),
Microsoft could study the source code, figure out HOW it worked, then
use that description to have a junior programmer (someone with 2-3 year
of experience in general programming) implement the same thing for
Microsoft based on the description, not the source code.
Then, when some amulance chaser of a lawyer tries to sue Microsoft on
behalf of some kitchen table software developer, hoping for a $billion
settlement, Microsoft trots out the REAL history, and the charges are
summarily dismissed.
I would guess that there isn't a line of code in any Microsoft product
that doesn't have a well documented pedigree - for just this reason.
Linux is not significantly different. Every developer is required to
verify that, to the best of their knowledge, the code being contributed
is not proprietary, patented, copyrighted, or otherwise protected by
some company. Furthermore, because each contribution can be traced
back to it's original developer, it's possible to press criminal
charges against a contributor who wilfully and intentionally
contributes proprietary copyrighted or patented code and lies about it.
These archives are very public if not voluminous. Fortunately, most
of Linux was developed when archive technology was relatively cheap -
QIC-20 tapes were about $20 and the drives were less than $200, then
CD-Burners dropped to under $200 with media as cheap as $1/gigabyte.
Since the linux mailing lists and CVS repositories are mostly
plain-text, and easily searched and parsed, it's pretty easy to trace
any real violations almost immediately.
And most companies DO watch this development pretty carefully. There
is always the possibility that a criminal contribution could be made,
of code which is unpatentable, but protected only by nondisclosure
clauses. The failure to act on such a contribution could mean the loss
of all intellectual property rights to the contributed product - since
the implementation could later be intuitively derived.
If Ballmer openly said "Yes, Linux violates our intellectual property"
he knows that there would be demands for specifics. And the Linux team
would happily remove the contested code, and help prosecute the
contributor.
Keep in mind, it's much easier to prove that Linux was intuitively
derived or at least that Microsoft failed to do due diligence in
checking for these violations - given that nearly everything in Linux
is published in source code form almost the minute it has been QA
tested.
Since Microsoft does not publish their source code, there is no way for
them to reasonably expect that Linux would check to confirm that the
code was taken from Microsoft.
It's very similar to trademark and patent registrations. When a
trademark is first registered, it can be challenged for a certain
period. If, after that period, there have been no direct challenges or
communications from someone else using that trademark as a trademark -
then the applicant is granted permanent and exclusive use of thaht
trademark. Ironically, Microsoft's use of Windows as a trademark was
almost immediately challenged. Legally, only the combination of the
words Microsoft and Windows together is trademarked. Still, Microsoft
loves to try to assert their exclusive ownership of Windows alone as a
trademark.
Finally, yes, Microsoft does have intellectual property. They have
dancing paper clips, dancing puppy dogs, and thousands of little
context sensitive helps available to escort the user through most
situations - this, more than anything helped Windows to be accepted by
nearly 1 billion users across the globe. It even helped to make
"English" (actually the internationalized version used in most large
cities within the United States where millions of immigrants from
around the world have enhanced the vocabulary) as a second language for
many of these 1 billion people.
The irony is that the concept of context sensitive help itself dates
back to Emacs. Context sensitive help has been widely used ever since
then. Microsoft just made context sensitive help a requirement for
nearly every major object used in any Microsoft product.
chrisv
>Roy Schestowitz mentioned something about:
>
>> | Ballmer: Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates
>> | our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the
>> | degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders
>> | to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say,
>> | you'll be the first to hear it.
>
>What the bloody hell does this mean?
FUD, FUD, and more FUD.
billwg
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:e00d7j$2q3a$2...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
>
> No worries. Ballmer has nothing but lawyers. Not intellect. No
> property. Even
> *lawyers* could not save the ship, which is sinking due to poor
> management
> and development. The departure of the Office head, which is yet to
> lead
> Windows Vista(gnating) makes you wonder if it is related to the
> one-year
> delay of Office (see today's headlines). They can only swap forces
> while
> employees resign and go somewhere with better prospects.
>
ship!
And if MS does go to court, who is going to indemnify the users? Red
Hat? Novell? Only if the users are paying them a subscription fee.
They could hire the RIAA to track down and sue anyone downloading a
linux distribution.
Ray Ingles
>> | Ballmer: Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates
>> | our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the
>> | degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders
>> | to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say,
>> | you'll be the first to hear it.
>
> What the bloody hell does this mean?
It doesn't mean *anything* - it's classic FUD. It's meant to spread
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, but not to say anything specific that
can be refuted.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"[T]he Founding Fathers... made certain to guarantee us individual
rights and freedoms. How dare we selfishly lay claim to those
liberties... when our nation is in crisis?"
http://www.theonion.com/opinion/index.php?issue=4026
Linønut
> On 2006-03-24, P. <no....@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> | Ballmer: Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates
>>> | our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the
>>> | degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders
>>> | to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say,
>>> | you'll be the first to hear it.
>>
>> What the bloody hell does this mean?
>
> It doesn't mean *anything* - it's classic FUD. It's meant to spread
> Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, but not to say anything specific that
> can be refuted.
You've been learning in your discussions with billwg, Ray! LOL!!!
--
Q: Why does a GNU/Linux user compile his kernel?
A: Because he can.
Roy Schestowitz
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Ray Ingles belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2006-03-24, P. <no....@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>> | Ballmer: Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates
>>>> | our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the
>>>> | degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders
>>>> | to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say,
>>>> | you'll be the first to hear it.
>>>
>>> What the bloody hell does this mean?
>>
>> It doesn't mean *anything* - it's classic FUD. It's meant to spread
>> Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, but not to say anything specific that
>> can be refuted.
*Uncertainty*.
> You've been learning in your discussions with billwg, Ray! LOL!!!
It's a clear indication that Ballmer is hiding something and has planned to
avoid the topic and discard the question /a priori/, given one
mental-strategic consideration or another. It reflects badly on the company.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Disk quota exceeded; sig discontinued"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux Ļ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
2:35pm up 16 days 7:12, 8 users, load average: 1.32, 0.93, 0.78
Ray Ingles
> And if MS does go to court, who is going to indemnify the users? Red
> Hat? Novell? Only if the users are paying them a subscription fee.
Of course, that assumes that they *win* in court. If that's such a sure
thing... why haven't they already?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Demand at least as much veracity from your president as you
would a filmmaker." - pohl
Dean G.
P. wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz mentioned something about:
>
> > | Ballmer: Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates
> > | our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the
> > | degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders
> > | to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say,
> > | you'll be the first to hear it.
>
> What the bloody hell does this mean?
It means the SCO "trial balloon" went over like a lead balloon, so back
to the drawing board.
Dean G.
John Bailo
> Record profits, roy, record profits and more every year. Some sinking
> ship!
The state of Microsoft is like the state of a heavily taxed state just
before a change in government. The revenues are stagnant, so they keep
raising the taxes per person who is bound to the state. Eventually those
people find a new leader.
--
http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
...fueled by Texeme Textcasting...
Larry Qualig
John Bailo wrote:
> billwg wrote:
>
>
> > Record profits, roy, record profits and more every year. Some sinking
> > ship!
>
> The state of Microsoft is like the state of a heavily taxed state just
> before a change in government. The revenues are stagnant, so they keep
> raising the taxes per person who is bound to the state. Eventually those
> people find a new leader.
Yes, we've all heard this same "MS keeps raising prices" several times
from you. Yet you have yet to offer a single shred of evidence to back
this up.
Mark Kent
Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> espoused:
> __/ [ Linųnut ] on Friday 24 March 2006 14:28 \__
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Ray Ingles belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> On 2006-03-24, P. <no....@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>> | Ballmer: Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates
>>>>> | our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the
>>>>> | degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders
>>>>> | to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say,
>>>>> | you'll be the first to hear it.
>>>>
>>>> What the bloody hell does this mean?
>>>
>>> It doesn't mean *anything* - it's classic FUD. It's meant to spread
>>> Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, but not to say anything specific that
>>> can be refuted.
>
>
> *Uncertainty*.
>
>
>> You've been learning in your discussions with billwg, Ray! LOL!!!
>
>
> It's a clear indication that Ballmer is hiding something and has planned to
> avoid the topic and discard the question /a priori/, given one
> mental-strategic consideration or another. It reflects badly on the company.
>
It's a carefully planned response, designed to spread FUD. It doesn't
actually say anything, but is intended to carry a hint of a threat. The
SCO play they paid for has had no discernible effect on Linux take-up,
and I can't see this rather obvious FUD effort having any impact either.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
I think... I think it's in my basement... Let me go upstairs and check.
-- Escher
Mark Kent
Ray Ingles <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> espoused:
> On 2006-03-24, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> And if MS does go to court, who is going to indemnify the users? Red
>> Hat? Novell? Only if the users are paying them a subscription fee.
>
> Of course, that assumes that they *win* in court. If that's such a sure
> thing... why haven't they already?
>
Indemnify the users against what, exactly? This is FUD again.
Besides, if there really were any IPR issues to be found, then it's the
suppliers who'd be at risk, not the customers.
It would be better if you didn't give lol!!!bill!!! a platform here - it
just gives the impression that there's some substance to what he's
saying.
Linønut
>> > | Ballmer: Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates
>> > | our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the
>> > | degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders
>> > | to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say,
>> > | you'll be the first to hear it.
>>
>> What the bloody hell does this mean?
>
> It means the SCO "trial balloon" went over like a lead balloon, so back
> to the drawing board.
I would think Microsoft would hate to have to show their family jewels
to any court. That could set them up for some real trouble, making
their current docket of settlements look miniscule.
They'd rather provide obfuscatory documentation, much like they
provided to the EU. LOL!!!
Ray Ingles
> Besides, if there really were any IPR issues to be found, then it's the
> suppliers who'd be at risk, not the customers.
Well, technically, if it were patents involved, customers could be
liable. The problem is, Microsoft can't assert that - with the current
patent regime, it's impossible for a large company *not* to infringe on
the patents of other large companies in the same line of business.
If MS *tried* to bring patent infringement claims against Linux, they'd
be sued for infringing *other* patents that companies like IBM hold.
It's very much like Mutally Assured Destruction. MS might try a
copyright path, but there's no evidence they'd have any hope of success
there - SCO certainly has been a train wreck.
> It would be better if you didn't give lol!!!bill!!! a platform here - it
> just gives the impression that there's some substance to what he's
> saying.
It's usually pretty easy to refute. If he doesn't say anything, point
it out - if he says something false, or incomplete, point out the
deficiencies. Some of his stuff has just enough truth in it to be
misleading. He's almost a master of cherry-picking facts to give a false
impression.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Don't look important. The bad guys may be low on ammo."
- Lt. Wolf
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrne2826a....@localhost.localdomain...
> On 2006-03-24, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> And if MS does go to court, who is going to indemnify the users? Red
>> Hat? Novell? Only if the users are paying them a subscription fee.
>
> Of course, that assumes that they *win* in court. If that's such a
> sure
> thing... why haven't they already?
>
supplicants have to take what is available!
billwg
"Larry Qualig" <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1143218401....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
the linux desktop for the past 5 or 6 years now, Larry. Just ask around
COLA.
B Gruff
> | Ballmer: Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates
> | our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment.
He "thinks that there are experts who claim...."?
Ye gods. Conversely, I KNOW that there are courts that have decided.....
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/31/1439223&from=rss
Roy Schestowitz
Title: "Microsoft Loses Office Patent Dispute"
Notice the last sentence in that article:
,----[ Quote ]
| "Office 2003 users will need to upgrade to Service Pack 2; Office
| XP users will need to apply a patch."
`----
Joy O' Joy. How simple and user-friendly.
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Free 3-D Reversi: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
6:20pm up 16 days 10:57, 8 users, load average: 0.56, 0.83, 0.98
Ray Ingles
>> Of course, that assumes that they *win* in court. If that's such a
>> sure thing... why haven't they already?
>>
> When you are the leader, you can pick the time and place, ray.
You're like Ballmer... you say things that don't actually contain any
information. Here, to use your terminology:
"Why is 'the leader' dilly-dallying? Why hasn't Microsoft picked a
time and place yet?"
As in, what are the *reasons* influencing their decision? Sure, they
can choose when to attack - that's tautological, really. If you expect
them to attack... *when*, and *why then*, and *why not before now*?
If they're going to do it, they'd better get started soon. Linux is
grabbing server revenue.
Personally, I shan't be holding my breath. Certainly Ballmer's comments
give no reason for concern. As has been noted, they are practically
meaningless.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Men often believe - or pretend - that the "Law" is something
sacred, or at least a science - an unfounded assumption very
convenient to governments." - Robert Heinlein
Larry Qualig
Ray Ingles wrote:
> On 2006-03-24, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Of course, that assumes that they *win* in court. If that's such a
> >> sure thing... why haven't they already?
> >>
> > When you are the leader, you can pick the time and place, ray.
>
> You're like Ballmer... you say things that don't actually contain any
> information. Here, to use your terminology:
>
> "Why is 'the leader' dilly-dallying? Why hasn't Microsoft picked a
> time and place yet?"
>
> As in, what are the *reasons* influencing their decision? Sure, they
> can choose when to attack - that's tautological, really. If you expect
> them to attack... *when*, and *why then*, and *why not before now*?
>
> If they're going to do it, they'd better get started soon. Linux is
> grabbing server revenue.
Linux is grabbing server revenue but MS has had strong double-digit
growth in server revenue themselves for the past several years. Isn't
the majority of the server revenue you speak of coming at the expense
of traditional Unix?
Sinister Midget
> Roy Schestowitz mentioned something about:
>
>> | Ballmer: Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates
>> | our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the
>> | degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders
>> | to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say,
>> | you'll be the first to hear it.
>
> What the bloody hell does this mean?
It means he can't wait for SCO to disappear so he & Mr Buttcrust can
take their place in the downward spiral.
--
A fool and his money are soon using Windows.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-03-24, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Of course, that assumes that they *win* in court. If that's such a
>>> sure thing... why haven't they already?
>>>
>> When you are the leader, you can pick the time and place, ray.
>
> You're like Ballmer... you say things that don't actually contain any
> information. Here, to use your terminology:
>
> "Why is 'the leader' dilly-dallying? Why hasn't Microsoft picked a
> time and place yet?"
>
on the desktop, they already own as much as can really be owned. And
then some. MS has next to nothing to gain in the server space either,
they now lead the market and grow stronger as unix grows weaker. Better
to let the linux shift bleed the financial clout out of the unix
suppliers and turn them into commodity Intel machine makers as is the
current trend. That's Mr. Softee's home court and one where they can
put the whole caboodle of them out to pasture in a couple of easy moves.
> As in, what are the *reasons* influencing their decision? Sure, they
> can choose when to attack - that's tautological, really. If you expect
> them to attack... *when*, and *why then*, and *why not before now*?
>
> If they're going to do it, they'd better get started soon. Linux is
> grabbing server revenue.
>
Bullshit. Linux is just shifting the unix revenue to a lesser energy
level.
> Personally, I shan't be holding my breath. Certainly Ballmer's
> comments
> give no reason for concern. As has been noted, they are practically
> meaningless.
>
Blessed are the ignorant, ray, for they will never know fear.
billwg
>
>
> Linux is grabbing server revenue but MS has had strong double-digit
> growth in server revenue themselves for the past several years. Isn't
> the majority of the server revenue you speak of coming at the expense
> of traditional Unix?
>
unix vendors to fund the kind of advances for which they were once
famous. Linux on Intel is very cheap compared to conventional unix on
RISC hardware and is demonstrating to the users that there is nothing
magnificent about unix anymore. That opens up a lot of cracks and
crevices in the unix armor that will allow MS to eventually do away with
unix style computers, including the derivative linux.
The most prevalent image of linux is as a form of unix on Intel
hardware. That appeals to a lot of people who are biased in favor of
unix and who have been unix users all along. As unix declines, though,
the source of linux appeal declines with it.
Mark Kent
Ray Ingles <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> espoused:
>> Besides, if there really were any IPR issues to be found, then it's the
>> suppliers who'd be at risk, not the customers.
>
> Well, technically, if it were patents involved, customers could be
> liable. The problem is, Microsoft can't assert that - with the current
> patent regime, it's impossible for a large company *not* to infringe on
> the patents of other large companies in the same line of business.
Whilst it's possible, it's highly unlikely that a customer would be held
liable for an unsuspecting usage of something. Experience shows that
alternative methods always found to do things very quickly indeed, so
its unlikely that anyone would be knowingly infringing anything for any
significant period.
In addition, software patents don't apply in the EU anyway, so it also
depends on where you live. Hopefully this situation will not change,
although it has to be said that certain large proprietary software
houses would like them to!
>
> If MS *tried* to bring patent infringement claims against Linux, they'd
> be sued for infringing *other* patents that companies like IBM hold.
> It's very much like Mutally Assured Destruction. MS might try a
> copyright path, but there's no evidence they'd have any hope of success
> there - SCO certainly has been a train wreck.
>
>> It would be better if you didn't give lol!!!bill!!! a platform here - it
>> just gives the impression that there's some substance to what he's
>> saying.
>
> It's usually pretty easy to refute. If he doesn't say anything, point
> it out - if he says something false, or incomplete, point out the
> deficiencies. Some of his stuff has just enough truth in it to be
> misleading. He's almost a master of cherry-picking facts to give a false
> impression.
>
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
She is descended from a long line that her mother listened to.
-- Gypsy Rose Lee
Ian Hilliard
> __/ [ B Gruff ] on Friday 24 March 2006 18:21 \__
>
>> On Friday 24 March 2006 06:21 Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> | Ballmer: Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates |
>>> our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment.
>>
>> He "thinks that there are experts who claim...."?
>>
>> Ye gods. Conversely, I KNOW that there are courts that have
>> decided.....
>>
>> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/31/1439223&from=rss
>
> Title: "Microsoft Loses Office Patent Dispute"
>
> Notice the last sentence in that article:
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | "Office 2003 users will need to upgrade to Service Pack 2; Office | XP
> users will need to apply a patch." `----
>
> Joy O' Joy. How simple and user-friendly.
<quote>
The question for companies, though, is if they are exposing themselves to
potential legal liability if they don't quickly move to the new software.
Microsoft promises to indemnify customers from third-party patent claims,
but Silver said the license terms also require customers to "immediately"
move to any new noninfringing version that Microsoft releases.
</quote>
So much for indemnifying their customers. I wonder what new EULA terms
will be on the updates?
In the end though, it comes down to a problem with the whole concept of
patenting ideas.
Ian
chrisv
> The Microsoft ship has been sinking and next year will be the year of
> the linux desktop for the past 5 or 6 years now, Larry. Just ask around
> COLA.
You should pull your head out of your ass and check in places other than
the US, troll.
Tim Smith
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In addition, software patents don't apply in the EU anyway, so it also
> depends on where you live. Hopefully this situation will not change,
> although it has to be said that certain large proprietary software
> houses would like them to!
Europe has software patents. For example, the IDEA cipher was patented
in Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, and the UK.
Here's another example, on software to register voters:
<http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?IDX=EP1224767&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPODOC>
--
--Tim Smith
JEDIDIAH
>
> "Larry Qualig" <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1143226363....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> Linux is grabbing server revenue but MS has had strong double-digit
>> growth in server revenue themselves for the past several years. Isn't
>> the majority of the server revenue you speak of coming at the expense
>> of traditional Unix?
>>
> Even worse for linux/unix, the shift is weakening the ability of the
> unix vendors to fund the kind of advances for which they were once
Who are you trying to kid? At least in the OS space you have
a split between those that were primarily migrating advances from
other systems (DEC, IBM) and those that had to be bailed out by
third party utilities (Sun). The death of commercial Unix is not
going to significantly harm the former. Nor will it necessarily
kill off the 3rd party enhancements to the latter.
Besides, the "downward spiral" effect is something that
would happen regardless of whether or not Linux existed.
> famous. Linux on Intel is very cheap compared to conventional unix on
> RISC hardware and is demonstrating to the users that there is nothing
> magnificent about unix anymore. That opens up a lot of cracks and
Unix ran on desktop microprocessors a LONG time ago. This isn't
really anything new. Quite a bit of the RISC hardware isn't anything
to write home about either. This is why Intel has an entry point into
the market.
Anyone that's not a drooling Sun fanboy already knew this.
> crevices in the unix armor that will allow MS to eventually do away with
> unix style computers, including the derivative linux.
>
> The most prevalent image of linux is as a form of unix on Intel
> hardware. That appeals to a lot of people who are biased in favor of
> unix and who have been unix users all along. As unix declines, though,
> the source of linux appeal declines with it.
Unix remains as modular and as transparent as it ever did.
--
...as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
|||
/ | \
chrisv
>Blessed are the ignorant, ray, for they will never know fear.
Unfortunately for you, billwg, nowhere does it say "Blessed are the
lying assholes." LOL!!!
Ray Ingles
>> If they're going to do it, they'd better get started soon. Linux is
>> grabbing server revenue.
>
> Linux is grabbing server revenue but MS has had strong double-digit
> growth in server revenue themselves for the past several years. Isn't
> the majority of the server revenue you speak of coming at the expense
> of traditional Unix?
It's really not so clear as that. What's clear is that Microsoft and
Linux are growing apace in the "volume server" (i.e. < $25K) space,
which happens to be the server segment that's growing rapidly. So far as
I can tell, Linux represents a way for Unix to compete in the 'economy'
space.
The traditional Unix companies have pursued a 'lower volume, higher
margin' scheme for quite a while now, but it should be clear that market
is no growing so much. I think there will still be such a market for
servers in the future, but not like it was.
Linux represents a way for traditional Unix companies to get into the
'volume server' business without directly cannibalizing their higher-end
business; for those that still want the high-end servers and are willing
to pay the high-end price tag (justified or not :-> ) there's the
differentiation of the proprietary OS. (All of which are being enhanced
to run Linux binaries when possible, I'll note.) IBM's leading in this
strategy right now.
So far as I've seen from the numbers, the high-end market is still
growing (and still dominated by Unix) but fairly slowly. It's the
lower-end market that's snowballing and Linux and Microsoft are
competing quite doggedly there.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
My other computer is your Windows machine.
Ray Ingles
> unix vendors to fund the kind of advances for which they were once
> famous.
No, it's just giving them a good way to jump into the 'volume server'
business while still differentiating (and maintaining the revenue stream
from) their 'high end server' products. IBM & HP are going this route
and doing pretty well. Solaris is the last holdout but they are
certainly trying different ways to at least imitate the outlines of this
strategy.
They are still making money, and still getting plenty of development
done. But now it's in a neutral territory where no one vendor owns the
basic playing field. Sure, they'd all like a monopoly like MS, but I
think they've decided big slices of a neutral pie are better than tiny
slices of an MS-owned pie.
> Linux on Intel is very cheap compared to conventional unix on
> RISC hardware and is demonstrating to the users that there is nothing
> magnificent about unix anymore.
On the contrary, it's allowing people to get the "magnificence" of Unix
much more economically. No signs of it tapering off at all.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"If your faith is disturbed by my doubt, perhaps your faith
wasn't all that strong to begin with." - Me
Ray Ingles
> suppliers and turn them into commodity Intel machine makers as is the
> current trend. That's Mr. Softee's home court and one where they can
> put the whole caboodle of them out to pasture in a couple of easy moves.
How convenient that your predictions can't be tested for a few more
years.
>> If they're going to do it, they'd better get started soon. Linux is
>> grabbing server revenue.
>>
> Bullshit. Linux is just shifting the unix revenue to a lesser energy
> level.
No, it's allowing the Unix vendors an easy way to *expand* into the
volume server business. The high-end server business isn't growing as
quickly as the lower segment. Microsoft doesn't have any hope of
invading that space directly - they are trying to 'grow into it' from
below. But Linux offers a nice way for the Unix vendors to get in there,
too. And, eventually, head off Microsoft.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to
leak out without too much assistance." - John Andrew Holmes