MS claims Linux stole their IP code now!
Opus
Bill Gates is the most rediculous/silly liar of a man I've ever had the
dis-pleasure of reading about.
Read about how the silly bastard claims Linux stole MS IP code!
MS stole that god damn IP code from the BSD project!
And we have proof!
How dare that son-of-a-bitchen bastard even pretend that MS wrote
any of this code!
Erik Funkenbusch
> http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=43532
>
> Bill Gates is the most rediculous/silly liar of a man I've ever had the
> dis-pleasure of reading about.
>
> Read about how the silly bastard claims Linux stole MS IP code!
No, he claims that cloning efforts are almost impossible without infringing
some IP, which I tend to agree with. Even if it's just trade dress (also
known as look and feel), which is a form of IP.
> MS stole that god damn IP code from the BSD project!
> And we have proof!
I would highly doubt that. If you're talking about the BSD copyright
strings in ftp.exe and other utilities, you should know that Microsoft
*licensed* BSD code through Spider software, who had a license from
Berkeley.
You should be careful about making claims about such things, especially
claiming proof.
> How dare that son-of-a-bitchen bastard even pretend that MS wrote
> any of this code!
What are you talking about?
paul cooke
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:31:05 -0500, Opus wrote:
>
>> http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=43532
>>
>> Bill Gates is the most rediculous/silly liar of a man I've ever had the
>> dis-pleasure of reading about.
>>
>> Read about how the silly bastard claims Linux stole MS IP code!
>
> No, he claims that cloning efforts are almost impossible without
> infringing some IP, which I tend to agree with. Even if it's just trade
> dress (also known as look and feel), which is a form of IP.
this is rich... coming from an acknowledged Microsoft apologist:
A little history lesson is required here...
<http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html>
>>>>Later MS decided that the GUI was just too cool not to use. So they
>>>>started on an Application Suite that would use the Macs concepts of
>>>>Windows, a Mouse, and direct manipulation to achieve its ends. This
>>>>became Windows 1.0, and evolved into the Windows we know and hate
>>>>today. The lead programmer for the Windows project was the same guy
>>>>who had been a lead programmer for writing the Mac Application
>>>>projects.
>>>>This sequence of events (Microsoft "borrowing" the Mac interface) is
>>>>not the same as taking rough concepts and adding to them to create
>>>>your own system -- this is much more intimate than that. Microsoft
>>>>took their best Mac Programmer, and had him making almost every design
>>>>decision for early windows. He was told, by Bill Gates, to make a PC
>>>>look and work, "JUST like a Mac" -- this is a direct quote from Gates!
>>>>Contrast that sequence of events, to Apple and Xerox sequence of
>>>>events, and you get an idea for the difference in philosophy and
>>>>implementation. Microsoft stole, Apple expanded.
>>>>This similarity was (of Windows to MacOS) is not just in design, there
>>>>are whole toolboxes/API that are almost identical (in interface).
>>>>Microsoft stole data structures and many routines, and the names and
>>>>concepts for many things are the same as well. If it wasn't for the
>>>>fact that they had to hack their stuff on top of DOS, they likely
>>>>would have just stolen all the same code (and they did get sued for
>>>>that later as well). If you look at many of the older Windows routines
>>>>you see names and structures that are identical to the Mac. But MS is
>>>>smart enough to avoid (or win) lawsuits -- they changed one name out
>>>>of 10, or re-ordered a few things, all so they could say it wasn't
>>>>identical. MS also had to make some design changes to get it to run on
>>>>a PC. But as far as real design work for Windows, there was none --
>>>>the Mac was a living design document.
--
Had to reboot your ms-windows computer yet today???
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?X27F52465>
>Mr. Gates acknowledged today that the company's error reporting service
>indicated that 5 percent of all Windows-based computers now crash more
>than twice each day.
LiamSlider
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:31:05 -0500, Opus wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=43532
>>
>>Bill Gates is the most rediculous/silly liar of a man I've ever had the
>>dis-pleasure of reading about.
>>
>>Read about how the silly bastard claims Linux stole MS IP code!
>
>
> No, he claims that cloning efforts are almost impossible without infringing
> some IP, which I tend to agree with. Even if it's just trade dress (also
> known as look and feel), which is a form of IP.
Didn't Microsoft win the "look and feel is not IP" battle back when they
fought Apple over it? Now they're claiming it *is* IP, and that Linux
infringes. This right here is proof of the evil behind Microsoft. Bill
Gates is a hyptocritical bastard, monopolist, and serial anti-trust law
violator...why anyone would stick up for his Corp or his OS is beyond me.
Bill Gates is a criminal.
Windows makes you stupid.
--
"One day I woke up, and I realized I was never going to be normal...I
said so be it." --Hard Harry, Pump Up the Volume
Nobody
news:bg1gd3$ibq2c$1...@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de:
> Didn't Microsoft win the "look and feel is not IP" battle back when
> they fought Apple over it? Now they're claiming it *is* IP, and that
> Linux infringes. This right here is proof of the evil behind
> Microsoft. Bill Gates is a hyptocritical bastard, monopolist, and
> serial anti-trust law violator...why anyone would stick up for his
> Corp or his OS is beyond me.
This goes back farther to Lotus vs Borland...Lotus sued Borland because
BORL copied the 1-2-3 look and feel in their spreadsheet product. Lotus
lost.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:26:04 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:31:05 -0500, Opus wrote:
>
>> http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=43532
>>
>> Bill Gates is the most rediculous/silly liar of a man I've ever had the
>> dis-pleasure of reading about.
>>
>> Read about how the silly bastard claims Linux stole MS IP code!
>
> No, he claims that cloning efforts are almost impossible without infringing
> some IP, which I tend to agree with. Even if it's just trade dress (also
> known as look and feel), which is a form of IP.
Hm, what was the name of the company that won a lawsuit, based on the
defence that "look and feel" was no copyrightable?
>
>> MS stole that god damn IP code from the BSD project!
>> And we have proof!
>
> I would highly doubt that. If you're talking about the BSD copyright
> strings in ftp.exe and other utilities, you should know that Microsoft
> *licensed* BSD code through Spider software, who had a license from
> Berkeley.
>
> You should be careful about making claims about such things, especially
> claiming proof.
>
I'd l ike to see the data that led BG to state that 5% of all MSWindows
installations crashed at least twice a day. Wouldn't you?
>> How dare that son-of-a-bitchen bastard even pretend that MS wrote
>> any of this code!
>
> What are you talking about?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/JEnWd90bcYOAWPYRAizLAJ44xuVe74DfwYK/M4/CXXlHu5AGXgCgxnev
1P4KrCV93kwenHVzQsJjEdA=
=yp4V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because eventually, you grow up enough to be trusted with a fork()
Jason Cutting
> http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=43532
>
>
> Bill Gates is the most rediculous/silly liar of a man I've ever had the
> dis-pleasure of reading about.
to the detriment of everyone else who is in the industry, or purchases
from it.
> Read about how the silly bastard claims Linux stole MS IP code!
And he offers as much proof as SCO has, let it go. It's just babble.
> MS stole that god damn IP code from the BSD project!
> And we have proof!
This is babble too, my friend :). I'm not a fan of MS, but back up your
claims, pls.
from the article:
Gates says:
"One thing about the GPL is that you can't just license IBM Linux, or
Red Hat Linux,"
Gates said. "The way the GPL works, if you license any Linux, you
have to license all
Linux."
And he's right. The misconception comes from thinking of a distro as
Linux. Linux is the kernel. You can even write proprietary drivers for
the kernel, but if you use kernel code in another project, it's GPL.
This misunderstanding will be pushed as far as possible by Microsoft.
Anyone can write proprietary code for linux. Just dont use GPL code,
write it yourself! Hire someone else to write it, whatever. The GPL
prevents theft by corporations instead of end users. It's quite clever.
-----------------------
However, Gates said intellectual property from SCO and other
companies--including
Microsoft--has found its way into the code.
This has no foundation unless the claimants release their code, which
will reveal (IMO, I have no clue, just opinions and suspicions) that
most companies have proprietary code of someone elses. It's a dirty
business, because current law allows it to be. If you're suspected of
having stolen property in your home, a warrant can be signed by a judge
to search your home. I dont this the legal system has the resources to
search the home of corporations like Microsoft re their code. I'm quite
convinced MSs source code is riddles with code from other OSs. VMS for
example, I believe BSD is in there (but prolly purchased), and Linux
code is probably in there as well.
------------------------
CEO Steve Ballmer, also on hand to answer questions at the meeting, said
customers and
partners are confused about the impact of the IP issues related to
Linux.
Microsoft is about to educate the public. I hope Eric (I cant remember
his last name at the moment, the Cathedral and the Bazaar fetchmail guy
:) will have time to make some headway into the coming FUD blanket.
Keep in mind, Gates and Ballmer are doing their damndest to not lie.
Their just putting a spin on the truth, like any other advertiser or
marketing team. Their masters at it as well. All we can do is try to
dispell a little of their mind magic, and use our machines the way we
know how. Free and clear of the meddling of small minded yet brilliant
men working towards feeding their families the fruits of their labour,
which happens the be the contents of everyone elses pockets and maybe an
arm or leg.
--
"You can't have everything. Where would you put it?"
-- Steven Wright
LiamSlider
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:26:04 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:31:05 -0500, Opus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=43532
>>>
>>>Bill Gates is the most rediculous/silly liar of a man I've ever had the
>>>dis-pleasure of reading about.
>>>
>>>Read about how the silly bastard claims Linux stole MS IP code!
>>
>>No, he claims that cloning efforts are almost impossible without infringing
>>some IP, which I tend to agree with. Even if it's just trade dress (also
>>known as look and feel), which is a form of IP.
>
>
>
> Hm, what was the name of the company that won a lawsuit, based on the
> defence that "look and feel" was no copyrightable?
Borland appairently did first, but Microsoft also won that battle in court.
Alexander Krumbach
> http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=43532
Reading from the article:
| Gates said the controversy has exposed a fundamental weakness of
| Linux--that the General Public License (GPL) makes it difficult for
| companies to engage in the cross-licensing deals that have become
| standard in the software industry.
Why in the world would Linux want to license other people's work?
The open source paradigm approaches code and code methodologies as
being practically fungible, so copyright lisencing is pointless (and
patent licensing doubly so). The reverse, however, is perfectly
acceptable -- the GPL explicitly permits the sale of software
(although you should expect to sell no more than one copy thereof).
In fact, if you view the creation of a dynamic link as not violating
the GPL (eg. creating a loadable kernel module), then you can even
craft closed source extensions on GPL'd software. License, where is
thy sting?
| Microsoft, which does not subscribe to the GPL, licensed Unix System
| V source code from SCO in May and is using it to develop an enhanced
| emulation layer for Unix applications.
They don't subscribe to the GPL, so they licensed Unix V code. Ah,
but where does that leave their current emulation layer?
http://www.interopsystems.com/Products2.asp
"The source code [of Microsoft Services for Unix] is provided under
the terms of the GNU General Public License..."
Apparently they subscribe to it closely enough to follow it where
needed!
| "The whole IP thing is begging to get attention because it's not a
| scenario that existed in the past," Gates noted. "The SCO suit is
| largely related to trademark and copyright."
The "whole IP thing" *HAS* existed in the past -- in the form of
prue academics such as mathematics -- which I can't see has having
suffered from lack of commoditization. Furthermore, according to
SCO, their lawsuit is *just* about contracts with IBM and not
copyrights (FUD aside, they didn't make any copyright claims in their
later court filing).
| "There's no question that in cloning activities, IP from many, many
| companies, including Microsoft, is being used in open-source
| software," Gates said. "When people clone things, that often becomes
| unavoidable."
Open source is exactly that -- *OPEN*. If proprietary (secret) code
got into Linux, there is nothing keeping the proper owner from
finding out and suing the repsonsible party. (This is the scenario
SCO is positing, with IBM being the illegal first distributor.) On
the other hand, if Linux code "magically" found it's way into a
closed source product, it could be difficult to detect. (The most
common way so far has been a whistleblower, although there are cases
where debugging strings pointed to copyright violations.)
As far as that marvelious "unavoidable copying" line is concerned --
HA! I say. AT&T and IBM both had their day in court on claims much
like that (as well as Microsoft spending court time defending
themselves against similar claims), and each case showed how
etherial and slippery "Intellectual Property" is, especially where
software is concerned. If cloning a product necessitated the
(prosceutable) copying of various forms of IP, then why do we have
such marvelous examples of copying that did *NOT* so infringe? (For
the head of a major software corporation, Bill Gates sure does seem
to have forgotten a lot of history ... even his own company's!)
--
Only two things are infinite: my idolization and how much I'm
misquoted, and I'm not sure about the former. -- Albert E.
Tsu Dho Nimh
>No, he claims that cloning efforts are almost impossible without infringing
>some IP, which I tend to agree with. Even if it's just trade dress (also
>known as look and feel), which is a form of IP.
Didn't Microsoft have a lawsuit to settle that "look and feel"
NOT copyrightable?
Tsu
--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré
LiamSlider
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>No, he claims that cloning efforts are almost impossible without infringing
>>some IP, which I tend to agree with. Even if it's just trade dress (also
>>known as look and feel), which is a form of IP.
>
>
> Didn't Microsoft have a lawsuit to settle that "look and feel"
> NOT copyrightable?
True, but this is Microsoft we're talking about, headed by the two-faced
hellbeast himself!
Erik Funkenbusch
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:26:04 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:31:05 -0500, Opus wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=43532
>>>
>>> Bill Gates is the most rediculous/silly liar of a man I've ever had the
>>> dis-pleasure of reading about.
>>>
>>> Read about how the silly bastard claims Linux stole MS IP code!
>>
>> No, he claims that cloning efforts are almost impossible without infringing
>> some IP, which I tend to agree with. Even if it's just trade dress (also
>> known as look and feel), which is a form of IP.
>
>
> Hm, what was the name of the company that won a lawsuit, based on the
> defence that "look and feel" was no copyrightable?
I didn't say it was copyrightable. IP is more than copyright, it includes
patents, trademarks, and other kinds of things like trade dress.
>>> MS stole that god damn IP code from the BSD project!
>>> And we have proof!
>>
>> I would highly doubt that. If you're talking about the BSD copyright
>> strings in ftp.exe and other utilities, you should know that Microsoft
>> *licensed* BSD code through Spider software, who had a license from
>> Berkeley.
>>
>> You should be careful about making claims about such things, especially
>> claiming proof.
>
> I'd l ike to see the data that led BG to state that 5% of all MSWindows
> installations crashed at least twice a day. Wouldn't you?
What exactly does this statement have to do with the material you are
responding to?
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>
>
>>No, he claims that cloning efforts are almost impossible without infringing
>>some IP, which I tend to agree with. Even if it's just trade dress (also
>>known as look and feel), which is a form of IP.
>
> Didn't Microsoft have a lawsuit to settle that "look and feel"
> NOT copyrightable?
Where did I mention copyright?
Joseph A Nagy Jr
an attempt to be both witty and informative:
IP is implied to be copyrighted where possible, especially where M$ is
concerned
--
Joseph A Nagy Jr
http://joseph-a-nagy-jr.homelinux.org
http://mc-luug.homelinux.org
Joseph A Nagy Jr
attempt to be both witty and informative:
> Keep in mind, Gates and Ballmer are doing their damndest to not lie. Their
> just putting a spin on the truth, like any other advertiser or marketing
> team. Their masters at it as well. All we can do is try to dispell a
> little of their mind magic, and use our machines the way we know how. Free
> and clear of the meddling of small minded yet brilliant men working
> towards feeding their families the fruits of their labour, which happens
> the be the contents of everyone elses pockets and maybe an arm or leg.
I can't speak for Ballmer, but it's well known that Gates isn't leaving
any of his wealth to his children.
D. C. Sessions
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:53:26 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>> Hm, what was the name of the company that won a lawsuit, based on the
>> defence that "look and feel" was no copyrightable?
>
> I didn't say it was copyrightable. IP is more than copyright, it includes
> patents, trademarks, and other kinds of things like trade dress.
At least in the USA, there are four kinds of protected
"intellectual property" (a poor term):
* Patent
* Copyright
* Trademark
* Trade secret
Which are you claiming that Linux infringes?
--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end
D. C. Sessions
Actually, they won at trial and were reversed on appeal.
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:43:42 -0500 Erik Funkenbusch wrote the following in
> an attempt to be both witty and informative:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:20:35 -0700, Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:
>>
>>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>No, he claims that cloning efforts are almost impossible without
>>>>infringing some IP, which I tend to agree with. Even if it's just
>>>>trade dress (also known as look and feel), which is a form of IP.
>>>
>>> Didn't Microsoft have a lawsuit to settle that "look and feel" NOT
>>> copyrightable?
>>
>> Where did I mention copyright?
>
>
> IP is implied to be copyrighted where possible, especially where M$ is
> concerned
IP is more than just copyright. See:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:41:52 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:53:26 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:26:04 -0500,
>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:31:05 -0500, Opus wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=43532
>>>>
>>>> Bill Gates is the most rediculous/silly liar of a man I've ever had the
>>>> dis-pleasure of reading about.
>>>>
>>>> Read about how the silly bastard claims Linux stole MS IP code!
>>>
>>> No, he claims that cloning efforts are almost impossible without infringing
>>> some IP, which I tend to agree with. Even if it's just trade dress (also
>>> known as look and feel), which is a form of IP.
>>
>>
>> Hm, what was the name of the company that won a lawsuit, based on the
>> defence that "look and feel" was no copyrightable?
>
> I didn't say it was copyrightable. IP is more than copyright, it includes
> patents, trademarks, and other kinds of things like trade dress.
>
The fact is that none of the "look and feel" lawsuits that I am aware
of, including the one MICROS~1 was in, went in favour of the claim that
the look and feel was somehow protected.
>>>> MS stole that god damn IP code from the BSD project!
>>>> And we have proof!
>>>
>>> I would highly doubt that. If you're talking about the BSD copyright
>>> strings in ftp.exe and other utilities, you should know that Microsoft
>>> *licensed* BSD code through Spider software, who had a license from
>>> Berkeley.
>>>
>>> You should be careful about making claims about such things, especially
>>> claiming proof.
>>
>> I'd l ike to see the data that led BG to state that 5% of all MSWindows
>> installations crashed at least twice a day. Wouldn't you?
>
> What exactly does this statement have to do with the material you are
> responding to?
Just a statement Erik. Wouldn't you like to see that data?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/JK9Jd90bcYOAWPYRAmr6AJ0SDrFvuKiTO34KERyXKdZLFE1H9ACfYQo3
7u51OslYrO6msEI6j7ms0UU=
=OpgP
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
IP is included under the heading of IP, wouldn't you say?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/JK92d90bcYOAWPYRAoD8AJ9rhiID2Sq1diHKmP5Y7N32k+UqiQCcCnRQ
kPBNp15e9FmxkElR6E6esyE=
=I9aN
Erik Funkenbusch
> In <1xskht7m0oy64$.1wawxd87ddtib$.d...@40tude.net>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:53:26 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>>> Hm, what was the name of the company that won a lawsuit, based on the
>>> defence that "look and feel" was no copyrightable?
>>
>> I didn't say it was copyrightable. IP is more than copyright, it includes
>> patents, trademarks, and other kinds of things like trade dress.
>
> At least in the USA, there are four kinds of protected
> "intellectual property" (a poor term):
>
> * Patent
> * Copyright
> * Trademark
> * Trade secret
>
> Which are you claiming that Linux infringes?
Not "Linux" the kernel, but "Linux" the group of applications that make up
a distribution (what most people think of when you say "Linux").
In any event, Trade Dress is a part of Trademark, and certainly there are
probably patents which MS holds which some Linux based open source
infringes upon, since MS holds a great many patents. Whether or not those
patents are breakable or not is a side issue.
jabailo
> IP is more than just copyright. See:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
There is too much nebulous and untried legal ground with GPL.
If the code belongs to the 'public', then who exactly is the litigant in
court? Suing a GPL'd IP is equivalent to suing the public, or every
citizen in the world. GPL says, 'this is air, water' you cannot own it.
Mi-SCO-soft says, 'this is land, its ours'.
jabailo
> In any event, Trade Dress is a part of Trademark, and certainly there are
> probably patents which MS holds which some Linux based open source
> infringes upon, since MS holds a great many patents. Whether or not those
> patents are breakable or not is a side issue.
Bottom line:
0. Ballmer in Germany didn't work.
1. The SCO case is melting as we write.
2. This is another attempt to fight the Linux tide.
Joseph A Nagy Jr
an attempt to be both witty and informative: <Snip>
> Not "Linux" the kernel, but "Linux" the group of applications that make
> up a distribution (what most people think of when you say "Linux").
Only those who still use Windows. GNU/Linux would be more appropriately
used here.
> In any event, Trade Dress is a part of Trademark, and certainly there
> are
WTF is Trade Dress? Is that Bill Gates wearing some Victoria Secrets
offerings? Ew.
> probably patents which MS holds which some Linux based open source
> infringes upon, since MS holds a great many patents. Whether or not
I doubt GNU/Linux infringes (at least knowingly) on any patent.
> those patents are breakable or not is a side issue.
Not really.
I wonder how many secret patents (if such a thing exists) that M$ holds.
Joseph A Nagy Jr
an attempt to be both witty and informative:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:53:38 -0500, Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:43:42 -0500 Erik Funkenbusch wrote the following
>> in an attempt to be both witty and informative:
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:20:35 -0700, Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No, he claims that cloning efforts are almost impossible without
>>>>>infringing some IP, which I tend to agree with. Even if it's just
>>>>>trade dress (also known as look and feel), which is a form of IP.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't Microsoft have a lawsuit to settle that "look and feel" NOT
>>>> copyrightable?
>>>
>>> Where did I mention copyright?
>>
>>
>> IP is implied to be copyrighted where possible, especially where M$ is
>> concerned
>
> IP is more than just copyright. See:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
I know it's more then just copyright (fuck, I mirror that damn site), but
it does include copyright.
Joseph A Nagy Jr
attempt to be both witty and informative:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:58:29 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
The litigant would be the original creator of the code, who still holds
rights over it.
jabailo
> I wonder how many secret patents (if such a thing exists) that M$ holds.
'So, you have invented a Doomsday Machine. But, it makes no sense to hide
a device such as dat. Vi did you not tell the verld !?!?!'
-Dr. Strangelove
jabailo
>> citizen in the world. GPL says, 'this is air, water' you cannot own it.
>> Mi-SCO-soft says, 'this is land, its ours'.
>
> The litigant would be the original creator of the code, who still holds
> rights over it.
but how can that be, if anybody has the right to add to the code? who
is the litigant if someone creates a derived product?
or, more to the point, who is the litigant if someone creates a derived
product which infringes someone elses rights?
OR, who is the litigant if an anonymous author creates a derived product
and releases that to the public?
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:54:50 -0700,
D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> In <1xskht7m0oy64$.1wawxd87ddtib$.d...@40tude.net>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:53:26 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>>> Hm, what was the name of the company that won a lawsuit, based on the
>>> defence that "look and feel" was no copyrightable?
>>
>> I didn't say it was copyrightable. IP is more than copyright, it includes
>> patents, trademarks, and other kinds of things like trade dress.
>
> At least in the USA, there are four kinds of protected
> "intellectual property" (a poor term):
>
> * Patent
> * Copyright
> * Trademark
> * Trade secret
>
> Which are you claiming that Linux infringes?
>
I too would like the answer to that question please Erik.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/JL95d90bcYOAWPYRAtkiAKDMsnlcHCua2px6XYfmqzOp9lb6fwCgoIG5
C9NH80lmZMRpHFcQL6TW1Ic=
=VAPx
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:07:02 -0700,
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:43:42 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:20:35 -0700, Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:
>>
>>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>No, he claims that cloning efforts are almost impossible without infringing
>>>>some IP, which I tend to agree with. Even if it's just trade dress (also
>>>>known as look and feel), which is a form of IP.
>>>
>>> Didn't Microsoft have a lawsuit to settle that "look and feel"
>>> NOT copyrightable?
>>
>> Where did I mention copyright?
>
> IP is included under the heading of IP, wouldn't you say?
>
er, Copyright is included under the heading of IP, wouldn't you say?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/JL+gd90bcYOAWPYRAlBNAJ4/E1nd8ID5DSeecZ3qNr2GOOMpRQCg4PUw
BoZsCNRHfeDg16hW8o9Lk+s=
=rwhS
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Like what? Please be specific. What OSS software on "Linux" violats
MICROS~1 IP of any kind please.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/JNGhd90bcYOAWPYRAigJAKC3Znfn5o8JpSQAyVqSFHrQEYEH7gCgnAI7
0+ijQACvtTAz9xIWSroHa90=
=Ir43
Jesse F. Hughes
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:29:25 +0000 Jason Cutting wrote the following in an
> attempt to be both witty and informative:
> <snip>
>> Keep in mind, Gates and Ballmer are doing their damndest to not lie. Their
>> just putting a spin on the truth, like any other advertiser or marketing
>> team. Their masters at it as well. All we can do is try to dispell a
>> little of their mind magic, and use our machines the way we know how. Free
>> and clear of the meddling of small minded yet brilliant men working
>> towards feeding their families the fruits of their labour, which happens
>> the be the contents of everyone elses pockets and maybe an arm or leg.
>
> I can't speak for Ballmer, but it's well known that Gates isn't leaving
> any of his wealth to his children.
Is it?
I know he's supposed to donate half of his wealth to charity. I
hadn't heard the well-known fact you mention above.
You wouldn't have a reference for that, would you?
Thanks.
--
"What I've learned is that [mathematicians are] the gatekeepers, and
seem to have almost absolute power when it comes to mathematics."
-- James Harris, on All I Really Ever Needed to Know I Learned
in /Ghostbusters/.
Rex Ballard
> http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=43532
Talk about coal calling the kettle black, there are a few
companies who would love to testify against Microsoft in any
action against Linux.
Look at some of Microsoft's "stretching the IP" efforts.
Lotus (1-2-3 and Notes), Novell, Apple, WordPerfect, Corel,
Marc Andreeson, Netscape, Jim Barksdale, Sun Microsystems,
AOL, Real Networks, Stack/Stacker, DRI, DEC, HP, ButtonWare,
Trumpet, Chameleon, Hummingbird, Brief, ...
Microsoft has done their share of shady intellectual
property "appropriation", and pretty much invented the
concept of "clean room software engineering".
Of course, Microsoft is very concerned about WINE, even
though it turns out that WINE actually creates a new
potential market for Microsoft.
As far as Bill Gates is concerned, all intellectual property
rights should go one way. Microsoft should be able to get
yours with you getting nothing in return. You should not be
allowed to get any of Microsoft's.
Even the EULA is a "one way street". Microsoft not only
demands that you forfeit all rights to privacy, but also
demands that you indemnify Microsoft against all damages and
tells you that the software is completely useless. Then
they demand that you promise not do reverse engineer their
software. This even means that if Microsoft has written
malicious code designed to trash your computer when you use
a competitors software, you can't submit the dissassembled
code as evidence of sabotage. You can't even publish
benchmarks without letting Microsoft "help you" write the
final revisions.
Fortunately, not all judges see this Microsoft's way. In
most cases, judges have ruled that Microsoft cannot use the
EULA to obstruct justice, commit fraud, or exclude competitors.
> Bill Gates is the most rediculous/silly liar of a man I've ever had the
> dis-pleasure of reading about.
Actually, he is a very pleasant individual to talk to. The
problem that most people have is that they see this guy with
a squeaky voice, big glasses, flattering them, speaking of
possibilities and future plans, and then asking them to be a
part of all of that. They underestimate chairman Bill.
Each negotiator thinks that he will come up with the
contract which gives them the advantage and that they will
gets some of "Billy's Billions".
I've even had discussions with executive who assume that
because Bill is the richest man in the world, that his way
is the best way. They thing they will get rich if they do
business with Microsoft. What they don't understand is that
Bill got his $Billions by making absolutely sure that the
money and intellectual property only flows one way.
Very often, within 12-18 months of entering into their
agreements with Microsoft, Microsoft has raped the company
of it's intellectual property. Microsoft knows their
market, their strategic software, their business strategy,
their key revenue sources, and their most profitable areas.
Within 24 months, Microsoft has either put that IP to use
in their own business, or in the case of tightly regulated
industries such as banking, real estate, brokerages, and
travel agencies, has given that IP to a third rate
competitor in exchange for 25% ownership in a thinly
capitalized semi-public company.
> Read about how the silly bastard claims Linux stole MS IP code!
I think Gates is referring to the WINE code. As far as Bill
Gates is concerned, WINE is a violation of the prohibitions
of the "reverse engineering" clauses of the EULA agreements
for Windows and MSDN.
If Microsoft could find a smoking gun, a clear cut case of
someone actually dissassembling the Microsoft code, or a
former Microsoft employee who had taken the Microsoft source
code and was using it to feed WINE, they would be all over it.
Microsoft has changed the licenses for all of the libraries
used by ISVs since the VB6 libraries. Prior to this, the
ISVs were given distribution rights with no direct
restrictions (due to monopoly concerns) against using it
with a competitor's system. Microsoft has licensed
emulation software to SUN (WABI) and several others.
This was also partly to keep the ISVs from switching to
Borland's compilers and development tools and libraries,
which supports both Windows and Linux platforms.
But with .NET, Microsoft is trying very hard to "lock down"
their intellectual property. One of the very "high risk"
projects would be the mono project, which has received
direct support from Microsoft.
Gates knows that there are auditing and review processes
which are probably more dilligent than most corporate
software development efforts. The Open Source community is
very careful to say "if you're contaminated, don't
contribute". If someone were to lie, and claime that they
had no direct involvement with the commercial version, and
tried to "dump" some proprietary code, those familiar with
the proprietary code can help to flag it. It's the one
contribution that those familiar with proprietary code CAN
make. They can review the source, and notify the
appropriate development team.
> MS stole that god damn IP code from the BSD project!
> And we have proof!
About 90% of Microsoft's Intellectual Property comes from
questionable sources. The BSD license allows Microsoft to
turn the Open Source code into proprietary code. They don't
keep it a secret, but it's not illegal. Many contributors
have retaliated by releasing security patches exclusively
under the GNU Public License. It's also legal to turn BSD
code into GPL code by adding GPL code in the form of patches.
> How dare that son-of-a-bitchen bastard even pretend that MS wrote
> any of this code!
No point in the colorful language.
As I said in my opening, Bill Gates pointing the finger at
Open Source for taking intellectual property is like coal
calling the kettle black. It's probably more like coal
calling snow black.
--
Rex Ballard
Leading Open Source Advocate
http://www.open4success.org/bio
Tsu Dho Nimh
>WTF is Trade Dress? Is that Bill Gates wearing some Victoria Secrets
>offerings?
It is, for a business, their physical "look and feel" ... the
decor, color scheme, staff uniforms, typography and layout of
menus, signage, etc. of the place they do business with the
public.
This is only "trade dress" if it is _distinctive_ and used
uniformly across all locations, and only litigation material if
an infringer is deliberately attempting to blend in with an
established business by copying the trade dress of the other. It
has to be pretty blatant to make a trade dress infringement case
work.
The few cases I know of were restaurant chains ... "Zapata's"
being the established one, and "Zapato's" being the newcomer
whose signs, decor and uniforms were at a glance close enough to
make someone pull into a parking lot thinking it was the chain
they were looking for, and whose decor was similar enough that
unless you looked closely at the menu, you would not notice. It
was more than just the usual similarity in Mexican restaurant
decor similarity ... it was a clone.
Jim Lascola
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:31:05 -0500, Opus wrote:
>
> > http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=43532
> >
> > dis-pleasure of reading about.
> >
>
> some IP, which I tend to agree with. Even if it's just trade dress (also
> known as look and feel), which is a form of IP.
>
> > And we have proof!
>
> strings in ftp.exe and other utilities, you should know that Microsoft
> *licensed* BSD code through Spider software, who had a license from
> Berkeley.
>
> You should be careful about making claims about such things, especially
> claiming proof.
>
> > any of this code!
>
hahahaah
Erik To his Uncle Billies Rescue ... As Usual .
what a Microsoft Whore
Jim
Erik Funkenbusch
The most recent example is, of course, this:
But, as I said, whether or not the patent is breakable is a different
issue. Take your pick of infringing software.
How about this one:
It would seem to violate the ACPI driver support in the Linux kernel.
Just peruse through the database, and look for yourself:
Just because MS has patents, and Linux and other Open Source might infringe
upon them, doesn't mean Microsoft is going to enforce them. Microsoft has
a history of only enforcing patents defensively, that is, when someone
comes after them for a patent, they use their patent portfolio to "trade".
chrisv
<joseph_a...@charter.net> wrote:
>I can't speak for Ballmer, but it's well known that Gates isn't leaving
>any of his wealth to his children.
"Any" or "most"? He may not leave "most" of it too them, but even a
small chunk of it would be a large amount of money...
Joseph A Nagy Jr
attempt to be both witty and informative:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:57:15 -0500, "Joseph A Nagy Jr"
He's not leaving ANY as in $0. From what I understand, it's all slated to
go to charity when he's dead.
GreyCloud
I don't think these so called patents can really be
enforced. M$ would have a big battle on their hands with
IBM alone, let alone the rest of the industry. The courts
would just laugh and toss out the case if M$ tried. So this
is just foo-fluff.
GreyCloud
Old argument you have there. Your sock-puppetry for M$ is
going down the drain.
Linønut
>> Like what? Please be specific. What OSS software on "Linux" violats
>> MICROS~1 IP of any kind please.
>
> The most recent example is, of course, this:
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,594,674.WKU.&OS=PN/6,594,674&RS=PN/6,594,674
>
> But, as I said, whether or not the patent is breakable is a different
> issue. Take your pick of infringing software.
Are you claiming that there is any product that exactly duplicates all
40 claims in this patent? Which, by the way, was entered only about
two weeks ago?
And which describes NTFS?
Joseph A Nagy Jr
an attempt to be both witty and informative:
> "Joseph A Nagy Jr" <joseph_a...@charter.net> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:29:25 +0000 Jason Cutting wrote the following in
>> an attempt to be both witty and informative: <snip>
>>> Keep in mind, Gates and Ballmer are doing their damndest to not lie.
>>> Their just putting a spin on the truth, like any other advertiser or
>>> marketing team. Their masters at it as well. All we can do is try to
>>> dispell a little of their mind magic, and use our machines the way we
>>> know how. Free and clear of the meddling of small minded yet brilliant
>>> men working towards feeding their families the fruits of their labour,
>>> which happens the be the contents of everyone elses pockets and maybe
>>> an arm or leg.
>>
>> I can't speak for Ballmer, but it's well known that Gates isn't leaving
>> any of his wealth to his children.
>
> Is it?
>
> I know he's supposed to donate half of his wealth to charity. I hadn't
> heard the well-known fact you mention above.
>
> You wouldn't have a reference for that, would you?
>
> Thanks.
Unfortunately not right now, but I'm sure I could find one.
D. C. Sessions
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:46:35 +0000 chrisv wrote the following in an
> attempt to be both witty and informative:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:57:15 -0500, "Joseph A Nagy Jr"
>> <joseph_a...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I can't speak for Ballmer, but it's well known that Gates isn't leaving
>>>any of his wealth to his children.
>>
>> "Any" or "most"? He may not leave "most" of it too them, but even a small
>> chunk of it would be a large amount of money...
>
> He's not leaving ANY as in $0. From what I understand, it's all slated to
> go to charity when he's dead.
It's a whole lot smarter to give it to them while you're
alive -- the tax man takes a much smaller bite.
--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end
D. C. Sessions
Yup, Microsoft filed a for a patent in 2000 on tarballs and
loopback filesystems. With their legal budget, they can now
put every *nix operation out of business.
> But, as I said, whether or not the patent is breakable is a different
> issue. Take your pick of infringing software.
tar, pkzip, etc. all infringe.
> How about this one:
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=2&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=Microsoft.ASNM.&OS=AN/Microsoft&RS=AN/Microsoft
>
> It would seem to violate the ACPI driver support in the Linux kernel.
Yup -- they've patented ioctl on ACPI devices.
Obviously, we need to file patents for ioctl on video systems,
ioctl on cdrom devices, ioctl on tape systems, ioctl on network
devices, ioctl on ....
Filed in 1999.
By the doctrine of equivalences, MS can probably argue
that the ioctl for apm also infringes.
> Just peruse through the database, and look for yourself:
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=AN%2FMicrosoft&d=ptxt
Microsoft has been very busy patenting that "thirty-year-old"
technology that they have been badmouthing publicly.
> Just because MS has patents, and Linux and other Open Source might infringe
> upon them, doesn't mean Microsoft is going to enforce them. Microsoft has
> a history of only enforcing patents defensively, that is, when someone
> comes after them for a patent, they use their patent portfolio to "trade".
Google on "Microsoft vs" and patent to see differently.
Joseph A Nagy Jr
attempt to be both witty and informative:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 01:16:46 -0500, Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
>
>>> citizen in the world. GPL says, 'this is air, water' you cannot own
>>> it. Mi-SCO-soft says, 'this is land, its ours'.
>>
>> The litigant would be the original creator of the code, who still holds
>> rights over it.
>
> but how can that be, if anybody has the right to add to the code? who is
> the litigant if someone creates a derived product?
The person who created the derived product.
>
> or, more to the point, who is the litigant if someone creates a derived
> product which infringes someone elses rights?
The creator of the derived product.
>
> OR, who is the litigant if an anonymous author creates a derived product
> and releases that to the public?
No one unless you can find said anonymous author.
Joseph A Nagy Jr
attempt to be both witty and informative:
> "Joseph A Nagy Jr" <joseph_a...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>WTF is Trade Dress? Is that Bill Gates wearing some Victoria Secrets
>>offerings?
>
> It is, for a business, their physical "look and feel" ... the decor, color
> scheme, staff uniforms, typography and layout of menus, signage, etc. of
> the place they do business with the public.
>
> This is only "trade dress" if it is _distinctive_ and used uniformly
> across all locations, and only litigation material if an infringer is
> deliberately attempting to blend in with an established business by
> copying the trade dress of the other. It has to be pretty blatant to make
> a trade dress infringement case work.
>
> The few cases I know of were restaurant chains ... "Zapata's" being the
> established one, and "Zapato's" being the newcomer whose signs, decor and
> uniforms were at a glance close enough to make someone pull into a parking
> lot thinking it was the chain they were looking for, and whose decor was
> similar enough that unless you looked closely at the menu, you would not
> notice. It was more than just the usual similarity in Mexican restaurant
> decor similarity ... it was a clone.
>
>
>
> Tsu
Now that I understand, then MS is guilty of stealing the GNOME GUI
paul cooke
Software patents should never have been allowed. They only serve to enable
the big boys to stifle any competetion by locking them out unless they're
big enough to "trade" with... and have something the others want...
Had to reboot your ms-windows computer yet today???
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?X27F52465>
>Mr. Gates acknowledged today that the company's error reporting service
>indicated that 5 percent of all Windows-based computers now crash more
>than twice each day.
That's going to get rammed in your faces for ages to come... better get
used to it.
Joseph A Nagy Jr
an attempt to be both witty and informative:
> In <pan.2003.07.28....@charter.net>, Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:46:35 +0000 chrisv wrote the following in an
>> attempt to be both witty and informative:
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:57:15 -0500, "Joseph A Nagy Jr"
>>> <joseph_a...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I can't speak for Ballmer, but it's well known that Gates isn't leaving
>>>>any of his wealth to his children.
>>>
>>> "Any" or "most"? He may not leave "most" of it too them, but even a
>>> small chunk of it would be a large amount of money...
>>
>> He's not leaving ANY as in $0. From what I understand, it's all slated
>> to go to charity when he's dead.
>
> It's a whole lot smarter to give it to them while you're alive -- the tax
> man takes a much smaller bite.
See his current spending habits.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:08:25 -0500,
Sorry, all of these examples, have prior art. Next?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/JXR4d90bcYOAWPYRAn9yAKCZbs9WL+XGV1Bj/kyvJg00dTTn+wCffNk5
dWtQuWqkvd0bt+TuIvts7+s=
=PSzy
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Yeah, I should have been more explicit, I should have requested a
*valid* patent example.
Since these examples, purport to cover things that were being done *in
Linux* prior to the patent, they are, ipso facto, examples of prior art.
Pretty lame really, MICROS~1 must really be scraping the bottom of the
barrel.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/JXTYd90bcYOAWPYRAkkeAJ0ckkQmbOAr7+c9sdjfcpuq2l8RgwCfcZg8
yprpi48WQdu25QZD6TUrBS4=
=ILxI
chrisv
<joseph_a...@charter.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:46:35 +0000 chrisv wrote the following in an
>attempt to be both witty and informative:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:57:15 -0500, "Joseph A Nagy Jr"
>> <joseph_a...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I can't speak for Ballmer, but it's well known that Gates isn't leaving
>>>any of his wealth to his children.
>>
>> "Any" or "most"? He may not leave "most" of it too them, but even a small
>> chunk of it would be a large amount of money...
>
>He's not leaving ANY as in $0. From what I understand, it's all slated to
>go to charity when he's dead.
I find that very hard to believe. I can see him not wanting them to
be total rich slugs, but it's hard to believe he wouldn't leave them a
few $million... Or at least set them up with nice homes.
Greg Cox
chr...@nospam.invalid says...
I believe I read in an interview some time back that he was going to
leave a maximum of $10 million to each of his children.
--
gr...@magivark.com
Erik Funkenbusch
Those aren't patent cases.
Erik Funkenbusch
Well, when a court of law invalidates them, you'll have a point.
Nobody
news:uumev-...@news.lumbercartel.com:
> In <Xns93C5B6AB37D4CX...@24.24.2.165>, Nobody wrote:
>
>> LiamSlider <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in
>> news:bg1gd3$ibq2c$1...@ID-169482.news.uni-berlin.de:
>>
>>> Didn't Microsoft win the "look and feel is not IP" battle back when
>>> they fought Apple over it? Now they're claiming it *is* IP, and that
>>> Linux infringes. This right here is proof of the evil behind
>>> Microsoft. Bill Gates is a hyptocritical bastard, monopolist, and
>>> serial anti-trust law violator...why anyone would stick up for his
>>> Corp or his OS is beyond me.
>>
>> This goes back farther to Lotus vs Borland...Lotus sued Borland
>> because BORL copied the 1-2-3 look and feel in their spreadsheet
>> product. Lotus lost.
>
> Actually, they won at trial and were reversed on appeal.
>
Like I said...they lost.
Joseph A Nagy Jr
attempt to be both witty and informative:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:59:17 -0500, "Joseph A Nagy Jr"
> <joseph_a...@charter.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>He's not leaving ANY as in $0. From what I understand, it's all slated to
>>go to charity when he's dead.
>
> I find that very hard to believe. I can see him not wanting them to be
> total rich slugs, but it's hard to believe he wouldn't leave them a few
> $million... Or at least set them up with nice homes.
I don't find it hard to believe. Just look at how he runs his business.
Joseph A Nagy Jr
an attempt to be both witty and informative:
> Well, when a court of law invalidates them, you'll have a point.
Just because it hasn't been invalidated yet doesn't mean they should have
been granted in the first place.
Gary Hallock
> The most recent example is, of course, this:
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,594,674.WKU.&OS=PN/6,594,674&RS=PN/6,594,674
>
> But, as I said, whether or not the patent is breakable is a different
> issue. Take your pick of infringing software.
>
> How about this one:
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=2&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=Microsoft.ASNM.&OS=AN/Microsoft&RS=AN/Microsoft
>
> It would seem to violate the ACPI driver support in the Linux kernel.
>
> Just peruse through the database, and look for yourself:
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=AN%2FMicrosoft&d=ptxt
>
> Just because MS has patents, and Linux and other Open Source might
> infringe upon them, doesn't mean Microsoft is going to enforce them.
> Microsoft has a history of only enforcing patents defensively, that is,
> when someone comes after them for a patent, they use their patent
> portfolio to "trade".
The patents are invalid and should never have been issued. You can't
patent prior art. Do you really think that MVS partitioned data sets that
existed decades ago, before MS even existed, can just be patented by MS
and then MS can sue IBM for patent infringement? And you think the GPL
is viral?
Gary
T. Max Devlin
>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:32:49 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 01:01:31 -0500,
>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:54:50 -0700, D. C. Sessions wrote:
>>>> In <1xskht7m0oy64$.1wawxd87ddtib$.d...@40tude.net>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:53:26 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>> In any event, Trade Dress is a part of Trademark, and certainly there
>>> are probably patents which MS holds which some Linux based open source
>>> infringes upon, since MS holds a great many patents. Whether or not
>>> those patents are breakable or not is a side issue.
Not if you know anything about intellectual property, it isn't. There is a
large difference between "Erik Funkenbusch believes they infringe" and "they
infringe".
>> Like what? Please be specific. What OSS software on "Linux" violats
>> MICROS~1 IP of any kind please.
>
>The most recent example is, of course, this:
>
>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,594,674.WKU.&OS=PN/6,594,674&RS=PN/6,594,674
What makes you think that any Linux software infringes?
>But, as I said, whether or not the patent is breakable is a different
>issue.
No, despite your repeated protests, it is in fact the same issue. Your claim
was not that MS has filed patents; your claim was that Linux software
"probably" infringes on MS patents.
>Take your pick of infringing software.
No, Erik; you take your pick. It must be easy since you apparently have
positive knowledge that Linux software "probably" infringed MS patents. But
speak carefully, Erik; if the software you pick [or the method it uses] dates
from before 1999, well, then there is no intellectual property to infringe,
since the patent is meaningless.
>How about this one:
>
>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=2&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=Microsoft.ASNM.&OS=AN/Microsoft&RS=AN/Microsoft
>
>It would seem to violate the ACPI driver support in the Linux kernel.
"An invention is disclosed that provides a mechanism for exposing to user mode
applications the features and information enabled by the Advanced
Configuration and Power Interface ("ACPI") specification."
What evidence do you have that the Linux kernel uses this particular patented
mechanism for exposing to user mode applications the features and information
enabled by ACPI, Erik?
>Just peruse through the database, and look for yourself:
>
>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=AN%2FMicrosoft&d=ptxt
>
>Just because MS has patents, and Linux and other Open Source might infringe
>upon them, doesn't mean Microsoft is going to enforce them.
Ask any patent lawyer, and they'll tell you, if you don't enforce them, you
don't really have them.
>Microsoft has
>a history of only enforcing patents defensively, that is, when someone
>comes after them for a patent, they use their patent portfolio to "trade".
Which is to say they never enforce them, I suppose; they use them to bludgeon
companies that have technology they want to steal.
I'd say the truth is that Microsoft has a history of filing bogus patents.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
D. C. Sessions
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:14:29 -0500 Erik Funkenbusch wrote the following in
> an attempt to be both witty and informative:
> <snip>
>> Well, when a court of law invalidates them, you'll have a point.
>
> Just because it hasn't been invalidated yet doesn't mean they should have
> been granted in the first place.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
Courts almost never invalidate a patent. The standard of
evidence is higher, for one. For another, it's a separate
legal action: someone actually has to sue the patentholder
instead of simply defending against infringement. Since
it's cheaper and easier to defend against infringement
(initial discussion: "We have been selling the item that
you claim infringes since two years before your claimed
date of invention. We can prove it in court. Any
questions?") why should anyone with an airtight defense
go to the trouble and expense of saving their /competitors/
from an expense?
D. C. Sessions
> The patents are invalid and should never have been issued. You can't
> patent prior art. Do you really think that MVS partitioned data sets that
> existed decades ago, before MS even existed, can just be patented by MS
> and then MS can sue IBM for patent infringement? And you think the GPL
> is viral?
Well, actually, you *can* patent prior art. You're not supposed
to, of course, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen all the
time. *Especially* with software and business-method patents.
Of course, you have to be judicious about who you go after for
infringement. For instance, going after Donald Knuth on the
grounds that TeX infringes your shiny new patent might be just
a /wee/ tiny bit unwise.
Mike
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:29:25 -0500,
> Linųnut <linųn...@bone.com> wrote:
>> While restarting Outlook, Erik Funkenbusch grumbled:
>>
>>>> Like what? Please be specific. What OSS software on "Linux" violats
>>>> MICROS~1 IP of any kind please.
>>>
>>> The most recent example is, of course, this:
>>>
>>> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,594,674.WKU.&OS=PN/6,594,674&RS=PN/6,594,674
>>>
>>> But, as I said, whether or not the patent is breakable is a different
>>> issue. Take your pick of infringing software.
>>
>> Are you claiming that there is any product that exactly duplicates all
>> 40 claims in this patent? Which, by the way, was entered only about
>> two weeks ago?
A product doesn't have to break all 40 claims to infringe. Depending on the
claim, as few as one will suffice.
>> And which describes NTFS?
>>
>
> Yeah, I should have been more explicit, I should have requested a
> *valid* patent example.
>
> Since these examples, purport to cover things that were being done *in
> Linux* prior to the patent, they are, ipso facto, examples of prior art.
Don't confuse the issue date with the application date. In the US, a
company has one year from the first public release (complex definition,
simplified version is the date of first public description or general sale)
to file a patent. The issue date is irrelevant from a prior art viewpoint.
-- Mike --
Mike
Erik's right: I don't see a single case where Microsoft is the plaintiff,
and I've never heard of one.
Can you point to any cases where they are?
-- Mike --
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
I wasn't. The prior art, predates the submission date, not just the
grant date.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/JiUDd90bcYOAWPYRAlwYAJ9zRDbSmDXzIRfPe6wNzt7CVrXanQCeLWLf
Op3B2jx+6ucP+sJMPaX+Ie8=
=VRRY
Tsu Dho Nimh
>Now that I understand, then MS is guilty of stealing the GNOME GUI
Except there was a rather lengthy lawsuit/appeals where Microsoft
managed to make "look and feel" of computer interfaces not be
"trade dress". M$ vs. Apple, remember ... although they copied
it from PARC, Apple was suing M$.
Tsu
--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré
chrisv
<joseph_a...@charter.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:19:02 +0000 chrisv wrote the following in an
>attempt to be both witty and informative:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:59:17 -0500, "Joseph A Nagy Jr"
>> <joseph_a...@charter.net> wrote:
><snip>
>>>He's not leaving ANY as in $0. From what I understand, it's all slated to
>>>go to charity when he's dead.
>>
>> I find that very hard to believe. I can see him not wanting them to be
>> total rich slugs, but it's hard to believe he wouldn't leave them a few
>> $million... Or at least set them up with nice homes.
>
>I don't find it hard to believe. Just look at how he runs his business.
What's that got to do with it? I'm sure he's fond of his children
(and will be of his grandchildren), and would want them to have the
funds to ride-out unforseen disasters.
The $10 million number Greg Cox put out sounds VASTLY more plausible
than nothing at all...
D. C. Sessions
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:45:49 -0500, "Joseph A Nagy Jr"
> <joseph_a...@charter.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:19:02 +0000 chrisv wrote the following in an
>>attempt to be both witty and informative:
>>> I find that very hard to believe. I can see him not wanting them to be
>>> total rich slugs, but it's hard to believe he wouldn't leave them a few
>>> $million... Or at least set them up with nice homes.
>>
>>I don't find it hard to believe. Just look at how he runs his business.
>
> What's that got to do with it? I'm sure he's fond of his children
> (and will be of his grandchildren), and would want them to have the
> funds to ride-out unforseen disasters.
>
> The $10 million number Greg Cox put out sounds VASTLY more plausible
> than nothing at all...
I suspect that he's going to go the same route that his parents
and grandparents did: set up a trust fund that takes care of
things like college, health & welfare, etc. Whether the trust
reverts to the B&M Gates Foundation at some point? Who knows?
Then again, I seriously doubt that his kids will be getting
part-time and summer jobs hoping to save enough for a used
car, either.
D. C. Sessions
One year after the inventor discloses it.
If it's disclosed by another party, the inventor is
pretty much SOL on the theory that the inventor could
have read about it in the papers and _then_ filed.
Joseph A Nagy Jr
attempt to be both witty and informative:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:45:49 -0500, "Joseph A Nagy Jr"
<snip>
>>I don't find it hard to believe. Just look at how he runs his business.
>
> What's that got to do with it? I'm sure he's fond of his children (and
> will be of his grandchildren), and would want them to have the funds to
> ride-out unforseen disasters.
Being fond of one's children does not make one a greedy, uncouth bastard.
>
> The $10 million number Greg Cox put out sounds VASTLY more plausible than
> nothing at all...
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/default.asp
I keep forgetting how UGLY he is. *makes a face*
Well, it's not there, but I'll stick with the $0 figure. If the contents
of his will ever become a matter of public record, then I'll admit I was
wrong (if indeed I am).
Joseph A Nagy Jr
attempt to be both witty and informative:
> "Joseph A Nagy Jr" <joseph_a...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>Now that I understand, then MS is guilty of stealing the GNOME GUI
>
> Except there was a rather lengthy lawsuit/appeals where Microsoft managed
> to make "look and feel" of computer interfaces not be "trade dress". M$
> vs. Apple, remember ... although they copied it from PARC, Apple was suing
> M$.
>
>
>
> Tsu
It's amazing what lengths they'll go to so that they can continue to steal.
chrisv
<joseph_a...@charter.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:39:14 +0000 chrisv wrote the following in an
>attempt to be both witty and informative:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:45:49 -0500, "Joseph A Nagy Jr"
><snip>
>>>I don't find it hard to believe. Just look at how he runs his business.
>>
>> What's that got to do with it? I'm sure he's fond of his children (and
>> will be of his grandchildren), and would want them to have the funds to
>> ride-out unforseen disasters.
>
>Being fond of one's children does not make one a greedy, uncouth bastard.
Nice logic.
How's this: Being a "greedy, uncouth bastard" has nothing to do with
his wanting to take care of his own family.
>> The $10 million number Greg Cox put out sounds VASTLY more plausible than
>> nothing at all...
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/default.asp
>
>I keep forgetting how UGLY he is. *makes a face*
>
>Well, it's not there, but I'll stick with the $0 figure. If the contents
>of his will ever become a matter of public record, then I'll admit I was
>wrong (if indeed I am).
With your "logic" displayed above, you'd do well to assume that you
are wrong.
GreyCloud
Don't worry... the odds that M$ will lose is certain. His
point may as well be valid.
Joseph A Nagy Jr
attempt to be both witty and informative:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:21:45 -0500, "Joseph A Nagy Jr"
> <joseph_a...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:39:14 +0000 chrisv wrote the following in an
>>attempt to be both witty and informative:
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:45:49 -0500, "Joseph A Nagy Jr"
>><snip>
>>>>I don't find it hard to believe. Just look at how he runs his business.
>>>
>>> What's that got to do with it? I'm sure he's fond of his children (and
>>> will be of his grandchildren), and would want them to have the funds to
>>> ride-out unforseen disasters.
>>
>>Being fond of one's children does not make one a greedy, uncouth bastard.
>
> Nice logic.
>
> How's this: Being a "greedy, uncouth bastard" has nothing to do with
> his wanting to take care of his own family.
I'm sorry. I can't believe that his public face is any different from his
private face. If it is, he's a better actor then I give him credit for.
>
>>> The $10 million number Greg Cox put out sounds VASTLY more plausible than
>>> nothing at all...
>>
>>http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/default.asp
>>
>>I keep forgetting how UGLY he is. *makes a face*
>>
>>Well, it's not there, but I'll stick with the $0 figure. If the contents
>>of his will ever become a matter of public record, then I'll admit I was
>>wrong (if indeed I am).
>
> With your "logic" displayed above, you'd do well to assume that you
> are wrong.
Sorry. I know what I read. Because I can't find it anymore does not make
it untrue.
Donn Miller
> http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=43532
Gates is an idiot. Next!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----