Is Bill Gates Really Helping Humanity?
Zip Code
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away.", so said Tom
Waites in his classic rap, "Step Right Up", a paean about come ons and rip
offs.
Now, we have all explored the fact that the Gate$ Foundation is no more than
a front to promote and try to claw onto marketshare for windos by lining
the pockets of Third World government bureaucrats all in the name of
helping "children with AIDS".
But, let's pretend that we've been teleported to some alternate universe,
where everything is on the level, and that money is really helping children
with AIDS.
But does it justify the other actions of the Gate$'s, the Ballmers and
Microsoft? That is, is the net gain a societal good, or a societal bad.
One thing to consider is the proxy war being fought against Linux and Open
Source by SCO for Microsoft. Let us also consider the egregious and
piggish acquisition of 'software patents' which are no being used to slow
the migration to Linux in Munich.
The fight against AIDs and many diseases and problems worldwide are really
computing problems. The scientists, engineers, social planners etc are all
dependent on software for research, budgets, development and so on. The
scientific community in many parts has already embraced Linux. Certainly,
applications that require supercomputer clusters, such as genetic
modelling, would run on Linux...and in the future, based on announcements
from IBM and the U.S. Government, it seems like more and more
supercomputing will be Linux clusters.
So, here you have the world, trying to advance and solve the world's
problems and the worlds mysteries. Here you have Linux, and OSS, which are
serving greatly. And much of that service is because these software
products can evolve freely and grow and change. The 'Openness' lets the
best minds contribute to the advancement of the software...and that in turn
helps to build better medical models and to help defeat AIDS.
Yet, the Gate$ want to put the lock and brakes on this development -- and
for one reason, and one reason only -- to line their already stuffed
pockets with even more gold.
So, when Bill Gate$ pays lip service to 'helping' children with AIDS -- but
then retards the advancement of scientific knowledge and software
advancement with software 'patents', and spurious lawsuits -- is he not the
world's biggist /roadblock/ to curing AIDS and solving the world's
problems?
Simon Cooke
> So, when Bill Gate$ pays lip service to 'helping' children with AIDS -- but
> then retards the advancement of scientific knowledge and software
> advancement with software 'patents', and spurious lawsuits -- is he not the
> world's biggist /roadblock/ to curing AIDS and solving the world's
> problems?
You can't play that game with a straight face, Bailo.
Firstly, Microsoft have gone on the record as being against software patent
laws.
Secondly, they're not slowing down software advancement at all - Linux is
still moving forward.
Thirdly, and most importantly, if you think that using one OS or another is
a huge part of the fight against AIDS, you're smoking more crack than
usual.
Rick
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 08:24:58 GMT, Zip Code wrote:
>> So, when Bill Gate$ pays lip service to 'helping' children with AIDS -- but
>> then retards the advancement of scientific knowledge and software
>> advancement with software 'patents', and spurious lawsuits -- is he not the
>> world's biggist /roadblock/ to curing AIDS and solving the world's
>> problems?
>
> You can't play that game with a straight face, Bailo.
>
> Firstly, Microsoft have gone on the record as being against software patent
> laws.
Do you think they will actually support that stance by not not trying to
stop OSS through patent actions?
>
> Secondly, they're not slowing down software advancement at all - Linux is
> still moving forward.
Gee... funding Baystar in order to support SCO's lawsuits isn't trying to
slow Linux down? Yeah, right.
>
> Thirdly, and most importantly, if you think that using one OS or another is
> a huge part of the fight against AIDS, you're smoking more crack than
> usual.
Saving money on software purchases allows researchers to spend money
elsewhere. Being able to change software for $0 allow research money to be
spent elsewhere. Not having to spend funds on anti-virus software allows
research funds to be spent elsewhere.
--
Rick
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 10:41:36 -0700, Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 08:24:58 GMT, Zip Code wrote:
>>> So, when Bill Gate$ pays lip service to 'helping' children with AIDS -- but
>>> then retards the advancement of scientific knowledge and software
>>> advancement with software 'patents', and spurious lawsuits -- is he not the
>>> world's biggist /roadblock/ to curing AIDS and solving the world's
>>> problems?
>>
>> You can't play that game with a straight face, Bailo.
>>
>> Firstly, Microsoft have gone on the record as being against software patent
>> laws.
>
> Do you think they will actually support that stance by not not trying to
> stop OSS through patent actions?
Microsoft has never used patents against OSS, ever. There have been some
cases of MS employees notifying OSS developers that they may be violating
MS patents, but MS has never actually sent a cease and desist, or
threatened to sue any OSS developer for patent reasons to my knowledge.
Microsoft uses patents defensively, not offensively, because they don't
like having patents used against them. The only case i've ever heard of MS
trying to profit from their patents is the VFAT patent in the case of
camera manufacturers. That patent has not been used against OSS though.
>> Secondly, they're not slowing down software advancement at all - Linux is
>> still moving forward.
>
> Gee... funding Baystar in order to support SCO's lawsuits isn't trying to
> slow Linux down? Yeah, right.
MS didn't fund Baystar.
>> Thirdly, and most importantly, if you think that using one OS or another is
>> a huge part of the fight against AIDS, you're smoking more crack than
>> usual.
>
> Saving money on software purchases allows researchers to spend money
> elsewhere. Being able to change software for $0 allow research money to be
> spent elsewhere. Not having to spend funds on anti-virus software allows
> research funds to be spent elsewhere.
What are you talking about? Gates foundation grants do not require
researchers to use Windows.
Zip Code
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 08:24:58 GMT, Zip Code wrote:
>> So, when Bill Gate$ pays lip service to 'helping' children with AIDS --
>> but then retards the advancement of scientific knowledge and software
>> advancement with software 'patents', and spurious lawsuits -- is he not
>> the world's biggist /roadblock/ to curing AIDS and solving the world's
>> problems?
>
> You can't play that game with a straight face, Bailo.
I'm not playing.
I'm deadly serious.
And I intend to keep making these facts known.
Bill is slowing down progress in the fight against AIDs by creating a lot of
spurious software patents.
Every phony patent filed means another 1000 children dead.
Those children are on his head.
>
> Firstly, Microsoft have gone on the record as being against software
> patent laws.
Right -- that's why they patented flipping a light switch...
>
> Secondly, they're not slowing down software advancement at all - Linux is
> still moving forward.
Munich ? That sounds like a slowdown based on software patents to me.
> Thirdly, and most importantly, if you think that using one OS or another
> is a huge part of the fight against AIDS, you're smoking more crack than
> usual.
Simon -- even the slowest readers can comprehend that what I said in my post
does not correspond to your re-wording above.
Please play fair, and people will maybe listen to you maybe just a little
bit even after all the damage you've caused this group in the last 2
years...
Zip Code
> Microsoft uses patents defensively, not offensively, because they don't
> like having patents used against them. The only case i've ever heard of
> MS trying to profit from their patents is the VFAT patent in the case of
> camera manufacturers. That patent has not been used against OSS though.
Very well then.
If Mr. Gate$ and the Gate$ Foundation is so beneficent, and really wants to
help children with AIDS...I ask that they now GPL any and all software
patents and make them public.
This would then prevent them from ever being sued based on those patents.
If they really want to help to save children with AIDs they must allow Linux
and OSS to continue to develop and release their death chokehold on the
software industry....
Bo Grimes
>> Saving money on software purchases allows researchers to spend money
>> elsewhere. Being able to change software for $0 allow research money to be
>> spent elsewhere. Not having to spend funds on anti-virus software allows
>> research funds to be spent elsewhere.
>
> What are you talking about? Gates foundation grants do not require
> researchers to use Windows.
Come on, Erik. You can read better than that. Pick a company, say
Glaxo-Smith-Kline. If they save money using OSS then they can spend it on
R&D.
--
Bo Grimes vcg...@earthlink.net
"Some things don't need the thought people give them." -Hobbes
Rick
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 14:14:15 -0400, Rick wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 10:41:36 -0700, Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 08:24:58 GMT, Zip Code wrote:
>>>> So, when Bill Gate$ pays lip service to 'helping' children with AIDS -- but
>>>> then retards the advancement of scientific knowledge and software
>>>> advancement with software 'patents', and spurious lawsuits -- is he not the
>>>> world's biggist /roadblock/ to curing AIDS and solving the world's
>>>> problems?
>>>
>>> You can't play that game with a straight face, Bailo.
>>>
>>> Firstly, Microsoft have gone on the record as being against software patent
>>> laws.
>>
>> Do you think they will actually support that stance by not not trying to
>> stop OSS through patent actions?
>
> Microsoft has never used patents against OSS, ever. There have been some
> cases of MS employees notifying OSS developers that they may be violating
> MS patents, but MS has never actually sent a cease and desist, or
> threatened to sue any OSS developer for patent reasons to my knowledge.
I didn't ask you... but then you haven't answered, either. And I know
you and Cooke won't acknowledge those 'notificatios' as patent threats,
even though they are.
>
> Microsoft uses patents defensively, not offensively, because they don't
> like having patents used against them. The only case i've ever heard of MS
> trying to profit from their patents is the VFAT patent in the case of
> camera manufacturers. That patent has not been used against OSS though.
>
>>> Secondly, they're not slowing down software advancement at all - Linux is
>>> still moving forward.
>>
>> Gee... funding Baystar in order to support SCO's lawsuits isn't trying to
>> slow Linux down? Yeah, right.
>
> MS didn't fund Baystar.
My mistake. You are correct. micro$oft 'convinced' Baystar to fund SCO by
buying stock.
>
>>> Thirdly, and most importantly, if you think that using one OS or another is
>>> a huge part of the fight against AIDS, you're smoking more crack than
>>> usual.
>>
>> Saving money on software purchases allows researchers to spend money
>> elsewhere. Being able to change software for $0 allow research money to be
>> spent elsewhere. Not having to spend funds on anti-virus software allows
>> research funds to be spent elsewhere.
>
> What are you talking about? Gates foundation grants do not require
> researchers to use Windows.
You may now show where in the above paragraph I said they did. BTW, can
you provide evidence they don't.
The statement was "if you think that using one OS or another is a huge
part of the fight against AIDS". I showed using one OS over another can
definitely help researchers.
--
Rick
Simon Cooke
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 14:13:57 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>
>>> Saving money on software purchases allows researchers to spend money
>>> elsewhere. Being able to change software for $0 allow research money to be
>>> spent elsewhere. Not having to spend funds on anti-virus software allows
>>> research funds to be spent elsewhere.
>>
>> What are you talking about? Gates foundation grants do not require
>> researchers to use Windows.
>
> Come on, Erik. You can read better than that. Pick a company, say
> Glaxo-Smith-Kline. If they save money using OSS then they can spend it on
> R&D.
Which takes us back to the question about how Microsoft selling software
prevents Glaxo Smith Kline from running Linux.
Answer: It doesn't.
Simon Cooke
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 08:24:58 GMT, Zip Code wrote:
>>> So, when Bill Gate$ pays lip service to 'helping' children with AIDS --
>>> but then retards the advancement of scientific knowledge and software
>>> advancement with software 'patents', and spurious lawsuits -- is he not
>>> the world's biggist /roadblock/ to curing AIDS and solving the world's
>>> problems?
>>
>> You can't play that game with a straight face, Bailo.
>
> I'm not playing.
>
> I'm deadly serious.
>
> And I intend to keep making these facts known.
>
> Bill is slowing down progress in the fight against AIDs by creating a lot of
> spurious software patents.
>
> Every phony patent filed means another 1000 children dead.
>
> Those children are on his head.
You haven't showed a bona fide relationship between the two. And frankly,
you're a kook bailo. Stop lying and trolling.
>> Firstly, Microsoft have gone on the record as being against software
>> patent laws.
>
> Right -- that's why they patented flipping a light switch...
Physical inventions aren't software. I know you think you're a programmer,
but perhaps just once in a while you should consider rethinking your career
if you think that a light switch is a software patent.
>> Secondly, they're not slowing down software advancement at all - Linux is
>> still moving forward.
>
> Munich ? That sounds like a slowdown based on software patents to me.
Really? Slowdown based on what, and by whom?
Of course, it'd be asking way too much for The Amazing Bailo! to provide
links, much less take off the clown shoes.
>
>> Thirdly, and most importantly, if you think that using one OS or another
>> is a huge part of the fight against AIDS, you're smoking more crack than
>> usual.
>
> Simon -- even the slowest readers can comprehend that what I said in my post
> does not correspond to your re-wording above.
Your claim was that MS selling software drained money out of research.
My claim is that the two are independent of one another, and causally
unrelated.
You have yet to show a relation between spending on MS products and lowered
R&D spending by drug companies.
> Please play fair, and people will maybe listen to you maybe just a little
> bit even after all the damage you've caused this group in the last 2
> years...
That's very amusing, but not even close to the truth.
Anyway, now that you've proven yourself to be a grade-A attention-whoring
sociopath, you're going in the kilfile. Bye now.
Bo Grimes
You're right. That's changing, thankfully, but the nature of a monopoly is
that it's monopolistic. Just because the GPL has finally allowed OSS to do
an end run around the monopoly doesn't change the fact that there didn't
used to be a choice.
Hypothetically, Simon, if a drug dealer gives 10% of his profit to a Mother
Teresa type person does that make him a good guy?
--
Bo Grimes vcg...@earthlink.net
"That's the problem with nature, something's always stinging you
or oozing mucous all over you. Let's go and watch TV." --- Calvin
Everybody Eat Some Borsht!
> You haven't showed a bona fide relationship between the two. And frankly,
> you're a kook bailo. Stop lying and trolling.
The facts speak for themselves:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/mag/2002/12/01/stories/2002120100100300.html
Selling India to Bill Gates
C. RAMMANOHAR REDDY
IN 1997, on his first visit to India, Bill Gates met Prime Minister Deve
Gowda in New Delhi. A couple of days later, Mr. Gowda flew to Mumbai to
attend another function in honour of the Microsoft chief. In 2000, during
Mr Gates' second visit, more than half a dozen Chief Ministers queued up to
plead for investment by the software giant. Now, in 2002, the coronation of
Mr. Gates as the most preferred visitor from abroad has been completed.
The way we fete and fawn on Bill Gates each time he visits India should make
any self-respecting Indian wince with embarrassment. At the same time, we
are quick to show our displeasure towards Mr. Gates for speaking about AIDS
in the country. We are naturally equally quick to accept the money his
Foundation had to offer, and want more.
The AIDS mission apart, why was Bill Gates here? Blinded by his fame and
wealth, we failed to see the pure commercial motive of advancing the
interests of Microsoft. With our uncritical adulation, we may have ended up
selling our software market, our software talents and perhaps even our soul
to the world's biggest software company. Hook, line and sinker.
The company Mr. Gates has built up is the biggest and most profitable
software firm in the world. But it is also facing a threat from the most
unlikely of competitors - the GNU/Linux operating system which has been
developed by the larger Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) movement
across the world. This "free" software has long since ceased to be a cult
operating system meant for geeks. In terms of cost, reliability and
security, GNU/Linux has proved itself far superior to the proprietary
Windows in the market for software that runs the internet. Some independent
estimates suggest that GNU/Linux has even overtaken Windows here. The back
offices of several global companies are also increasingly being run on this
alternative operating system. Businesses selling FLOSS are making money,
and organisations switching to FLOSS are saving enormous amounts. (For a
comprehensive survey on GNU/Linux versus Windows usage on the internet, in
back offices and on the desktop, see www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html)
Governments too are increasingly looking at GNU/Linux as an alternative to
Windows. Cost is obviously one factor. For example, the United States
Census Bureau found that launching a web site for provision of data, which
cost $47,000 with Linux, would have cost as much as $3,58,000 had the
proprietary Windows been used. A complete dependence on proprietary
Microsoft software also raises security concerns. China recently launched a
version of GNU/Linux to eventually replace Windows on all government
computers. (That did not prevent Microsoft from announcing a $750 million
investment in China. This, incidentally, is considerably more than the $400
million that Mr. Gates has planned for India.)
During his visit last month, Mr. Gates bamboozled uncritical reporters with
jargon about GNU/Linux not being a threat to Windows. The total cost of
ownership (TCO), he said, was higher for GNU/Linux than for Windows. TCO is
the cost of software, training, maintenance and upgrades. Now, most
independent surveys say that the TCO of GNU/Linux is a minimum of 25 to 30
per cent lower than for Windows - quite the opposite of Mr. Gates' claim.
The world's richest man also asserted that GNU/Linux is affecting software
companies like Sun and not Microsoft. This is only half correct. GNU/Linux,
positioned in the middle, is rapidly eating into the market share of both
Sun and Micrsoft in server software.
From Peru to Japan, from China to the U.S., governments all over the world
are looking at GNU/Linux. There is one government though that is missing in
this list. In spite of India being home to many of the writers of software
who have contributed to the development of GNU/Linux, the Centre and the
States seem to be more busy chasing Microsoft than exploring the use of
this superior software. There have been reports of the Centre launching a
Linux India Initiative to encourage universities and governments to move
away from Windows. But the Government seems too scared to confirm such
press reports. And of the State Governments, only Madhya Pradesh and West
Bengal have been making some noises about exploring the use of GNU/Linux.
Mr. Gates' interest in India is obvious. Computer use in India remains very
low, but is growing. E-governance is just beginning to happen. Imagine the
future, as e-governance and other government computer-linked services
increase rapidly. Imagine all government computers running on Microsoft
software - a potential market of hundreds of thousands, eventually even
millions. No wonder it is so important to tie India to proprietary
software. There is another reason for the Gates interest in India. Though a
lot of application software - like word-processors or spreadsheets - is
available for GNU/Linux, much more needs to be written if open source
software is to completely replace Windows on the desktop. India is believed
to be home to 10 per cent of the world's developers of software. If India's
software community can be chained to the development of proprieatry
software, then one source of GNU/Linux-based applications will dry up!
Bill Gates needs India more than India needs Bill Gates. But we don't seem
to want to see that.
--
http://kentpsychedelic.blogspot.com/
Updated 8/8/04
Everybody Eat Some Borsht!
> Physical inventions aren't software. I know you think you're a programmer,
> but perhaps just once in a while you should consider rethinking your
> career if you think that a light switch is a software patent.
You haven't been following the bouncing ball. But that's plain to see; a
decayed brain such as yours has trouble following cogent arguments.
It's a reference to a COLA post about Bill Gate$ filing for patents on very,
very generic processes for software automation of the home...
Everybody Eat Some Borsht!
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 00:09:59 GMT, Zip Code wrote:
>> Munich ? That sounds like a slowdown based on software patents to me.
>
> Really? Slowdown based on what, and by whom?
I can't argue with someone who spends his life living in a 4 x 4 basement
closet in a puddle of his own feces.
Do you *read* the newspapers! Grab a chair, read some Google from the last
five years, then come back to COLA and argue...
Everybody Eat Some Borsht!
> Your claim was that MS selling software drained money out of research.
Software patents and CSS drain money from research.
Also, since the scientific community has embraced Linux -- any attempt to
add additional costs on software via patents slows down their ability to
produce results.
Bill Gate$ is halting the development of software that could help cure
children with AIDs by imposing egregious and high software tariffs.
Everybody Eat Some Borsht!
> Anyway, now that you've proven yourself to be a grade-A attention-whoring
> sociopath, you're going in the kilfile. Bye now.
Sure.
As for me, I will forwarding a copy of this post to my lawyer.
He lives in California.
He's big.
He's mean and very vicious.
See you...
DFS
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>
>> Your claim was that MS selling software drained money out of
>> research.
>
> Software patents and CSS drain money from research.
>
> Also, since the scientific community has embraced Linux -- any
> attempt to add additional costs on software via patents slows down
> their ability to produce results.
>
> Bill Gate$ is halting the development of software that could help cure
> children with AIDs by imposing egregious and high software tariffs.
By posting idiotic thoughts to cola and making me laugh, you're halting my
ability to earn money.
Everybody Eat Some Borsht!
Another winTroll stymied !
:D
Rick
If you could get a job, you could earn money.. not much, but you could
probably eat.
--
Rick
DFS
C'mon (p)Rick, you dullard, you can do better than that. Just this past
Thursday and Friday I made $1200 adding client-requested enhancements to a
Windows application I created. You probably make a lot more, but that's
'cause you're a Linux specialist.
Freeride
> Firstly, Microsoft have gone on the record as being against software
> patent laws.
Ya right!!
> Secondly, they're not slowing down software advancement at all - Linux
> is still moving forward.
No they are funding others to try and slow it down.
Microsoft-SCO link confirmed
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0%2C5942%2C8944855%2C00.htmlDid
MS Pay for Open-Source Scare?
http://www.wired.com/news/linux/0,1411,52973,00.html
"A Microsoft spokesman confirmed that Microsoft provides funding to the
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution."
Hamilcar Barca
22:16:34 +0000), Freeride wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 10:41:36 -0700, Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>> Firstly, Microsoft have gone on the record as being against software
>> patent laws.
>
> Ya right!!
Simian meant Microsoft is adamantly opposed to software patent laws which
restrict the unlawful maintenance of the monopoly.
Freeride
> Microsoft uses patents defensively,
You mean to defend their illegal monopoly at any cost.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>
>> Microsoft uses patents defensively, not offensively, because they don't
>> like having patents used against them. The only case i've ever heard of
>> MS trying to profit from their patents is the VFAT patent in the case of
>> camera manufacturers. That patent has not been used against OSS though.
>
> Very well then.
>
> If Mr. Gate$ and the Gate$ Foundation is so beneficent, and really wants to
> help children with AIDS...I ask that they now GPL any and all software
> patents and make them public.
You can't GPL a patent Einstein.
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 14:13:57 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 14:14:15 -0400, Rick wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 10:41:36 -0700, Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 08:24:58 GMT, Zip Code wrote:
>>>>> So, when Bill Gate$ pays lip service to 'helping' children with AIDS -- but
>>>>> then retards the advancement of scientific knowledge and software
>>>>> advancement with software 'patents', and spurious lawsuits -- is he not the
>>>>> world's biggist /roadblock/ to curing AIDS and solving the world's
>>>>> problems?
>>>>
>>>> You can't play that game with a straight face, Bailo.
>>>>
>>>> Firstly, Microsoft have gone on the record as being against software patent
>>>> laws.
>>>
>>> Do you think they will actually support that stance by not not trying to
>>> stop OSS through patent actions?
>>
>> Microsoft has never used patents against OSS, ever. There have been some
>> cases of MS employees notifying OSS developers that they may be violating
>> MS patents, but MS has never actually sent a cease and desist, or
>> threatened to sue any OSS developer for patent reasons to my knowledge.
>
> I didn't ask you... but then you haven't answered, either. And I know
> you and Cooke won't acknowledge those 'notificatios' as patent threats,
> even though they are.
If they're threats, then why have none of them changed what they're doing?
And why hasn't MS taken action?
The answer is that they weren't threats at all.
>>>> Thirdly, and most importantly, if you think that using one OS or another is
>>>> a huge part of the fight against AIDS, you're smoking more crack than
>>>> usual.
>>>
>>> Saving money on software purchases allows researchers to spend money
>>> elsewhere. Being able to change software for $0 allow research money to be
>>> spent elsewhere. Not having to spend funds on anti-virus software allows
>>> research funds to be spent elsewhere.
>>
>> What are you talking about? Gates foundation grants do not require
>> researchers to use Windows.
>
> You may now show where in the above paragraph I said they did. BTW, can
> you provide evidence they don't.
You can't prove a negative, and you know it. But, if you want to go down
that kind of conspiracy track, be my guest.
> The statement was "if you think that using one OS or another is a huge
> part of the fight against AIDS". I showed using one OS over another can
> definitely help researchers.
You seemed to be implying throughout your post that MS was using it's
muscle to achieve it's goals. I assumed that was also what you were saying
here. If not, my mistake.
WHY
Of course you can. Read up on it.
Jesse F. Hughes
> Firstly, Microsoft have gone on the record as being against software patent
> laws.
Do you have a reference?
Thanks.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!"
-- Lewis Carroll
WHY
> Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> writes:
>
>> Firstly, Microsoft have gone on the record as being against software
>> patent laws.
>
> Do you have a reference?
>
> Thanks.
A reference?
A fact?
You mean you want Simon Cooke -- THEE Simon Cooke -- to go to the trouble of
authenticating the lies and drivel that he trolls here?
"Ha", I say to you.
Rick
... see what I mean?
>
>>>>> Thirdly, and most importantly, if you think that using one OS or another is
>>>>> a huge part of the fight against AIDS, you're smoking more crack than
>>>>> usual.
>>>>
>>>> Saving money on software purchases allows researchers to spend money
>>>> elsewhere. Being able to change software for $0 allow research money to be
>>>> spent elsewhere. Not having to spend funds on anti-virus software allows
>>>> research funds to be spent elsewhere.
>>>
>>> What are you talking about? Gates foundation grants do not require
>>> researchers to use Windows.
>>
>> You may now show where in the above paragraph I said they did. BTW, can
>> you provide evidence they don't.
>
> You can't prove a negative, and you know it. But, if you want to go down
> that kind of conspiracy track, be my guest.
We can go by micro$oft's past behavior, which has been to do anything
legal, illegal, immoral or unethical to protect it's abusive monopoly.
>
>> The statement was "if you think that using one OS or another is a huge
>> part of the fight against AIDS". I showed using one OS over another can
>> definitely help researchers.
>
> You seemed to be implying throughout your post that MS was using it's
> muscle to achieve it's goals. I assumed that was also what you were saying
> here. If not, my mistake.
I will say straight out that micro$oft odes use it's muscle to achieve its
goals. For example, instead of cash, it uses 'discounts', whenever
possible, to pay lawsuit settlements.
In the case of AIDS research, it almost certainly better for researchers
to pay $0 for OS and software if they can, and then pay for support if
they have to. They do not have that choice with micro$oft.
--
Rick
Rick
You must have some stupid clients.
And no, I don't make that much. I am a public school teacher.
--
Rick
DFS
They're smart businesspeople. As they're paying for the work, I give them
the source code and make it clear they're free to hire anyone they want.
They don't have to retain my services. They can use someone in-house, they
can try to do it themselves, or they can hire other contractors and
consultants. In fact, a couple of my projects ARE now maintained in-house
by their staff, but 99% of the time they call me - 'cause they want the
best.
> And no, I don't make that much. I am a public school teacher.
You must have some stupid, dull students. If they're not now, they will be
when you're through with them.
WHY
>
>
>> And no, I don't make that much. I am a public school teacher.
>
> You must have some stupid, dull students. If they're not now, they will
> be when you're through with them.
Watch out or they'll bring their Uzi's to your house.
Simon Cooke
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 18:12:06 -0700, Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 00:19:00 GMT, Bo Grimes wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 14:13:57 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Saving money on software purchases allows researchers to spend money
>>>>> elsewhere. Being able to change software for $0 allow research money to be
>>>>> spent elsewhere. Not having to spend funds on anti-virus software allows
>>>>> research funds to be spent elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> What are you talking about? Gates foundation grants do not require
>>>> researchers to use Windows.
>>>
>>> Come on, Erik. You can read better than that. Pick a company, say
>>> Glaxo-Smith-Kline. If they save money using OSS then they can spend it on
>>> R&D.
>>
>> Which takes us back to the question about how Microsoft selling software
>> prevents Glaxo Smith Kline from running Linux.
>>
>> Answer: It doesn't.
>
> You're right. That's changing, thankfully, but the nature of a monopoly is
> that it's monopolistic. Just because the GPL has finally allowed OSS to do
> an end run around the monopoly doesn't change the fact that there didn't
> used to be a choice.
There always was a choice, and always has been. Heck, most drug companies
have NEVER used Windows systems for their big-budget research. They use
things like K-Square cube systems, Sun SPARC boxes and Silicon Graphics O2
systems for protein folding calculation - none of which, you might note,
run Windows. All of which, you might also note, have hefty costs associated
with buying them.
Heck, most academics and researchers - until recently - have been more
likely to have a MacOS or SunOS box on their desktop than a Windows system.
The costs of operating systems also disappear into nothing when compared to
the cost of FDA approval.
Back when Linux "wasn't a choice" for GSK, they would have been running
more esoteric systems. Linux has clustered for much longer than Windows -
and having talked to people, oh I dunno, like the head of the NSF's
taskforce on nanotechnology, they were setting up Beowulf clusters since
Linux was able to do it. Why? To replace their supercomputers or high-end
Sun Sparc systems.
Note that Windows is not a part of this equation.
> Hypothetically, Simon, if a drug dealer gives 10% of his profit to a Mother
> Teresa type person does that make him a good guy?
Certainly makes the drug dealer at least partly good.
Of course, the problem with your hypothesis is that I don't agree with your
classification of Gates as "Drug Dealer".
Simon Cooke
You can't be against some and not all, Hamilcar.
Simon Cooke
> Path: internal1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!262bffca!not-for-mail
> Message-ID: <3825397.0...@news.west.earthlink.net>
> From: Everybody Eat Some Borsht! <dol...@of.sour.cream>
> Subject: Re: Is Bill Gates Really Helping Humanity?
> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
> Reply-To: dol...@of.sour.cream
> References: <2317154.g...@news.west.earthlink.net> <1ad3xjp2dpjvw.et4v8x4ur57$.d...@40tude.net> <10212531....@news.west.earthlink.net> <1n0jpvchmdqqw.k...@40tude.net>
> Lines: 21
> User-Agent: KNode/0.7.7
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 01:57:21 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.100.122.222
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@earthlink.net
> X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1092016641 67.100.122.222 (Sun, 08 Aug 2004 18:57:21 PDT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 18:57:21 PDT
> Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
> Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:1095527
>
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>
>> Anyway, now that you've proven yourself to be a grade-A attention-whoring
>> sociopath, you're going in the kilfile. Bye now.
>
> Sure.
>
> As for me, I will forwarding a copy of this post to my lawyer.
>
> He lives in California.
>
> He's big.
>
> He's mean and very vicious.
>
> See you...
Hey Roy;
Do you have that score-file entry for Bailo handy? I'd like to use it.
Thanks.
The Ghost In The Machine
<dol...@of.sour.cream>
wrote
on Mon, 09 Aug 2004 08:38:49 GMT
<1478146.5...@news.west.earthlink.net>:
> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> writes:
>>
>>> Firstly, Microsoft have gone on the record as being against software
>>> patent laws.
>>
>> Do you have a reference?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>
> A reference?
>
> A fact?
>
> You mean you want Simon Cooke -- THEE Simon Cooke -- to go to the
> trouble of authenticating the lies and drivel that he trolls here?
>
> "Ha", I say to you.
>
I'd also be surprised, as patents are designed to protect the
inventor, and Microsoft deserves protection -- in their own
mind, anyway -- from that meanie GPL code (and the GPL,
for that matter) beating up on it so.
After all, it wasn't Linux that said "thou shalt not benchmark". :-)
(Side issue: Newsitem on BBC: Linux as basis for yet another supercomputer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3532706.stm
My tax dollars at work -- efficiently. :-) )
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net -- and it didn't take 5 years, either
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Simon Cooke
> Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> writes:
>
>> Firstly, Microsoft have gone on the record as being against software patent
>> laws.
>
> Do you have a reference?
>
> Thanks.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040808203939777
> Gates in 1991 was s against such patents because of their adverse
> affect on innovation.
The bit about MS using patents offensively in the article quoted by that
link is speculation from Real Networks. Who, if you hadn't noticed, have
been going around trying to get Apple to hate them recently (mainly because
they're fading fast).
Simon Cooke
> After all, it wasn't Linux that said "thou shalt not benchmark". :-)
No, initially it was Oracle and Sun Microsystems.
Simon Cooke
Correction: the bit about MS using patents offensively is from Der Spiegel,
and as it's in german, I can't comment either way as to whether or not
they're talking out of their hat - or where they get their information from
regarding MS planning to use them offensively.
The point stands, however: MS has not, to date, used a patent offensively.
Bo Grimes
>> You're right. That's changing, thankfully, but the nature of a monopoly is
>> that it's monopolistic. Just because the GPL has finally allowed OSS to do
>> an end run around the monopoly doesn't change the fact that there didn't
>> used to be a choice.
>
> There always was a choice, and always has been. Heck, most drug companies
> have NEVER used Windows systems for their big-budget research.
[snip]
> Note that Windows is not a part of this equation.
Yes, but, you still seem to be trying to miss the point. A company like GSK
has huge administration, facilities, MIT, PR, and other divisions, all with
Windows, most with Office and all needing expensive licensing that could be
used elsewhere.
When I was in undergrad school I worked security at Glaxo (before it was
Glaxo Welcome and then Glaxo Smith Kline). I was in the R&D labs all the
time, the ones at UNC, RTP and at the largest R&D facility at that time when
it was under construction. I left just before it was done. Anyway, most of
the labs had PCs. Guess what they were running.
Now, that was pre-Linux, but the point still is that if every PC at GSK that
runs Windows was converted to Linux+OOo then that would be a huge savings.
>
>> Hypothetically, Simon, if a drug dealer gives 10% of his profit to a Mother
>> Teresa type person does that make him a good guy?
>
> Certainly makes the drug dealer at least partly good.
>
> Of course, the problem with your hypothesis is that I don't agree with your
> classification of Gates as "Drug Dealer".
Which is why I said 'hypothetically," Simon, because I don't either, but you
knew that, and you know the difference between hypothetically and
hypothesis.
--
Bo Grimes vcg...@earthlink.net
"If people could put rainbows in zoos, they'd do it." -Hobbes
The Voice of Reason
<snip>
Summary of post:
- Despite giving shitloads of money to charity, Bill Gates is still
evil because he doesn't like my favourite software.
- OSS cures cancer.
The Voice of Reason
>
> You're right. That's changing, thankfully, but the nature of a monopoly is
> that it's monopolistic. Just because the GPL has finally allowed OSS to do
> an end run around the monopoly doesn't change the fact that there didn't
> used to be a choice.
If there didn't used to be a choice it wasn't because of MS it's
because there was on competition. Please tell me again how MS is in
any way stopping researchers using Linux?
> Hypothetically, Simon, if a drug dealer gives 10% of his profit to a Mother
> Teresa type person does that make him a good guy?
That begs the question of whether dealing drugs makes someone a bad
person.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
an idea Microsoft speedily adopted. After all, can't have people making
comparisons that Microsoft doesn't vet first... Wouldn't want any
double-plus-ungood benchmarks out there.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBF6y1d90bcYOAWPYRAuziAJ9RYnz2NMZ2lNCh8ySLasr11mKzNgCeIZcd
umgpWmS4RsnjigLHhDheAoU=
=ASvn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Mary had a crypto key, she kept it in escrow,
and everything that Mary said, the Feds were sure to know."
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
For Bailo's earthlink account, it's in the Path: header, score on
262bffca, it's present in all his Earthlink crap. Until he should sign
up for a second earthlink account, which he hasn't done yet that I can
tell. He occasionally posts via some free trial accounts (I think) and
this won't catch those, but his style is give away, and it's easy to add
those accounts to the filter when they pop up out of the mud.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBF6xQd90bcYOAWPYRAkMaAJ4tIlrtsKsNdrJ6P6O2SftgJzqLLACcDIXh
gq2RhLicdZcIYm6s5vBIUaw=
=mHKW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"If we could just get everyone to close their eyes and
visualize world peace for an hour, imagine how serene and
quiet it would be until the looting started."
Roy Culley
Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> writes:
>
> Hey Roy;
>
> Do you have that score-file entry for Bailo handy? I'd like to use it.
> Thanks.
^Path:.*262bffca
^Path:.*8cd8340b
Those will take care of him.
Bo Grimes
> wrote: Bo Grimes <vcg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<zqARc.17172$Jp6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
>>
>> You're right. That's changing, thankfully, but the nature of a monopoly is
>> that it's monopolistic. Just because the GPL has finally allowed OSS to do
>> an end run around the monopoly doesn't change the fact that there didn't
>> used to be a choice.
>
> If there didn't used to be a choice it wasn't because of MS it's
> because there was on competition. Please tell me again how MS is in
> any way stopping researchers using Linux?
I didn't say it was. Show me where I ever mentioned or implied researchers.
In fact, I entered this thread because Erik was mistaking someone's point
and obscuring the issue by focusing just on researchers and grants.
Then Simon did the same thing you're doing now--implied my point was moot
because the researchers don't use Windows. Researchers, like those who
sequenced the SARS virus, can and do use Linux, but if you think the only
people using computers at a company like GSK are in research, you're an
idiot.
I don't think using OSS would cure AIDS, never suggested it would. However,
there is a point to be made that the Microsoft monopoly has amounted to a
software tax for the last couple of decades.
Money that could have been spent doing so many other things by small
businesses, homes, and corporations and governments, have been diverted to
Microsoft, and for what? Viruses, trojans, word processing compatibility
(something that existed prior to proprietary binary formats) at the cost of
being locked-in, email (which already existed), crashes, spyware, copytheft,
etc., etc., etc.
What has MS given the world for this tax?
If GNU/Linux had been ten years sooner, it's probable MS wouldn't exist and
that people would still be usings PCs for all the things we use them for
and all that money would be doing other things to stimulate the economy.
It's not like MS innovated anything. Imagine if the cost of a PC had
*never* included the cost of the OS, or the OS upgrade or the utilities to
keep it running and secure or the apps to use on it.
Imagine if schools didn't have to pay the MS tax just to teach keyboarding
skills and could pay teachers better and if lower income families could
afford computers because they didn't include the cost of the OS and could
run well on older hardware, so they could buy an old one running Linux.
This list goes on. It's not a very difficult point to understand.
--
Bo Grimes vcg...@earthlink.net
"I liked things better when I didn't understand them." -- Calvin
Daeron
<snip>
> Correction: the bit about MS using patents offensively is from Der
> Spiegel, and as it's in german ...
> The point stands, however: MS has not, to date, used a patent
> offensively.
Both you and fuddie seem to have inside knowledge. Can you get bill to
state such a thing or donate his patent portfolio to charity ?
What is the difference between an offensive or defensive monopoly ?
What's the difference to a company wanting to enter the business.
If lets say comany X is in the ink business and has persuaded the whole
world that they innovated the pen. They have a world monopoly on the 'pen'.
Pencils have yet to be invented at this time. They have no intention of
getting into the pencil busines. But to be on the safe side they take
out a patent on a circular device for sharpening pencils.
Who is going to enter the pencil business under such conditions. Is this
an ethical use of the patent system. And before you say it. I know other
companies do it. But who else has a defacto desktop monopoly ?
--
Given the vast numbers of people who worked over decades to produce the
computer revolution. The people who really invented the thing. I resent
these marketeers coming along and laying claim to other peoples
intellectual endevours.
Jesse F. Hughes
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 10:12:42 +0200, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> writes:
>>
>>> Firstly, Microsoft have gone on the record as being against software patent
>>> laws.
>>
>> Do you have a reference?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040808203939777
>> Gates in 1991 was s against such patents because of their adverse
>> affect on innovation.
Well, that is a reference, but the fact that it's thirteen years old
casts doubt on its relevance now.
That article also says, "Microsoft founder Bill Gates announced
already that his company wanted to start a patent offensive and that
it expects to file 3000 new patents in the next twelve months."
The term /patent offensive/ is not in quotes and perhaps shouldn't be
taken too seriously, and I don't treat this as proof that MS will
start fighting OSS via patents.
But the policies of Microsoft in 1991 are not the best indications of
their aims now. The times and the corporation have changed.
Have you a more recent reference? It would also be nice if it pointed
to the original source. I don't know where either of those
attributions (the one you quoted and the one I did) came from.
Oh, wait. I found the 1991 one:
http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/quotes/index.en.html#bgates91
,----
| If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of
| today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry
| would be at a complete standstill today. ... The solution is patenting
| as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be
| forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price
| might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding
| future competitors.
`----
Why, if we were cynical, we might think that this quote *explains*
current Microsoft strategies regarding patents. That last line seems
kinda telling, don't it?
--
"Sorry, wakeup to the real world. You're on your own dependent on me
as your guide. Luckily for you, I'm self-correcting to a large extent,
so if the proof were wrong, I'd tell you. It's not wrong."
--- James Harris confirms that his proof is correct.
Jesse F. Hughes
> Have you a more recent reference? It would also be nice if it pointed
> to the original source. I don't know where either of those
> attributions (the one you quoted and the one I did) came from.
>
> Oh, wait. I found the 1991 one:
> http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/quotes/index.en.html#bgates91
Sorry, I posted this without Googling for the other. It can be found
here.
http://news.com.com/Gates+wants+patent+power/2100-1014_3-5288722.html?tag=nefd.top
Sorry for complaining about not having an original source for either
of those. They were easy to find.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"What does soap kill? Germs or Germans?"
-- Quincy P. Hughes (age 3 1/2) asks for clarification
Jesse F. Hughes
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:00:08 -0700,
> Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 01:57:21 GMT, Everybody Eat Some Borsht! wrote:
>>
>
>> Hey Roy;
>>
>> Do you have that score-file entry for Bailo handy? I'd like to use it.
>> Thanks.
>
> For Bailo's earthlink account, it's in the Path: header, score on
> 262bffca, it's present in all his Earthlink crap. Until he should sign
> up for a second earthlink account, which he hasn't done yet that I can
> tell. He occasionally posts via some free trial accounts (I think) and
> this won't catch those, but his style is give away, and it's easy to add
> those accounts to the filter when they pop up out of the mud.
But this isn't so useful for score-files. It requires that they score
on the Path header, which is not normally given by an nntp server.
This probably means having to download every message fully in order to
apply the scoring rules, which is considerably slower than scoring on
the default headers.
It's great for Leafnode, though. Just put it in the filters and never
see it on the local feed. If one is using Leafnode, he could probably
score reasonably quickly on Path headers without using the filters to
keep it out of the feed, but the filter solution is simpler and
faster.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
One is not superior merely because one sees the world as odious.
-- Chateaubriand (1768-1848)
Jeff Relf
Re: How to identify Bailo's posts,
You're using 40tude Dialog, so this will work:
# This downloads all earthlink headers
# so you can score on the Path line in the headers.
+1 Message-ID earthlink
!retrieve Score %>0
-1 Message-ID earthlink
+1 Header 262bffca 8cd8340b
+1 Message-ID earthlink
# I give him a 61,
# but, if you give him a -1,
# his messages will be automatically marked as read.
=+61 Score %=2
-1 Header 262bffca 8cd8340b
-1 Message-ID earthlink
The Ghost In The Machine
<war...@eskimo.com>
wrote
on Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:00:25 GMT
<lumku1-...@grendel.myth>:
>
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:16:10 -0700,
> Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:01:26 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>> After all, it wasn't Linux that said "thou shalt not benchmark". :-)
>>
>> No, initially it was Oracle and Sun Microsystems.
>
> an idea Microsoft speedily adopted. After all, can't have people making
> comparisons that Microsoft doesn't vet first... Wouldn't want any
> double-plus-ungood benchmarks out there.
>
Oh indeedy. It would be very bad for business.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Jessup Silstrom
Thank you.
I have been meaning to filter him for a long time.
--
http://www.nlc.no/
Norwegian Linux Community
Jessup Silstrom
But do they need to?
It seems the threat of doing so is effective in retarding Linux.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
I use leafnode locally to aggragate a couple of newsfeeds, I score in
SLRN though, not leafnode. Personal choice. I don't care to read Bailo's
bullshit, but don't care that much about the bandwidth, for this, it's
fairly minor since I am on cable.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBGH0Dd90bcYOAWPYRApQHAJ45qqopLxEXZd828xqOvyYbXV+HhQCgwFf6
D5abiTlxrIAol0wDkIqSsGM=
=pgP+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Instruction ends in the schoolroom -- but education
ends only with life. -- Publilius Syrus.
Simon Cooke
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:16:10 -0700,
> Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:01:26 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>> After all, it wasn't Linux that said "thou shalt not benchmark". :-)
>>
>> No, initially it was Oracle and Sun Microsystems.
>
> an idea Microsoft speedily adopted.
> After all, can't have people making
> comparisons that Microsoft doesn't vet first... Wouldn't want any
> double-plus-ungood benchmarks out there.
Replace Microsoft with Oracle or Sun... then say that sentence again.
I'm trying to figure out your point...
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:03:18 -0700,
Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:00:25 GMT, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:16:10 -0700,
>> Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:01:26 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>>> After all, it wasn't Linux that said "thou shalt not benchmark". :-)
>>>
>>> No, initially it was Oracle and Sun Microsystems.
>>
>> an idea Microsoft speedily adopted.
>
>> After all, can't have people making
>> comparisons that Microsoft doesn't vet first... Wouldn't want any
>> double-plus-ungood benchmarks out there.
>
> Replace Microsoft with Oracle or Sun... then say that sentence again.
>
> I'm trying to figure out your point...
That Microsoft tries to prevent it's users from learning
double-plus-ungood facts about it's products. Doesn't have much to do
with Oracle or Sun. Talking about Microsoft and Linux. Linux embraces
benchmarks, even flawed ones, Microsoft? only the ones it controls...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBGIn1d90bcYOAWPYRAgH7AKDmCW1A5KpBU+a9NieZLXj50pX0HACggMPE
dFqXmPlZFva1Kz0guhzKGN8=
=LIgu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
All true wisdom is found on T-shirts.
Bailo Hater
> They're smart businesspeople. As they're paying for the work, I give them
> the source code and make it clear they're free to hire anyone they want.
> They don't have to retain my services. They can use someone in-house,
> they can try to do it themselves, or they can hire other contractors and
> consultants. In fact, a couple of my projects ARE now maintained in-house
> by their staff, but 99% of the time they call me - 'cause they want the
> best.
You're code is too stupid and unintelligible for them to understand...
Bailo Hater
The point is the falsity.
The falsity.
Bailo Hater
I have Bailo maked at -1000 and he's staying there !
Simon Cooke
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:03:18 -0700,
> Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:00:25 GMT, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:16:10 -0700,
>>> Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:01:26 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>>>> After all, it wasn't Linux that said "thou shalt not benchmark". :-)
>>>>
>>>> No, initially it was Oracle and Sun Microsystems.
>>>
>>> an idea Microsoft speedily adopted.
>>
>>> After all, can't have people making
>>> comparisons that Microsoft doesn't vet first... Wouldn't want any
>>> double-plus-ungood benchmarks out there.
>>
>> Replace Microsoft with Oracle or Sun... then say that sentence again.
>>
>> I'm trying to figure out your point...
>
>
> That Microsoft tries to prevent it's users from learning
> double-plus-ungood facts about it's products. Doesn't have much to do
> with Oracle or Sun. Talking about Microsoft and Linux. Linux embraces
> benchmarks, even flawed ones, Microsoft? only the ones it controls...
Not actually the case, by the way. Not sure about Oracle or Sun, but
Microsoft want to prevent situations from occuring such as the recent Sun
.NET vs Java benchmarks, which Sun didn't provide any code for. MS
reimplemented it themselves - with no fancy tricks - and got better perf
than Sun.
People who use benchmarks typically can make them say anything they want.
Unscrupulous people with an axe to grind, doubly so.
Bailo Hater
> People who use benchmarks typically can make them say anything they want.
> Unscrupulous people with an axe to grind, doubly so.
"Unscrupulous" is the word that defines Microsoft.
Simon Cooke
Thanks - appreciate it.
Simon Cooke
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:00:08 -0700,
> Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 01:57:21 GMT, Everybody Eat Some Borsht! wrote:
>>
>
>> Hey Roy;
>>
>> Do you have that score-file entry for Bailo handy? I'd like to use it.
>> Thanks.
>
> For Bailo's earthlink account, it's in the Path: header, score on
> 262bffca, it's present in all his Earthlink crap. Until he should sign
> up for a second earthlink account, which he hasn't done yet that I can
> tell. He occasionally posts via some free trial accounts (I think) and
> this won't catch those, but his style is give away, and it's easy to add
> those accounts to the filter when they pop up out of the mud.
Thanks :)
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 08:52:48 -0700,
You claim to know what Microsoft wants, and yet, Microsoft tries to
prevent non-microsoft sponsored benchmarks. Even going to the extent of
adding a clause to that effect in the EULA. You may claim that you know
what Microsoft wants, but their actions, speak louder than your words.
> People who use benchmarks typically can make them say anything they want.
> Unscrupulous people with an axe to grind, doubly so.
Of course, see the first Mindcraft benchmark for one example. Which is
why I saud that Linux embraces benchmarks, even flawed ones. Microsoft,
doesn't. Because they are a marketing driven company, and Linux, is a
performance driven project.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBGQmVd90bcYOAWPYRAhxqAJ93x3akowjKYQWKBvDt65l1LwZ4hQCbBJst
5OpS2J8fju4VMEee+DoACUk=
=4wd9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's
the law!
Daeron
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:01:26 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> After all, it wasn't Linux that said "thou shalt not benchmark".
>> :-)
> No, initially it was Oracle and Sun Microsystems.
Is this true ? Do you have any citations ? I do remember when there were
a lot of benchmarks around. Indeed you could get software and run your
own. Is this what happened ? Who else apart from Oracle and Sun forbid
thirdparty benchmarking.
Daeron
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:13:44 -0700, Simon Cooke wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 10:12:42 +0200, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>> Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> writes:
>>>> Firstly, Microsoft have gone on the record as being against
>>>> software patent laws.
>>> Do you have a reference?
>>> Thanks.
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040808203939777
>>> Gates in 1991 was s against such patents because of their adverse
>>> affect on innovation.
>> The bit about MS using patents offensively in the article quoted by
>> that link is speculation from Real Networks. Who, if you hadn't
>> noticed, have been going around trying to get Apple to hate them
>> recently (mainly because they're fading fast).
> Correction: the bit about MS using patents offensively is from Der
> Spiegel, and as it's in german, I can't comment either way as to
> whether or not they're talking out of their hat - or where they get
> their information from regarding MS planning to use them offensively.
correction: Because 'Real Networks' is trying to get Apple to hate them
because they are fading fast Microsoft is *not* using patents offensively.
- Nope - still don't make sense. Try again ...
translation: Because no criticism can be allowed on COLA of Micros~1 by
SImeon. Then any tautoligical convoluted untruism will be uttered in
their defence.
- yes .. much better ;)
> The point stands, however: MS has not, to date, used a patent
> offensively.
What is the difference between an offensive or defensive patent ?
<2nq2l3F...@uni-berlin.de> Daeron ...
chrisv
>http://www.hinduonnet.com/mag/2002/12/01/stories/2002120100100300.html
>
>Selling India to Bill Gates
>
>C. RAMMANOHAR REDDY
>
>IN 1997, on his first visit to India, Bill Gates met Prime Minister Deve
>Gowda in New Delhi. A couple of days later, Mr. Gowda flew to Mumbai to
>attend another function in honour of the Microsoft chief. In 2000, during
>Mr Gates' second visit, more than half a dozen Chief Ministers queued up to
>plead for investment by the software giant. Now, in 2002, the coronation of
>Mr. Gates as the most preferred visitor from abroad has been completed.
>
>
>The way we fete and fawn on Bill Gates each time he visits India should make
>any self-respecting Indian wince with embarrassment. At the same time, we
>are quick to show our displeasure towards Mr. Gates for speaking about AIDS
>in the country. We are naturally equally quick to accept the money his
>Foundation had to offer, and want more.
>
>
>The AIDS mission apart, why was Bill Gates here? Blinded by his fame and
>wealth, we failed to see the pure commercial motive of advancing the
>interests of Microsoft. With our uncritical adulation, we may have ended up
>selling our software market, our software talents and perhaps even our soul
>to the world's biggest software company. Hook, line and sinker.
>
>
>The company Mr. Gates has built up is the biggest and most profitable
>software firm in the world. But it is also facing a threat from the most
>unlikely of competitors - the GNU/Linux operating system which has been
>developed by the larger Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) movement
>across the world. This "free" software has long since ceased to be a cult
>operating system meant for geeks. In terms of cost, reliability and
>security, GNU/Linux has proved itself far superior to the proprietary
>Windows in the market for software that runs the internet. Some independent
>estimates suggest that GNU/Linux has even overtaken Windows here. The back
>offices of several global companies are also increasingly being run on this
>alternative operating system. Businesses selling FLOSS are making money,
>and organisations switching to FLOSS are saving enormous amounts. (For a
>comprehensive survey on GNU/Linux versus Windows usage on the internet, in
>back offices and on the desktop, see www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html)
>
>
>Governments too are increasingly looking at GNU/Linux as an alternative to
>Windows. Cost is obviously one factor. For example, the United States
>Census Bureau found that launching a web site for provision of data, which
>cost $47,000 with Linux, would have cost as much as $3,58,000 had the
>proprietary Windows been used. A complete dependence on proprietary
>Microsoft software also raises security concerns. China recently launched a
>version of GNU/Linux to eventually replace Windows on all government
>computers. (That did not prevent Microsoft from announcing a $750 million
>investment in China. This, incidentally, is considerably more than the $400
>million that Mr. Gates has planned for India.)
>
>
>During his visit last month, Mr. Gates bamboozled uncritical reporters with
>jargon about GNU/Linux not being a threat to Windows. The total cost of
>ownership (TCO), he said, was higher for GNU/Linux than for Windows. TCO is
>the cost of software, training, maintenance and upgrades. Now, most
>independent surveys say that the TCO of GNU/Linux is a minimum of 25 to 30
>per cent lower than for Windows - quite the opposite of Mr. Gates' claim.
>The world's richest man also asserted that GNU/Linux is affecting software
>companies like Sun and not Microsoft. This is only half correct. GNU/Linux,
>positioned in the middle, is rapidly eating into the market share of both
>Sun and Micrsoft in server software.
>
>
>From Peru to Japan, from China to the U.S., governments all over the world
>are looking at GNU/Linux. There is one government though that is missing in
>this list. In spite of India being home to many of the writers of software
>who have contributed to the development of GNU/Linux, the Centre and the
>States seem to be more busy chasing Microsoft than exploring the use of
>this superior software. There have been reports of the Centre launching a
>Linux India Initiative to encourage universities and governments to move
>away from Windows. But the Government seems too scared to confirm such
>press reports. And of the State Governments, only Madhya Pradesh and West
>Bengal have been making some noises about exploring the use of GNU/Linux.
>
>
>Mr. Gates' interest in India is obvious. Computer use in India remains very
>low, but is growing. E-governance is just beginning to happen. Imagine the
>future, as e-governance and other government computer-linked services
>increase rapidly. Imagine all government computers running on Microsoft
>software - a potential market of hundreds of thousands, eventually even
>millions. No wonder it is so important to tie India to proprietary
>software. There is another reason for the Gates interest in India. Though a
>lot of application software - like word-processors or spreadsheets - is
>available for GNU/Linux, much more needs to be written if open source
>software is to completely replace Windows on the desktop. India is believed
>to be home to 10 per cent of the world's developers of software. If India's
>software community can be chained to the development of proprieatry
>software, then one source of GNU/Linux-based applications will dry up!
>
>
>Bill Gates needs India more than India needs Bill Gates. But we don't seem
>to want to see that.
Well, at least this guy isn't blind. Gate$ & Co. don't make a move
that isn't intended to maintain and/or extend their monopoly.
name
<snip>
>>> a lot more, but that's 'cause you're a Linux specialist.
>>
>> You must have some stupid clients.
>
> They're smart businesspeople. As they're paying for the work, I give them
> the source code and make it clear they're free to hire anyone they want.
> They don't have to retain my services. They can use someone in-house, they
> can try to do it themselves, or they can hire other contractors and
> consultants. In fact, a couple of my projects ARE now maintained in-house
> by their staff, but 99% of the time they call me - 'cause they want the
> best.
Then you know the truth of these matters. If you write software, you can
compile it for M$ or for any of the *nixen, given some tweaking for
different APIs.
The fact is that writing software is to a large extent os independent.
Certainly one can write some geewhiz bang stuff to take advantage of M$
eyecandy, but almost all substantial projects are written to a user base,
and the os is mostly secondary.
Case in point, though not a high profile one: A fellow by the name of Ed
Hamrick markets a few apps for graphic artists and photographers. The best
known of these is Vuescan, which is popularly considered one of the best for
scanning film. His popularity is based on several things: 1) He gets the
most important things right. Color rendition and controllability with
Vuescan exceeds that of most all the proprietary scanner-ware. That means
that the primary concern of the users is met. 2) He listens to the users,
mostly on the comp.periphs.scanners NG, and he makes tweaks and adds stuff
based on requests and discussions there. 3) He sells his product from his
web site, via an exchange of activation number for a credit card charge.
There is no guarantee and no return priveledge, as the software is available
for extensive testing before purchase. In short, he meets his market.
And he only offers binaries for sale. Unpack the package and light it up in
one continuous motion!!!
Until recently, he offered binaries for Mac OS whatever, and he dropped one
of them due to lack of demand (?). He offers binaries for the M$ systems,
and he offers one for Linux that can (I think) be ported to the BSDs. Is
this easy to do. Not particularly. But he does so to cover his market place.
The point is this: Ed's concern is that he correctly control the hardware
to produce the highest quality products. The os for which he compiles it is
of secondary concern.
Of course if the M$ APIs that you want require you to write exclusively for
M$, that's your choice. But it is a choice, not a requirement, is it not?
And all of this is too bad for the os-oriented-code NG warriors, but facts
is facts.
--
Email is wtallman at olypen dot com
Jessup Silstrom
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 10:12:42 +0200, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> writes:
>>
>>> Firstly, Microsoft have gone on the record as being against software
>>> patent laws.
>>
>> Do you have a reference?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040808203939777
>> Gates in 1991 was s against such patents because of their adverse
>> affect on innovation.
>
> The bit about MS using patents offensively in the article quoted by that
> link is speculation from Real Networks. Who, if you hadn't noticed, have
> been going around trying to get Apple to hate them recently (mainly
> because they're fading fast).
Ummm...fading fast?
Do you sit up in bed in the morning, stick your finger in the air and try to
receive radio waves from 'helpers' ? Is that how you get your news?
Real is at the forefront of making streaming content saleable -- and doing
quite well.
Also, for savvy companies who have realized that WM is crapware personified,
and a real production grade streaming video or audio site uses Real...well,
let's just say I'm buying a lot of RNWK.
Jessup Silstrom
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:01:26 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> After all, it wasn't Linux that said "thou shalt not benchmark". :-)
>
> No, initially it was Oracle and Sun Microsystems.
No, it was your friend Billy from 4th grade.
The one who stole your lunchbox with GoBot's on it -- and forever scarred
you for life -- making you a vindictive and wicked WinTroll......
Jessup Silstrom
> The point stands, however: MS has not, to date, used a patent offensively.
Liar:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/98695_mspatent06.shtml
Bellevue software developer wins Microsoft patent case
By DAN RICHMAN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
A small software developer in Bellevue has won a patent victory against
Microsoft Corp.
Timeline Inc., which develops data-analysis software, said the Washington
Supreme Court's refusal Wednesday to consider an earlier ruling in its
favor means the company will now be able to make more money from its
technology. It ends a 3 1/2-year legal battle *launched* *by* *Microsoft*,
which wasn't available to comment.
DFS
Liar.
Jessup Silstrom
Simon Cooke
Pity you didn't research more carefully, Jessup.
Timeline Inc. licensed their patent to Microsoft. That case was about the
limits of the licensing agreement.
http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/136/030220timeline/pfindex.html
" Microsoft asked the Washington court to affirm that under the terms of
its licensing agreement with Timeline, Microsoft's customers and partners
are entitled to sublicense Timeline's patented technology at no charge to
develop their own applications.
Timeline offered the court a different interpretation of the license. It
argued at the time that the agreement "clearly distinguishes between users
of Microsoft products who may employ Timeline technology, and certain third
party software developers to whom Microsoft may not sublicense."
The technology in question relates to the design and use of data marts and
data warehouses and is protected by three U.S. patents, according to
Timeline.
Last week's judgement confirms that Microsoft's right to sublicense
Timeline's technology is "substantially limited," and means that some SQL
Server users may be liable to pay Timeline for use of its technology,
according to Timeline's Osenbaugh. The company didn't offer a clear
estimate of how many users may be affected, saying only that it believes
that "some" are."
This is not, under any circumstances, an example of Microsoft using one of
their patents offensively.
Would you like to try again? And with a little less sass next time, Captain
Sassypants? At least, until you get your facts straight and stop
embarassing yourself. "Liar" indeed. Pah. You're a rank amateur ignorant
moron.
Rex Ballard
> "The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away.", so said Tom
> Waites in his classic rap, "Step Right Up", a paean about come ons and rip
> offs.
> Now, we have all explored the fact that the Gate$ Foundation is no more than
> a front to promote and try to claw onto marketshare for windos by lining
> the pockets of Third World government bureaucrats all in the name of
> helping "children with AIDS".
Actually, the Gates foundation does some very useful and beneficial
things. They provide vaccines for children to prevent diseases that
are almost unknown in the US (other than for the vaccine) such as
Diptheria, Pertussis (Whooping Cough), Rubella (Measles), Tetnus,
Mumps, Polio, and Malaria. These are all very fine efforts.
Furthermore, because the primary source of funds is just Bill and
friends, there is a much more efficient handling of the money.
> But, let's pretend that we've been teleported to some alternate universe,
> where everything is on the level, and that money is really helping children
> with AIDS.
As indicated above, the Gates Foundation, which is primarily managed
by Melinda, and many of Bill Gates' mother's friends, has done a
pretty good job of making sure that some very good things are being
done with the money.
> But does it justify the other actions of the Gate$'s, the Ballmers and
> Microsoft? That is, is the net gain a societal good, or a societal bad.
Thus far, I have heard of now public announcements where Microsoft
told the leader of a country in Africa or South America "If you agree
to use Windows exclusively, I can save 80% of your children from an
early death. If you don't agree, they will die before they are 7
years old.
Other charities also have strings. The united christian childrens
fund and several other Christian charities of this type require that
the parents and children convert to Christianity as a prerequisite to
aid. The mother of 3 children, all under the age of seven, all highly
vulnerable and very likely to die, telling the village chief to "take
the deal" and agree to run their single village PC on Windows, just
seems like an easy decision. The only problem is when that single
computer is also the sight through which the village markets its
hand-made goods to the western world. At this point, the conversion
means they starve to death, and not converting means that their
children will die of Polio, LockJaw, whooping cough, smallpox,
measles, or malaria. All of which involve slow painful death, usually
including periods of delirium.
Thats a heck of a choice, but you might find some ways to adjust, even
if only temporarily.
> One thing to consider is the proxy war being fought against Linux and Open
> Source by SCO for Microsoft. Let us also consider the egregious and
> piggish acquisition of 'software patents' which are no being used to slow
> the migration to Linux in Munich.
There are many patents which were implemented in Linux, ranging from
SSL to schedulers, to PAM. In nearly every case, these patent owners
not only promised not to demand royalties, but also permitted
unlimited non-exclusive use and distribution rights, so long as the
patented "device" was implemented under an Open Source license. In
some cases, the Patent holder even insisted that such nonexclusive use
would only be granted to code written and published under GPL.
Red Hat, IBM, Netscape/AOL, and many others have contributed their
patents under these conditions.
Of course, the company that did all of those patent searches refuses
to publish those patents because they are afraid of becoming liable.
The irony is that if those patents were listed, nearly all of them
would be found to not only already be documented, but also have been
granted permission for use in Linux and other Open Source code.
When Linux has accidentally stepped on a patent, they normally try to
settle first, then switch to an alternative. In most cases, the Linux
development team has 3-5 implementations to choose from, and the
patent holder knows this.
> The fight against AIDs and many diseases and problems worldwide are really
> computing problems. The scientists, engineers, social planners etc are all
> dependent on software for research, budgets, development and so on. The
> scientific community in many parts has already embraced Linux. Certainly,
> applications that require supercomputer clusters, such as genetic
> modelling, would run on Linux...and in the future, based on announcements
> from IBM and the U.S. Government, it seems like more and more
> supercomputing will be Linux clusters.
This is already the story. Ironically, if researchers using Linux do
find a vaccine for AIDS, it will probably be Gates Foundation workers
giving the shots. Gates will get the credit for the miracle that
Linux produced.
But this is already the case. The average PC user now spends a
substantial portion of his time interacting with Open Source softawre,
including Linux servers, BSD routers, and most have Linux enabled
Cable/DSL modems, routers, wireless hubs, and printer server. Most
people use Google, and get referred to linux enabled sites.
After Linux and Open Source does all of the work, the results are fed
back to Internet Explorer, on a Windows PC, which means Microsoft gets
all of the credit. Ironically, many of these same Linux powered sites
will do things which require that the user not only have IE on Win32,
but also requires that the user enable features which will make him
much more vulnerable to viruses, hacks, and attacks.
> So, here you have the world, trying to advance and solve the world's
> problems and the worlds mysteries. Here you have Linux, and OSS, which are
> serving greatly. And much of that service is because these software
> products can evolve freely and grow and change. The 'Openness' lets the
> best minds contribute to the advancement of the software...and that in turn
> helps to build better medical models and to help defeat AIDS.
Yep. This has been the story for 20+ years. *NIX does all of the
hard work, Windows does trivial display functions, and everyone
assumes that Windows is what's doing it all.
Jessup Silstrom
http://www.detnews.com/2003/technology/0304/10/technology-132992.htm
Microsoft sues Lucent, seeking to invalidate computer patents
By Susan Decker / Bloomberg News
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery
SAN DIEGO -- Microsoft Corp., the world's biggest software maker, filed a
lawsuit seeking to invalidate six patents owned by Lucent Technologies Inc.
Lucent, which makes computer networking gear and is the largest U.S. maker
of telephone equipment, has sued computer makers Dell Computer Corp. and
Gateway Inc. over the inventions, which include color memory, video-search
functions and for controlling a computer with a stylus.
Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft says Dell and Gateway want the software
maker to reimburse them for any damages they have to pay as a result of the
suits. A Lucent licensing agent called "ThinkFire" also has sent letters to
Microsoft, saying 16 Lucent patents are "crucial to the current and planned
product offerings of Microsoft."
Microsoft wants a judge to rule that its products don't infringe the six
patents in the Dell and Gateway suits. Alternatively, the suit seeks a
ruling that they are invalid or unenforceable. Microsoft is waging its
patent dispute with Lucent as it defends its intellectual property in
antitrust litigation with the government and competitors.
Lucent spokesman John Skalko said the Murray Hill, New Jersey- based company
had no comment on the federal lawsuit, which was filed yesterday in San
Diego. The suit against Dell was filed in February in Wilmington, Delaware,
and the suit against Gateway was filed in June 2002 in Alexandria,
Virginia.
Shares of Lucent rose 1 cent to $1.53 as of 3:20 p.m. in New York Stock
Exchange composite trading, while Microsoft shares fell 65 cents to $25.01
on the Nasdaq Stock Market.
Simon Cooke
Again, you seem to lack the intelligence to understand the difference
between "defensive" and "offensive" patent actions.
This story is an example of offensive use of a patent library - by Lucent,
not Microsoft.
Learn to read - or this will be the last reply you get on this topic.
Jessup Silstrom
> Again, you seem to lack the intelligence to understand the difference
> between "defensive" and "offensive" patent actions.
>
> This story is an example of offensive use of a patent library - by Lucent,
> not Microsoft.
>
> Learn to read - or this will be the last reply you get on this topic.
I'm just curious.
Has anybody from Microsoft ever contacted you and let you know they are
aware of your posts on COLA and maybe asked you to stop representing them ?
Jesse F. Hughes
But in this thread, he's been correct (at least with regard to your
posts). You've offered two articles as evidence that MS has used
patents offensively, and both were just plain wrong.
Maybe you should stop "representing" Linux. You're an embarrassing
moron.
Note: I don't know anything about Simon's claim that MS has *never*
used a patent "offensively", but Bailo's responses were clearly wrong
and Simon clearly right in saying so.
--
"I don't know why I live in a world with so many supposed
mathematicians who are all so dumb AND rude. Why oh why couldn't
someone like Gauss or Dedekind still be around? Shoot, I'd even take
someone like Hardy at this point." -- James S Harris compromises
Jessup Silstrom
> But in this thread, he's been correct (at least with regard to your
in your case, no outside entity would be needed.
you're own shame is embarrassment enough for you.
Jesse F. Hughes
Geez, look at the typos. Three misspellings in the subject alone,
followed by an incoherent body with inexplicable snippage, an
additional typo and no capitalization at all.
Maybe you should sober up before you post. Couldn't hurt.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
One is not superior merely because one sees the world as odious.
-- Chateaubriand (1768-1848)
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:21:06 +0200,
Jesse F. Hughes <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> Jessup Silstrom <jsil...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>>> Again, you seem to lack the intelligence to understand the difference
>>> between "defensive" and "offensive" patent actions.
>>>
>>> This story is an example of offensive use of a patent library - by Lucent,
>>> not Microsoft.
>>>
>>> Learn to read - or this will be the last reply you get on this topic.
>>
>> I'm just curious.
>>
>> Has anybody from Microsoft ever contacted you and let you know they are
>> aware of your posts on COLA and maybe asked you to stop representing them ?
>
> But in this thread, he's been correct (at least with regard to your
> posts). You've offered two articles as evidence that MS has used
> patents offensively, and both were just plain wrong.
>
> Maybe you should stop "representing" Linux. You're an embarrassing
> moron.
>
> Note: I don't know anything about Simon's claim that MS has *never*
> used a patent "offensively", but Bailo's responses were clearly wrong
> and Simon clearly right in saying so.
>
I must admit, that I am glad Earthlink uses a unique path ID for each
account. It makes scoring on Bailo's idiocy so much easier.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBG5ADd90bcYOAWPYRAlmBAKDgnLhgu52nblu+ud4sYsV0JV5PRACcDP7e
RwlPlMFKroC1ngG5agRXABU=
=K9qX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
The race isn't always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong,
But it's the safest way to bet.
Jesse F. Hughes
> I must admit, that I am glad Earthlink uses a unique path ID for each
> account. It makes scoring on Bailo's idiocy so much easier.
Agreed, although I haven't yet added this one to the leafnode filters
yet (obviously). Had I known from the get-go that it was Bailo, I
wouldn't have read it. Now that I'm engaged in a conversation of
sorts, I'll wait a tick before I filter it out.
The boy is an annoying and stupid thing.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Of course, my ability to admit my mistakes and correct them is a
trait that many of you seem to never have properly appreciated."
-- JSH, discussing his 1463rd "proof" of Fermat's Last Theorem.