backtop

Print 156 comment(s) - last by Jack Ripoff.. on May 24 at 11:14 PM
Open-source software infringes on its patents says Microsoft

The love-hate relationship between Windows users and Linux users has existed for many years. Advocates for free open-source software feel the open-source industry develops and improves software an order of magnitude greater than anything Microsoft can dish out. The Redmond, Washington-based software giant feels otherwise, claiming that free software curbs innovation and progress.

Innovation and progress is precisely what Microsoft aims to protect, and it does so using patents. Patents are the life blood of the software industry, and if patents did not exist then innovation would not progress the way it has been, according to Microsoft.

In light of that, Microsoft now claims Linux and many other open source software infringe on its patents -- a lot of them. Microsoft claims it has the right to demand royalties from Linux distributions and essentially users of Linux. In an interview with Fortune, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer clearly indicates he is all for supporting the protection of intellectual property.

"We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property. [The open source community will have to] play by the same rules as the rest of the business. What's fair is fair," Ballmer said.

Brad Smith, senior vice president and general council to Microsoft, said patents are required in this day and age to protect innovation. Smith and the rest of Microsoft believe that without patents, ideas and methods of doing things would often be stolen. In fact, according to Smith, the Linux kernel itself violates 42 Microsoft patents. Worst yet, Linux graphical interfaces such as KDE violate another 65 patents.

Microsoft doesn't stop at Linux. Open Office and other free e-mail applications are infringing on a total of 60 patents, Smith said. According to Smith, Microsoft is like any other company trying to protect its property and rights.

"Companies are very sensitive to the importance of protecting intellectual property because ultimately they know that their own businesses similarly turn on [such] protection," Smith said.

Microsoft wants to strike a deal -- a deal with those developing and distributing Linux and other vendors of free software. The deal Microsoft wants is simple: pay up.

Novell, the propagator of the widely popular SUSE Linux already rolls dice according to Microsoft's rules. The Linux advocator recently entered into a complex deal with Microsoft over Linux patent violations. According to the deal, Microsoft and Novell agreed not to sue each other's customers, because if Novell tried to sue Microsoft it would then violate terms of the General Public License (GPL) -- the foundation on which all open-source software is based on.

Based on the terms that both companies came up with, Novell agreed to pay Microsoft a percentage of all its Linux revenue until the year 2011. However, Microsoft too ended up paying Novell over $108 million and another $240 million in resalable coupons. Judging from the fact that Microsoft ended up paying Novell more than it received, it would appear that open-software and Linux was one-up on the software giant.

According to open-software experts Microsoft is the real winner. The deal with Novell allows Microsoft to go out and demonstrate it is correct about Linux violating Microsoft patents, since Novell agreed to pay $40 million not to have its Linux customers sued for violations.

Industry insiders are now weary of what may come of Microsoft's experts. If Microsoft convinces the patent system that it is right, the open-source industry could face potential meltdown. Eben Moglen, executive director of the Software Freedom Law Center says a massive war is about to be waged on the patent battlefield.

"Patent law's going to be the terrain on which a big piece of the war's going to be fought. Waterloo is here somewhere," Moglen said.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
My thoughts...
By smitty3268 on 5/14/2007 1:27:13 PM , Rating: 5
1. When you can get a patent for "buying something with a single click" that is supposedly non-obvious, the fact that MS only says a couple hundred patents are being broken is pretty amazing.

2. MS refuses to list out the patents being broken, just like SCO refused to cite the code it was upset about. We all know how that turned out.

3. Is MS really going to start suing it's own customers? Organizations like the Department of Defense are huge Linux users.

4. Is MS really ready to start a patent war? If they do, IBM and other tech companies could start enforcing their patents on MS, and they have thousands of them.

5. The Supreme Court recently made a ruling that will result in more patents being thrown out in court.

6. I believe antitrust law comes into play regarding patent enforcement, so their past could come back to haunt them here.

Conclusion: This is all just a marketing stunt, where MS makes noise about how dangerous Linux is, so customers keep buying from MS. It could also be designed to pressure Red Hat to come to a similar agreement to the one Novell took, as they've been talking about it recently and Red Hat said they would only do it if the agreement was about open standards.




RE: My thoughts...
By Flunk on 5/14/2007 1:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the idea of software patents, especially ones on abstract concepts is absolutely silly. Software is covered under intellectual property and patents are for physically applicable (and specific) ideas.

This blatant attack by Microsoft (and other like it) show the flaws in the software patent system more than anything else. I believe that patent laws must be reformed to prevent large corporations from patenting obvious and abstract things or anyone without the money to fight these lawsuits is in jeopardy including the consumer.


RE: My thoughts...
By TomZ on 5/14/2007 2:43:57 PM , Rating: 1
What percentage of issued patents do you think relate to "obvious and abstract things"? I'll bet the number is quite a bit smaller than you think.


RE: My thoughts...
By smitty3268 on 5/14/2007 2:48:58 PM , Rating: 5
Software related? 50%

Non-software related? .5%

But I'm just guessing. I doubt you know either. Unless you're a IP lawyer? Practically every patent that is applied for is granted, because the govt. doesn't have enough specialists hired to go over them.


RE: My thoughts...
RE: My thoughts...
By Oregonian2 on 5/14/2007 4:51:30 PM , Rating: 5
Once upon a time when I worked for a large company, I was on an internal patent review list of people who reviewed "relevant" patents that somebody in the organization thought relevant to our business and I was to evaluate how it might apply to us (not my job as such, I was a relatively senior engineer back then and it was just something that came by once a month that I recall). I'll say right off that they weren't software patents that came by "my desk". Among the hardware patents (those that weren't just patenting someone's entire system design of something as a patent -- not sure why they did that, but whatever), a VERY large percentage, more than half were obvious solutions to the problem. Obvious to me anyway -- or often techniques that I had used previously, sometimes a long time previously (technically not patentable, but they still do so). Now, to a patent office clerk, maybe not obvious, but to a practicing engineer in the relevant field, very obvious -- if not the ONLY obvious solution to the problem. I can only extrapolate to SW patents, that given the same problem to solve that the same solution would have been obvious a lot of the time, if not most of the time. When I took a patents class a long time ago, such things (obvious to one "skilled in the arts" and/or previously used techniques) weren't supposed to be patentable. But in these days of lawyers-rule, I suppose such things don't matter.

P.S. - Some of dumbest (IMO) patents are ones where in a microprocessor design someone invents and patents the IDENTICAL approach that was used previously to solve the SAME problem in minicomputers or mainframes (back when minicomputers used to exist). Duh!


RE: My thoughts...
By treesloth on 5/15/2007 3:53:35 PM , Rating: 2
Regarding the P.S., do you know how such patents were ever awarded? IANAL, but it seems that what you're describing is a textbook case of prior art, which should negate the patent. I understand you're coming to this from an engineering standpoint and not a lawyer's, but did you ever encounter an explanation for the patents' validity?


RE: My thoughts...
By Oregonian2 on 5/16/2007 5:18:09 PM , Rating: 3
Even if they're stupid and invalid, they're still powerfully useful. They're not useful for IBM to sue Microsoft with, but are useful for the suing of small companies. Having a patent, even if utterly stupid, puts the burden of proof on the other guy. It's valid until proven otherwise (in court). So even the dumbest patent can be useful to intimidate small companies that don't want to pay lawyers to go to court to prove it invalid. I know that in the olden days before my time there was at least one large company that had a big ledger board on the wall listing how many patents and/or applications that each engineer in the company had. Big public scorecard list. In that sort of atmosphere they'd be trying to patent the concept of having a patent.


RE: My thoughts...
RE: My thoughts...
By borowki on 5/14/2007 3:12:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
4. Is MS really ready to start a patent war? If they do, IBM and other tech companies could start enforcing their patents on MS, and they have thousands of them.

5. The Supreme Court recently made a ruling that will result in more patents being thrown out in court.


The recent Supreme Court decision and a few before it are precisely why Microsoft is pushing the issue now, as they make it harder to wage your so-called "patent war." The MedImmune v. Genentech ruling, for example, means that the company could license a patented technology while challenging its validity. eBay v. MercExchange means it's unlikely an injunction would be granted against Windows. Finally, KSR v. Teleflex tightens the stardard for patent, making it harder to win with bogus ones.

It's to Microsoft's advantage that the Supreme Court has put in place reasonable ground rules regarding patents. The company can play by the rules: If someone else owns a valid patent, it can pay a licensing fee or obtain the technology through a cross-licensing agreement. It's the Open Source crowd who can't play by these rules.


RE: My thoughts...
By Ard on 5/14/2007 4:46:44 PM , Rating: 3
KSR loosened the standard, not tightened. The Fed Circuit of Appeals had a much stricter standard of obviousness, requiring that a patent was only obvious if the prior art taught/suggested tying the earlier inventions together. The SC said this was far too strict and that obviousness should be looked at in other dimensions.

On-topic, if MS is coming after Linux after all these years, I'd think laches would've set in by now, effectively barring their claims.


RE: My thoughts...
By Ard on 5/14/2007 4:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, it depends on what you mean by tightening the standard. If you meant tightening the standard of getting a patent issued, then we're on the same page, as a looser standard of invalidating a standard is on point with the KSR ruling.


RE: My thoughts...
By Ard on 5/14/2007 4:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
Goddamn, need an edit system. Invalidating a patent.


RE: My thoughts...
By TomZ on 5/14/2007 5:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I hold a software patent to editing post comments, and DT wasn't willing to pay the license fee. :o)


RE: My thoughts...
By Vinnybcfc on 5/15/2007 7:07:11 AM , Rating: 2
You better go after PhpBB their properly using Edit for free


RE: My thoughts...
By Vinnybcfc on 5/15/2007 7:07:57 AM , Rating: 2
dam typing too quickly :(

probably* using Edit for free


RE: My thoughts...
By Jack Ripoff on 5/14/2007 8:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"It's the Open Source crowd who can't play by these rules."

quote:
"While Microsoft professes a preference to license rather than litigate, its record indicates otherwise. On Feb. 22, 2007, a jury awarded a $1.52 billion patent judgment in favor of Alcatel-Lucent against Microsoft over the Redmond, Wash., company's use of MP3 codices. This was the largest patent award in history. In the Eolas case, Microsoft was also found guilty in a $521 million patent infringement ruling over how Internet Explorer handled embedded content.

Richard Fontana, counsel for the SFLC (Software Freedom Law Center), which works with the Free Software Foundation, said that these judgments "[suggest] that it is Microsoft's proprietary software that is full of IP risk, and not Linux or FOSS [free and open-source software]. In the past three years alone, Microsoft has publicly paid out more than $4 billion dollars in settlements and court awards for alleged infringements of other companies' patents. And if any of Microsoft's own patents are not novel and non-obvious, that means that Microsoft's purported IP includes property it does not actually have any right to own -- property that has essentially been misappropriated from earlier inventors, or from the public."

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8462761823.html

quote:
"Open source faces no more, if not less, legal risk than proprietary software. The market needs to understand that the study Microsoft is citing actually proves the opposite of what they claim it does.

There is no reason to believe that GNU/Linux has any greater risk of infringing patents than Windows, Unix-based or any other functionally similar operating system. Why? Because patents are infringed by specific structures that accomplish specific functionality," Ravicher said."

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1729908,00.as...

Is it opensource that can't play by the rules or is it Microsoft?


RE: My thoughts...
By TomZ on 5/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: My thoughts...
By SmokeRngs on 5/16/2007 9:35:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Going after open source for IP claims is like taking a poor man to court and expecting to get paid a judgement in the end.


Irrelevant. Patent and IP claims are supposed to protect the owner of the patent or IP from someone else using their property. (Due to the wars concerning the validity of IP claims I'm using the term "property" loosely so please do not start a tangent which has nothing to do with my post.) They are there for protection and not a way to make money off of another company. The ability to be awarded a judgment is supposed to be a punishment to the company using the patent or IP without the consent of the owner.

An owner blatantly ignoring patent or IP infringement until a time in which the offender has money which can be awarded in a judgment, should basically lose any grounds for prosecution or a judgment since they did not enforce their patent or IP when it was discovered it was being infringed upon.

If there are any violations here, Microsoft would have know about them long ago. Considering open source is open, it would have been nothing for MS to view the source code to find if any of their own patents or IP was being infringed upon. It would be a poor business decision for Microsoft to not look into the competitors' products.

Personally, I don't see that there is a case even if there is a single violation. If Microsoft believed it had a case it should have taken it to court long ago at the time they knew of the violations. Waiting only proves to me without a doubt that no damage was done to Microsoft as it did not feel a need to protect the patents/IP it owns.

Just remember, it's not as if Microsoft hasn't had the money or lawyers to take it to court.


RE: My thoughts...
By borowki on 5/15/2007 8:44:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
While Microsoft professes a preference to license rather than litigate, its record indicates otherwise.


Well, that because prior to MedImmune v. Genentech, a company basically cannot challenge a patent in court if it's paying royalty to the claimant. The idea was that if there is no dispute, the court has no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled, correctly in my opinion, that compliance that's effectively coerced does not end the dispute.

What Microsoft can do now is to pay royalty to a patent holder in protest, while continue to seek relief from the court. Without triple damage or the possibility of an injunction, the so called patent war is a lot less threatening.


RE: My thoughts...
By Saist on 5/14/2007 3:49:46 PM , Rating: 3
couldn't decide if I wanted to click "worth reading" or actually take the time to say something.

I'm glad that somebody else has seen the SCO connection. I ran this little blurb on a forum post about the subject.

quote:

SCO makes large and sweeping accusations of infringed patents and code
Microsoft makes large and sweeping accusations of infringed patents and code

SCO does not reveal the infringed patents or Code
Microsoft does not reveal the infringed patents or Code

SCO sues their own customers for money
Microsoft confirms intent to sue customers for money when talking with CNN.


I agree that this is a marketing stunt, and it's one that has already failed once before.


RE: My thoughts...
By cubdukat on 5/14/2007 7:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
Who didn't see this one coming?

If Vista wasn't doing so badly, I somehow doubt this suit would be trying to happen right now.

Then again, whose fault is that?


RE: My thoughts...
By ZeroGuardian on 5/14/2007 7:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If Vista wasn't doing so badly, I somehow doubt this suit would be trying to happen right now.


Doing badly??? They sold 20 million copies in the first month!


RE: My thoughts...
RE: My thoughts...
By TomZ on 5/14/2007 9:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
You guys don't get it, do you? Hundreds of millions of PCs are sold per year with the "latest version" of Windows on it. Now that the "latest version" is Vista, that means that hundreds of millions of PCs will be sold with Vista every year going forward. Vista's success, at least in terms of sales volume, is a given because it is part of a successful franchise.

Questioning Vista's success is about as silly as wondering whether the next "Harry Potter" book is going to sell well. The answer is obviously "yes."


RE: My thoughts...
By Jack Ripoff on 5/14/2007 10:24:48 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, but your comparison makes no sense. Software isn't like books. The next "Harry Potter" book is going to sell well because the readers of the previous books want to know the outcome of the story. PC users usually tend to get accommodated with what they have. They don't care at all with the "continuation" of the story. What happened to Windows' file system after all? Will Internet Explorer get decent PNG support after all?
Or, he also asked, ""Why deal with any upgrade at all if the current setup works?"

quote:
"Good question. Damn good question.

If what you're running now works for you, why should you move 'up' to Vista?

After all, according to a study by Softchoice, 94 percent of PCs do not meet the system requirements for Vista Premium."

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2072976,00.as...

quote:
"Just after the IdeaStorm launch, a user called Javaprog07 posted an idea called "Don't eliminate XP just yet." After Tom West's post that said Dell would offer Windows XP on systems for small business customers, many Direct2Dell readers like giosetti, JMXZ, Reid Stott, have commented or sent e-mails asking us to bring back Windows XP for home users as well."

http://direct2dell.com/one2one/archive/2007/04/19/...

Is Vista going to sell well? Probably. But that doesn't change the fact that it's been doing much worse than Microsoft would like it to (which is the point of the poster in the first place).


RE: My thoughts...
By Jack Ripoff on 5/14/2007 10:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
Correcting my first quote:

quote:
"Or, he also asked, ""Why deal with any upgrade at all if the current setup works?"

Good question. Damn good question.

If what you're running now works for you, why should you move 'up' to Vista?

After all, according to a study by Softchoice, 94 percent of PCs do not meet the system requirements for Vista Premium."


RE: My thoughts...
By SiliconAddict on 5/14/2007 9:44:24 PM , Rating: 1
I'd really love to know to who. Seriously. I've seen Vista on ONE computer in the last few months.
Everyone I know who has installed it, even me after getting a free copy, has removed it afterwards. Vista's biggest sellers to date has been OEM's and until recently, on Dell's you could only get Vista...thankfully the outcry has forced Dell to bring back both options for the time being.


RE: My thoughts...
By Xavian on 5/15/2007 8:40:04 AM , Rating: 2
indeed, i run a computer repair business in the UK and i have seen one, ONE PC with Vista on it; and the customer wanted it removed so windows xp could be loaded onto it anyways (it was a new DELL PC).


RE: My thoughts...
By Fritzr on 5/18/2007 11:21:16 AM , Rating: 2
Each new computer sold with Vista pre-installed is a Vista sale.

The really telling number is the failure to decrease the sales of the soon to be retired XP that is being installed on newly purchased Vista comps that had their HD scrubbed after leaving the store. Good for MS bank account ... they get 2 sales per machine, or at a minimum a new sale for each recycled XP key. Of course marketing wants XP out of the way so users will stop saying "Oh that junk? I tossed it"

MS knew what they were doing in announcing the death of XP at a much earlier point in the changeover than they have done in the past. When the stores stop stocking XP installs the user base of Vista will skyrocket and MS will announce that the popularity of Vista makes it their latest and greatest victory :P


RE: My thoughts...
By Munkles on 5/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: My thoughts...
By BZDTemp on 5/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: My thoughts...
By Samus on 5/15/2007 11:02:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
? Organizations like the Department of Defense are huge Linux users.


Having worked for the DoD and DoE in the past, I can assure you they have and never will run linux on any mission critical and sensitive equipment. We trialed it and found it to be extremely unsecure.

Not that we could use it anyway if it were to meet our goals. It's foreign software and regulations prohibit all federal government agencies from running such software on most of their equipment.

The irony is the use of Max OSX Server's in the ring. Ironic, because OSX is based off of linux.


RE: My thoughts...
By Jack Ripoff on 5/15/2007 11:50:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"We trialed it and found it to be extremely unsecure."

Why don't you try OpenBSD then?

http://www.openbsd.org/

quote:
"The irony is the use of Max OSX Server's in the ring. Ironic, because OSX is based off of linux."

No it isn't. It's based off of FreeBSD (which is better than Linux in many aspects IMO and isn't GPL'ed).


RE: My thoughts...
By Choppedliver on 5/18/2007 2:00:32 AM , Rating: 2
Dude you have no clue what you are talking about.

I worked for the DOD. I worked for SPAWAR ( Space and Naval Warfare). We had linux systems and we even had a directive for locking them down. Ever heard of "stig"ing a box? It's the DOD CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team ) and DISA ( Defense Information Systems Agency) approved way of locking down a box, making sure all patches are applied, unused services are removed, permissions are applied, etc. There is big freaking manual called STIG or Security Technical Implementation Guide, and they have it for Linux, Solaris, Windows, you name it. Considering I was a systems administrator, of a DOD approved linux box, and having had to implement the STIG manual, it is quite obvious that you have no clue what the entire DOD does. And yes, our equipment was very mission critical and very sensitive, and served a classified purpose.

Mac OS X is not based on linux either. Wow what a retard.


RE: My thoughts...
By Clienthes on 5/19/2007 9:42:39 AM , Rating: 2
This is totally off-topic, but I'd like to reply to Choppedliver's post.

When I first read your post I thought to myself what a bad idea it is to post on a public forum that you have access to and knowledge of the security systems of classified, mission essential computer systems, and all but provided a link to the guidance on how to secure them.

Then I remembered a video on OPSEC I saw earlier this year, about how professional information gatherers comb the internet for people like you, look for data and use it to compromise security measures, or find the person who posted it and intimidate them into giving them more information by threatening loved ones, torture, etc.

I read every post you made on this forum this year. After reading your posts, I've concluded that you are a jackass.


RE: My thoughts...
By Neosis on 5/18/2007 1:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
This is the most ridiculous post I have ever read.

"The irony is the use of Max OSX Server's in the ring. Ironic, because OSX is based off of linux."

How did you get such a idea? Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU


Patents help innovation?
By Nanobits on 5/14/2007 2:02:18 PM , Rating: 3
"Brad Smith, senior vice president and general council to Microsoft, said patents are required in this day and age to protect innovation. Smith and the rest of Microsoft believe that without patents, ideas and methods of doing things would often be stolen." This is false, since patents only give the patent holders the rights to change or advance the patented design, this means that only a select group is allowed to produce such innovation. Products or software without patent rights give a wider group of individuals the ability to add modifications to the exsisting design without any limits or rules therefore creating a larger pool of ideas and innovation. besides adding the word "steal" to the phrase from Brad Smith just let's eveyone know that he is more worried about his pocket than innovation.




RE: Patents help innovation?
By TomZ on 5/14/2007 2:40:34 PM , Rating: 1
The point you missed about patents and innovations is that companies, without patent protection, wouldn't invest as much in R&D to generate new ideas if they could be readily copied by competitors. How much of your own money would you invest if you knew there was a strong liklihood of having no return?


RE: Patents help innovation?
By smitty3268 on 5/14/2007 2:45:35 PM , Rating: 4
I think the point your missing is that the current software patent system is out of control. Bill Gates himself said that if the current patent situation existed back in the eighties there was no way MS would have been able to compete.

The thing with software patents is that companies try to have it both ways. Traditionally, something is either copied by copyright law or patent law, but not both. Each has it's own advantages, but software companies are trying (and succeeding) to get all the advantages by getting covered under both laws.


RE: Patents help innovation?
By TomZ on 5/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Patents help innovation?
By borowki on 5/14/2007 4:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The thing with software patents is that companies try to have it both ways. Traditionally, something is either copied by copyright law or patent law, but not both. Each has it's own advantages, but software companies are trying (and succeeding) to get all the advantages by getting covered under both laws.


I don't know where you got that idea, but it's plain wrong. Copyright is a right . One is entitled to it as the creator of the work in question. It is not a privilege extended by the government. Its protection, as with other rights, is the government's duty.

Applying for patent protection does not involve forfeiture of copyright. The whole idea is absurd. Who would ever get a software patent if it means allowing everyone to freely copy the software? I guess it'd prevent your competitors from joining you in a profitless venture...


RE: Patents help innovation?
By Obadiah on 5/14/2007 6:27:16 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Copyright is a right . One is entitled to it as the creator of the work in question. It is not a privilege extended by the government. Its protection, as with other rights, is the government's duty.

I don't know where you got that idea, but it's plain wrong. Rights do not expire. Rights are not transferable. Copyright is only a "right" at the same level as is having "right of way" across a neighbor's land.

Copyright, along with patents, is explicitly a privilege granted by the government in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution where Congress is given the authority to

"promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

quote:
Applying for patent protection does not involve forfeiture of copyright.
You are correct, it does not. But only because big business wants to have its cake and eat it too. Can you copyright a method of assembling parts into a car? Can you copyright the process of making a photo-copy? Can you copyright the wide-mouthed pop-tab on a soda can? The answer is, "Of course not, the whole idea is absurd!" So why should software be afforded BOTH copyright protection AND patent protection? The answer is, "Because big business thought they really wanted it."

In fact, until the 1990s, software could not be patented in the USA. Even today, most of the civilized world does not accept software patents.


RE: Patents help innovation?
By borowki on 5/15/2007 7:47:09 AM , Rating: 2
*Laugh* If copyright as a concept were defined solely by the US Constitution, then people in China would have full liberty to pirate whatever we create.

Copyright as a right is a well-entrenched concept in international laws. The United States, as signatories to numerous treaties, among others the Berne Convention, is obliged to recognize and protect it. You can scream and shout all you want, but the wording in Article I Section 8 is irrelevant.

quote:
But only because big business wants to have its cake and eat it too.


You understanding of legal protection as a privilege that should be granted only after some sacrifice made is just bizarre.

quote:
Can you copyright a method of assembling parts into a car? Can you copyright the process of making a photo-copy?


A text describing a method or process is covered by copyright law. The method or process itself is not. That why we have patents. I don't really know what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying that those who write instruction booklets should be deprived of copyright protection?

quote:
Can you copyright the wide-mouthed pop-tab on a soda can?


The appearance of the pop-tab is copyrightable as visual art, provided that it isn't some simple geometric shape. The utilitarian aspect of the tab isn't covered, but the aesthetic aspect certainly is. Again, I don't know why you're arguing that those who do product design should be deprived of rights to their creation.


RE: Patents help innovation?
By Obadiah on 5/15/2007 4:06:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Copyright as a right is a well-entrenched concept in international laws.
No, again you are incorrect. You can not find one statute defining copyright as a natural right, not a granted right. However, you can find the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1995 which states:
quote:
Emphasizing the outstanding significance of copyright protection as an incentive for literary and artistic creation
which is essentially the same meaning as the definition in the US Constitution.

quote:
You understanding of legal protection as a privilege that should be granted only after some sacrifice made is just bizarre.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but you have yet to demonstrate your original claim that copyright "is not a privilege extended by the government." But you have cited itnernational law which actually indicates otherwise. Furthermore, you have implicitly accepted my point that because the government takes copyright away from authors when it expires, it obviously must be granting it in the first place.


RE: Patents help innovation?
By Fritzr on 5/18/2007 11:32:50 AM , Rating: 2
Until about 1929 copyright had another similarity to patents. a 20 year lifespan. It was & remains renewable, but failure to renew puts the material in the Public Domain. Copyright is not a "right", it is a legal license that allows the owner to control use for the duration of the license. International copyrights are also limited life licenses.

The copyright term has been extended several times with one of the most vocal & financially supportive copyright holders being the House of Mouse working to maintain their cash flow from the use of the image & name of a certain mouse who shares a name with a famous baseball player.

Given that corporations can own a copyright & the copyright law now allows it to be maintained until long after the death of the owner, the intent of copyright which was to allow the creator time to earn a profit before the creation was put out for recycling into further creative works, has been replaced by effectively permanent restriction.


RE: Patents help innovation?
By jbfields3 on 5/14/2007 3:34:20 PM , Rating: 1
The reason patent law was created was to protect individual inventors from more powerful companies. Creativity and innovation seldom happen by committee or corporate mandate. It depends upon individual efforts. Currently employers place employees at significant disadvantage concerning any claim they might have to an idea that providence may give them while employed. The employee is in no position to negotiate. Public policy needs to look at the state of patent law, especially as we may have seceded many of our perogatives to conform to international standards.


RE: Patents help innovation?
By TomZ on 5/14/2007 4:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
Your comments are rooted in a fantasy or romatic notion of invention, and not in reality. The reality is that a corporation employing tens of thousands of engineers is quite a bit more likely to come up with new inventions than you or I working individually. Not to mention considering that said corporations also employ people whose sole purpose is to work all day "inventing," whereas you (presumably) and I are working to earn a living in jobs that involve doing something with more tangible results in the short-term.

Second, I don't see where you get the idea that patents are intended to protect individuals from corporations. I think the patent system is rightly designed to treat all inventors equally, considering their capacity to pay for the protection.

Finally, as an employer, if I pay an employee's salary, and in the course of their work, inventions are created, I think it is perfectly reasonable for ownership those inventions to be assigned to the employer. Most employers even go a step further and pay a bonus to encourage more innovation. I don't see the problem that you describe with this situation. Do you think an employee should be able to own the IP they create while their time is being paid for by another? I just don't see it.


RE: Patents help innovation?
By Oregonian2 on 5/14/2007 5:00:37 PM , Rating: 1
Having worked in a very large company, in my experience innovation is unlikely. Large companies tend to get lazy, very slow moving with a LOT of management bureaucracy and nothing gets done, let alone innovation. Very risk adverse -- the opposite of what's needed for innovation. Innovation is primarily a thing done by small companies or startups to win against the stodgy large companies. Some large companies like Intel had been an exception due to the paranoid leaders and style of management (except for a period not long ago where they went into stodgy large company mode for a while). Advantage for large companies is the making of large projects that take a long time to do. But that's not "innovation" so much as just having a lot of resources. The first choice of "Work hard, Work smart". Those with limited resources HAVE to be innovative to succeed. Not mandatory for large companies (in the short term anyway).


RE: Patents help innovation?
By TomZ on 5/14/2007 5:57:00 PM , Rating: 1
Interesting point. I've mainly worked in smaller companies that were more focused on survival and not really able to fund innovation research, not to mention patent application costs.


RE: Patents help innovation?
By Ringold on 5/14/2007 6:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't done any research on this, but there's anecdotal evidence enough that I'll say you're right, but that it's not a case against the patent system.

Big corporations are becoming experts dealing with slashing costs in order to compete in the new global economy; the most valuable CEO seems to be one who is a king of squeezing every last bit of efficiency out of the large firm as is possible. The fact Bell Lab's will never again exist is due to many factors, one of which being that large firms can have problems with innovation and that basic science and whatnot can be done much more effectively at the university level and corporate R&D is more effectively spent turning innovation in to products.

When large firms need innovation, they don't seem too keen on producing it themselves; they buy tiny firms with a big idea but a failed implementation (or just a good idea and no business model at all), and then put it to work themselves, merging the new idea with the experience and means necessary to bring products to massive markets.

But that wouldn't work at all with weak IP laws. There'd be no reason for the small firms to take the risk of existing on the hope of a buy-out or big deal or commercial success if not for strong IP law.

By small firm I don't mean 1 inventor either, as someone else said, but it could be hundreds of people still.


RE: Patents help innovation?
By emboss on 5/15/2007 2:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
The benefit of a patent to innovation is more or less proportional to the required R&D dollars required to find out whatever is patented (excluding "flash of brilliance" ideas, which can be fixed by tacking an "average" in front of "required"). An idea that required significant R&D money to develop but can be copied easily wouldn't be developed nearly as quickly if it wasn't patentable. However, patents on ideas that anyone half-way competent in the field could think up over a lunch break stifle innovation.

A vast majority of software patents fall into the "low cost" bracket. A developer runs into a problem, the developer solves the problem over the next couple of days, and a patent application is filed (and often approved). This is completely different to (for example) many pharmaceutical patents, where the cost to develop the product is in the 7 or 8 (or 9?) figure range and takes many years.


RE: Patents help innovation?
By frobizzle on 5/14/2007 6:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
Patents promote innovation??????

Please! What sort of mindless diarrhea of the mouth is this? Let's see...Tabbed browsing...Mozilla had it, Firefox had it, Opera had it. Internet Explorer? Not until version 7. Built-in popup blocker...Mozilla had it, Firefox had it, Opera had it. Internet Explorer? Since I do not use it, I don't know if it even shows up in version 7.

Seems to me that Microsoft missed the boat on both of these browser enhancements and is only now trying to play catch up. So tell me, Mr. Ballmer, how did open source software (plus Opera which was not open source) come up with these innovations?


RE: Patents help innovation?
By Ringold on 5/14/2007 6:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
If I'm not mistaken, you took care of your own point. Opera, not being open source, had it first, which was then copied by the open-source Firefox, and then Internet Explorer.

It's nice to take examples with lower-cost software like a browser, but would SAP or other large companies pour billions of dollars in to specialized software that help companies of all sizes execute their businesses more effectively if they didn't expect that investment, that competitive advantage over other software companies, to be preserved by a patent? Hint: No. And certain types of software simply couldn't effectively be done by some computer science grads living in their parents basement, and not all kinds of software make since to be done OS in the way that IBM is making.

So sure, maybe web browsers could display pr0n in a better way if legions of code monkeys could do whatever they wanted. But software of the likes of Salesforce and others would hardly exist. There'd just be no profitable reason for it to.


RE: Patents help innovation?
By mars777 on 5/15/2007 6:43:35 AM , Rating: 1
You are incredibly narrow minded if you think that SAP makes more money than microsoft with a browser.

But thats not the point.
Why would you protect SAP or Microsoft in returning the money from the "specialized software that help companies of all sizes execute their businesses more effectively"?
I wouldn't, and there woudn't be specialized software from microsoft/SAP, but there would be specialized software from 300 other firms that want to return a bit of money and not half of that company earnings.

Software patents are there to cover up multimillion dollar companies and help them rpevent competition.

Do you ever ask yourself why aren't you driving a car that goes on water and does not pollute?
Because the government doesn't have a system to protect the investment of the multimillio dollar oil companies...

Then ask yourself why there are no software patents in Europe. And how the hell do they manage to return investements?

Software patents are a bad thing.
They hinder inventions more and more as time is passing.
Software ages months patents age 20 years.


RE: Patents help innovation?
By TomZ on 5/15/2007 2:19:41 PM , Rating: 1
Why do you think there are no software patents in Europe? The following articles say there are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_unde...

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/200...

Arguing against software patents makes no sense. There is no reason that software should be treated any different compared to any other intellectual property. It should have full protection in terms of trade secrets, copyrights, and patents. The only thing that should be eliminated is patents for "obvious" software inventions. This is already disallowed according to the law AFAIK, but in practice the issuing patent offices have done a poor job in enforcing this.


RE: Patents help innovation?
By Jack Ripoff on 5/15/2007 3:28:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"Arguing against software patents makes no sense. There is no reason that software should be treated any different compared to any other intellectual property."

If you read the essay I recommended you'd see there are a lot of good reasons.

But it looks like you have been reading too much "Get the facts" and spending too much time with Ballmer, because you already have a preconception that free software is socialism/communism.

I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise, it would be like yelling at a wall. Just nevermind, if you don't value your own freedom then I don't neither...


RE: Patents help innovation?
By frobizzle on 5/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: Patents help innovation?
By TomZ on 5/16/2007 8:51:00 AM , Rating: 1
Not really, I just don't buy into the whole "open source is holy" mantra. I think it's mostly a load of crap.


RE: Patents help innovation?
By SmokeRngs on 5/16/2007 10:18:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not really, I just don't buy into the whole "open source is holy" mantra. I think it's mostly a load of crap.


I would like a clarification of your second sentence. Are you saying open source is a load of crap or the idea "open source is holy" is crap?

Personally, I love the idea of open source software. I believe it spurs on innovation in a different way than closed source does. A single person or company (big or small) is not needed to develop a program or application. Many different people can do as much or as little as they want on development. It's not an ideal method for every situation but it has it's good points.

It also does not mean money cannot be made off of it. You can develop a module or a plugin for an existing piece of open source software and sell that. I don't believe it's required that your own software be open source if it works in conjunction with open source software. In most cases, you can distribute the open source software along with your paid for plugin or module just as long as you are not charging for the open source software.

Open source is not the end all be all development or production method. It just happens to be an alternative and it does work.


RE: Patents help innovation?
By mars777 on 5/16/2007 8:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Under the EPC, and in particular its Article 52, [1] "programs for computer" are not regarded as inventions for the purpose of granting European patents, [2] but this exclusion from patentability only applies to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to a computer program as such. [3] As a result of this partial exclusion, and despite the fact that the EPO subjects patent applications in this field to a much stricter scrutiny [4] when compared to their American counterpart, that does not mean that all inventions including some software are de jure not patentable.


quote:

The European Patent Convention (EPC), Article 52, paragraph 2, excludes from patentability, in particular
...

3. schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;


On the link you posted.
So the link you posted declares that 95% of US software patents are illegal in Europe.
Welldone :)


i kind of want to try linux
By rdeegvainl on 5/14/2007 2:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
This might be what pushes me over the edge, to try it before it becomes unavailable. always wanted to play around with it.




RE: i kind of want to try linux
By rrsurfer1 on 5/14/2007 2:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
Don't count on it becoming unavailable anytime EVER, even if this becomes a reality. Millions have the base source code and will not abandon it just because Microsoft litigates. What MS is trying to do here is keep more businesses away due to fear of litigation.


RE: i kind of want to try linux
By rdeegvainl on 5/14/2007 3:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
well i forgot to think about that, but this situation still makes me want to jump into linux somtime soon. Gonna have a spare laptop to do it on in a couple weeks.


RE: i kind of want to try linux
By darkpaw on 5/14/2007 3:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need a whole nother system to try messing around with it. www.vmware.com can get a free vm player or server and download a few different prebuilt machines.

I run Windows full time, but many of the speciality security tools I use for my job is Linux only. Virtulization is great for that.


RE: i kind of want to try linux
By rdeegvainl on 5/14/2007 3:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well i would rather have a system for it as long as i have multiple machines. Just so i could be running both at the exact same time. anyways


RE: i kind of want to try linux
By Mitch101 on 5/14/2007 4:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
Download Knoppix.
http://www.knoppix.org/

Its a bootable CD/DVD that loads linux from the CD/DVD without having to install it on your PC's hard drive. So you can use anyones computer without having to install the OS. It also have many popular programs already installed that will run from the CD/DVD.

It will run slower than if you had installed it to the hard drive but if your looking to play around without effecting your existing machine its a great way to do that.


RE: i kind of want to try linux
By darkpaw on 5/14/2007 4:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yah, I do use backtrack (which I think is based on knoppix) for some work. I like having it installed on a virtual partition for a lot of things though, mostly I can run it at the same time I'm using my windows based tools in another window.


RE: i kind of want to try linux
By Obadiah on 5/14/2007 6:33:00 PM , Rating: 1
Linux and Free software aren't going away. Neither European nor most Asian patent law recognize software patents. Microsoft doesn't even have a chance of generating FUD outside of the USA. And in terms of getting access, as long as the internet exists, outside of the USA might as well be the same as inside of the USA.


RE: i kind of want to try linux
By TomZ on 5/14/2007 8:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Neither European nor most Asian patent law recognize software patents.


I'm not an expert in the field, so you may need to correct some of these Wikipedia articles, since they seem to think that Europe and Aisa (Japan at least) recognize software patents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_unde...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent

I'm not saying that I think software patents are a good thing, I'm just saying your characteristization of the global scope of software patents is wrong.


RE: i kind of want to try linux
By Obadiah on 5/15/2007 3:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not an expert in the field, so you may need to correct some of these Wikipedia articles,
You are right and you are wrong. You are right that you are not an expert in the field and you are wrong that I may need to correct the cited wikipedia articles. Why are you wrong? Because the articles are entirely consistent with my statement.

From the first link: The European Patent Convention (EPC), Article 52, paragraph 2, excludes from patentability, in particular... programs for computers; the rest of the article goes on to document a couple of errant cases where the judge diverged from the norm and to explain that software that is part of a larger process or method can be patented as a whole.

For example - the zip data compression algorithm is excluded, but using zip as part of the larger process of digital transport of films to theaters would not be excluded (at least not because it is software).

As the issue under discussion is pure software patents (those are the type of patents MS allege's Linux to be violating, and is also the current source of the majority of software patent problems in the USA) these facts are entirely inline with my point.

From the second link, Japan and Australia have software patentability. India, China (and independently) Malayasia, Singapore, Taiwan and Korea do not.

So, as anyone reading along can see, the links you posted completely support my statement that:
quote:
Neither European nor most Asian patent law recognize software patents.


Kaboom!
By Mitch101 on 5/14/2007 1:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
Its sad to say but I think Linux is doomed at this point especially in the buisness sector because with a lawsuits flying its very risky for managers to sign off on potential applications that may not be supported when a company cannot legally finance the defence needed to combat something like this. Simply put Free distro's dont generate enough revenue to support thier litigation. Not many free attorneys out there that could support financing this also. Any existing attorneys I feel would just be picking the meat off the bones of any supporting linux distro's in defense.

I like linux but I didnt really see them as this much of a threat to have Microsoft go this route. But then if they are violating patents I can understand why they would do this.

Amiga OS anyone? Im not sure how to feel I am looking forward to everyone elses statements and feelings on this but I feel a flame war of cursing is on its way.




RE: Kaboom!
By zsouthboy on 5/14/2007 3:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you think opponents of open source software *prefer* that it appear that said software is legally murky?


RE: Kaboom!
By cochy on 5/14/2007 4:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
I really think you are underestimating the situation from a Linux point of view. Linux has very large companies as major backers who have invested millions into open-source. IBM, Novell. As someone pointed out earlier, MS probably won't want to get into a huge patent war against these companies. Linux is already hugely established over in Europe in the business sector. You're right about one thing, Linux is becoming or should be a pretty big concern of MS's. The open-source community is very innovative, and very committed to their work. This is the future of software, I promise you. Just look at how fast open-source is growing, it's scary.


RE: Kaboom!
By Oregonian2 on 5/14/2007 5:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
You may have something! Perhaps uSoft is attacking the EU folk? Threatening their Linux if EU doesn't back off threatening them with large fines, etc?


RE: Kaboom!
By Obadiah on 5/14/2007 6:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You may have something! Perhaps uSoft is attacking the EU folk? Threatening their Linux if EU doesn't back off threatening them with large fines, etc?

No. Because linux is not "their linux" it is everybody's linux. Furthermore, software patents have no validity in the EU. Thus whatever MS comes up with based on software patents will have no impact on linux users and developers in the EU.


RE: Kaboom!
By Oregonian2 on 5/14/2007 9:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
I don't mean "their" in the sense of singularly owning it. I mean in terms of their using it, and more specifically some of the particular releases. I suspect most IT departments and governments in the EU don't use their own in-house "from scratch" releases.

If Microsoft were to eliminate the Red Hat company (and their releases) along with any other such company that does business in a place where Microsoft can sue them into bankrupcy, you say that will have no effect whatsoever upon Linux use among businesses and governments in the EU? If so, then "never mind", it was just a thought that came to mind. Not a vendetta that I was on. So cool down.

In any case I don't think Microsoft cares diddly-squat about Linux developers, only those who use Linux in place of purchasing a Microsoft product.


RE: Kaboom!
By Obadiah on 5/15/2007 4:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't mean "their" in the sense of singularly owning it. I mean in terms of their using it, and more specifically some of the particular releases. I suspect most IT departments and governments in the EU don't use their own in-house "from scratch" releases.
So what? It isn't like proprietary software where there is only one company that can provide support because no one else knows the inner workings. My original point still stands - Free software is owned by everyone and that applies to all aspects of ownership. Taking out Redhat doesn't mean the Redhat installation on some server stops working, nor that any and all expertise in how Redhat works will disappear.

At the very worst - MS asserts their software patents and is able to force linux distributors in the USA out of business - the American linux companies will just move offshore in one form or another and sell their services where MS patents don't apply.

quote:
Not a vendetta that I was on. So cool down.
Calm down drama queen, you must have read something that wasn't there.

quote:
In any case I don't think Microsoft cares diddly-squat about Linux developers, only those who use Linux in place of purchasing a Microsoft product.
MS cares about anything that impacts sales. Without linux developers there would be no linux to hurt their sales, without linux distributors there would be no linux to hurt their sales.

MS's goal is not to "enforce their intellectual property rights" as they say, it is to maximize profit. If FUD about software patents helps them achieve that goal, then they will use it against whomever and wherever they think it will make a difference.


RE: Kaboom!
By Oregonian2 on 5/16/2007 5:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Taking out Redhat doesn't mean the Redhat installation on some server stops working, nor that any and all expertise in how Redhat works will disappear.


No, but big businesses (ones that are out to make money with their own products) aren't generally interested in playing IT wars. FUD is very effective with them. That's the reason that companies like Redhat even exist or get any revenue . If Redhat disappeared, so would most commercial IT usage of their former releases (as soon as practical). It's Redhat's existence that gives their distribution legitimacy for the corporate world. That the expertise still exists isn't relevant unless it's in a reliable commercial enterprise. Companies don't want to bet their company on the promotion of Linux. Not their business, they're just customers who want reliable commercial support.


RE: Kaboom!
By wien on 5/14/2007 6:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
That would be rather pointless since their patents mean diddly squat there. The EU doesn't have software patents. Well, not yet anyway.


what a wierd pic
By venny on 5/14/2007 2:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
whos that ugly guy with the tongue sticking out! is that to say that linux is gonna spite ms? lol




RE: what a wierd pic
By Tuan Nguyen on 5/14/2007 3:20:33 PM , Rating: 3
That would be Microsoft's CEO, Steve Ballmer.


RE: what a wierd pic
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/14/2007 7:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
In case anyone missed it the first time:

http://kristopher.us/2007/05/definitive-ballmer.ht...


RE: what a wierd pic
By GoatMonkey on 5/15/2007 1:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's hard to believe that that goofball is one of the leaders of one of the most powerful companies in the world. But it's clear that there are three reasons he got there: developers, developers, developers.


RE: what a wierd pic
By CyborgTMT on 5/15/2007 8:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
It's specious at best
By darrellblackhawk on 5/14/2007 3:20:16 PM , Rating: 1
All this hullabaloo by Microsoft is specious at best. They've co-opted so many software concepts from so many sources, that it's almost impossible to take them seriously - except one has to. I for one like a lot of Microsoft's innovations - but are they really Microsoft innovations or the work of someone they mimicked, hired, or bought out? I think the later. The Mouse? From Apple via Xerox parc! The GUI? From Apple via Xerox parc! Shall I go on? I thought not. Oh why not. Back-stabbing Steve Jobs who back-stabbed the people at Xerox parc. Well at least in Jobs case it can be argued that members at parc gave away the family jewels. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphi... To be absolutely fair, much of Microsoft’s innovations were created at Microsoft by Microsoft employees during their tenure at Microsoft – whew! Being a software engineer myself, I use Microsoft’s products all of the time in my work and can appreciate much of their innovative processes. :-) I also use UNIX and Linux. All that said... I believe in software patents when they benefit me and freedom from them when it benefits me. I'm selfish - So sue me! :-)




RE: It's specious at best
By killerroach on 5/14/2007 4:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the computer industry as it is was built by people ripping others off. Jobs ripped off PARC, and Gates, to get the basis for DOS, ripped off an aging hippie (who held the rights to CPM).

Not that I'm unsympathetic to property rights, but overbroad or overvague patents ought to be struck down by courts, not upheld and given incentives through lawsuits. Is it just me, or is "lawsuit" now a legitimate revenue stream for the modern business?


RE: It's specious at best
By frobizzle on 5/14/2007 6:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, the computer industry as it is was built by people ripping others off. Jobs ripped off PARC, and Gates, to get the basis for DOS, ripped off an aging hippie (who held the rights to CPM).

Try reading the previous post before spewing your BS! Jobs did not rip off the GUI and mouse from PARC - they were handed to him! Xerox myopically saw no reason to utilize these things (outside of their own internal OS, Globalview (or Viewpoint as it was known in those days.)) They viewed home PCs as little more than an expensive fad that would quickly peter out. Just one in a long series of corporate blunders!


You show me yours and I'll show you mine.
By SiliconAddict on 5/14/2007 9:12:30 PM , Rating: 3
$10 says there is open source code in Windows. Hell lets say $50. Ain't M.A.D great? I'm pretty sure MS would make up some new great excuse not to show it though....For national security reasons we can't release it...scramble, scramble, scramble...ummm we can't find it...delete key, delete key, delete key. We've got it here somewhere....*whispers*Come on guys type faster!*whisper*




By GoatMonkey on 5/16/2007 10:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
If there is any, it ain't open source anymore.

You know that MS developers get code samples off of the internet too. It's common practice these days, not reinventing the wheel and all that. And you can bet that some of those code samples are from an open source project from somewhere.


Hasn't this been tried before?
By tdawg on 5/14/2007 2:04:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property. [The open source community will have to] play by the same rules as the rest of the business. What's fair is fair," Ballmer said.


In the immortal words of Eddie Izzard:

"We claim this country for Britain"
"You can't claim it, we live here"
"Do you have a flag?...No flag, no country!"

I use various Microsoft products including Vista and Office (partly because I get them cheap from connections with people at Microsoft) and enjoy their products for the most part, but the way companies buy up patents and then protect them with reckless abandon needs to be changed. I know their are companies that exist solely on this process of buying up IP patents and then bringing lawsuits against people they feel are infringing on them.




Weary?
By PrinceGaz on 5/14/2007 4:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Industry insiders are now weary of what may come of Microsoft's experts...


I assume it should be wary, unless the industry insiders are actually tired of Microsoft's experts.




RE: Weary?
By frobizzle on 5/14/2007 6:25:50 PM , Rating: 1
LOL! I think both may be applicable!


By crystal clear on 5/15/2007 3:12:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Microsoft wants to strike a deal -- a deal with those developing and distributing Linux and other vendors of free software. The deal Microsoft wants is simple: pay up

I think MS has other intentions-rather than just pay up-
quote:
Some commentators, such as Microsoft Watch Editor Joe Wilcox, believe that Microsoft could use the "tacit threat of a patent-related lawsuit as means of keeping in line customers already committed to swap out Office or Windows for open-source alternatives."

The above is the real reason.
If it was so simple as that "just pay up" MS would have gone to Court & not the PRESS.
The very fact they approach the press means its not "pay up"
quote:
He also provided eWEEK with a prepared statement from Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft's vice president of intellectual property and licensing, in which Gutierrez said: "Even the founder of the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman, noted last year that Linux infringes well over 200 patents from multiple companies. The real question is not whether there exist substantial patent infringement issues, but what to do about them.


Note this-"The real question is not whether there exist substantial patent infringement issues, but what to do about them."

So WHAT TO ABOUT THEM !
quote:
Any customer that is concerned about Linux IP [intellectual property] issues needs only to obtain their open-source subscriptions from Novell," Gutierrez said.

Now you know what they have in mind.
quote:
Microsoft is not yet saying exactly what it plans to do about these violations. "The company's longstanding preference is to license rather than litigate, and Microsoft's work over the past three years to build a bridge with open source is a result of that commitment. The November agreement with Novell addresses the IP issues in open source while meeting both the distributor's needs and, more importantly, the needs of the customer," the spokesman told eWEEK


Now add on the below to the above-
quote:
Hewlett-Packard, Novell and Red Hat, however, have all moved to protect their enterprise Linux customers. HP was the first to do so, announcing in September 2004 that it will indemnify its customers against any legal liability from the use of Linux.


Conclusion-They MS wants to reorganize/restructore the way Linus is distributed.
It wants to delete "FREE" from "Free Software"

Source-
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2129408,00.as...

Microsoft takes on the free world

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_arc...




Unfair competition
By jbfields3 on 5/14/2007 3:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
This sounds to me like an attempt of a monopoly to restrain competition and free trade. Time for the Federal Government to again get involved to help ensure that they and all others have viable economic and non-proprietary choices for how business may be conducted. Nevermind the EU. Meanwhile, why don't we make an example by boycotting RIA labels?




By thepinkpanther on 5/14/2007 9:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
There comes a point in every area where the patent system is going from protecting peoples ideas to just forcing monopoly on certain markets.

Actually IBM has some patents that is so universal that it would mean anybody.

Imagine you could patent a car.....great...not good for competion.

Patent system needs to be thrown in the wastepaper basket. Design patents should apply but most technical patents should only have a very short time frame.




Microsoft: Reagan-esque?
By Treripica on 5/15/2007 7:40:55 AM , Rating: 2
Just color commentary here, but isn't the idea of MS collecting royalties kind of like the drug taxes many fed, state, and local govt's have on the books?

Wouldn't a patent war be quite similar to Reagan's "War on Drugs"? It just seems that despite how well kept and oiled MS's money machine is, I just don't think they have enough to kill linux off or make it irrelevant.




Hmm No one with photoshop skills?
By Mitch101 on 5/15/2007 4:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
Im surprised no one has taken the Balmer photo and painted Gene Simmons make up onto it. I guess the DailyTech members are too young to remember KISS. Or Im too old.




The Pot Calling the Kettle Black
By askorte on 5/15/07, Rating: 0
By GoatMonkey on 5/16/2007 10:55:22 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know, they usually pay for other people's ideas now. I'm sure they've done it in the past though.


Fair enough
By Some1ne on 5/15/2007 7:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'd consider the Microsoft suits to be a fair answer to the whole GNU GPL concept of "copyleft". Not so much "fair" in the sense of "it logically follows" so much as in the sense of "serves (parts of) the open-source community right (specifically, the GNU GPL using parts)".

Open source is fine, but the people who decided to carry it through to the point of saying "well I want my source code to be open and freely available, but nobody can use it if they are building a closed-source application, and anyone who uses it must open-source their code" went too far, and I'm just happy to see some of them getting into a bit of trouble themselves, especially after past lawsuits (or threatened lawsuits) that have killed interesting closed-source applications by claiming that they violated the "license" terms of GNU GPL software that they used.




Cruel and Unusual...
By SleepNoMore on 5/15/2007 10:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
Did you have to post his picture? Please...




Interesting
By cheetah2k on 5/14/2007 10:34:01 PM , Rating: 1
Now that Dell has the option to offer Ubuntu Linux on their systems, M$ makes their move seeing the beautiful gold gravey pot at the end of the rainbow...

It really rings true now that M$ are trying to end up... "The One OS to Rule Them All"




I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By Spivonious on 5/14/07, Rating: -1
By rrsurfer1 on 5/14/2007 2:04:43 PM , Rating: 5
Ummm... yea but Microsoft has "stolen" plenty of things from UNIX as well. This is a ridiculous attempt by Microsoft to attempt to halt the growing high-quality FREE alternatives to it's products. Look at this quote from Gates himself:

Gates: “And through Windows NT, you can see it throughout the design. In a weak sense, it is a form of Unix. There are so many of the design decisions that have been influenced by that environment. And that’s no accident.”


By Breagerey on 5/14/2007 2:25:53 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Windows 95 added in the taskbar, complete with the Start button menu. Soon after, Gnome and KDE and all of the other Linux GUIs added a similar feature.

And the task bar in 95 was a blatant rip off of Apple's applicaiton bar in MacOS.
This really just points out why software patents are silly (as opposed to copyrights)

As for open source not encouraging innovation, you really don't need to look much further than web based apps to show this.... PHP, Apache, Mysql... not to mention all of the open source scientific apps.
Or something as basic as perl, which has encouraged innovation in a plethora of fields.


RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By smitty3268 on 5/14/2007 2:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure linux window managers had a start-menu type thing for ages before windows did. It was primitive and only popped up when you right-clicked on the desktop, but improving it like MS did is hardly "innovative and non-obvious" which is a requirement for a patent.

The taskbar is perhaps a better example, but as someone else said Microsoft ripped that off from Apple.


RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By TomZ on 5/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By Breagerey on 5/14/2007 3:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AFAIK, Apple didn't have any kind of taskbar in Macs before Win95 came out.


The application bar was a part of the first Mac in 1984 (actually Apple was using it prior to this on the Lisa).


RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By TomZ on 5/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By Jack Ripoff on 5/14/2007 6:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
Mac System 7 was introduced in 1991 and featured an application bar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Macintosh_Syste...

As far as a I can remember, NeXT's NEXTSTEP (1994?) sported an application bar as well and CDE for Unix (1995) already had something like a taskbar.


By Obadiah on 5/14/2007 6:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
Twm - Tom's Window Manager - on unix had an "Icon Manager" since at least 1990 (that's the earliest mention of it on usenet via google groups). Since the Icon Manager was just another window, you could put it anywhere on the screen you wanted. In that sense, Win98's taskbar was just a reduced functionality Icon Manager, at least 8 years later.


RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By TomZ on 5/14/2007 8:55:03 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, I must be blind, but I still don't see a "taskbar."

A taskbar is the thing that runs across the bottom of the screen that tells you all your active programs and lets you select them, close them, etc. I don't see that in this screen shot.


By Jack Ripoff on 5/14/2007 9:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well, this one doesn't run accross the bottom of the screen. It tells you all your active programs and lets you select them thou.

CDE's taskbar was a bit closer to what would appear on Windows 95 nevertheless (but with more features). Don't have a screenshot here to show you thou :(


By BladeVenom on 5/14/2007 9:24:21 PM , Rating: 3
Arthur operating system had one in 1987. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_%28operating_s...


RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By Urbanos on 5/14/2007 3:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
it wouldn't suprise me if 'all of a sudden' microsoft decides to really push it to linux, considering dell has now undertaken the opportunity to provide linux in their systems as an alternative to windows..

likely not a sole reason, but i'm sure that's just another thorn in MS' side to get up and growl


RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By FastLaneTX on 5/15/2007 12:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
MS put a lot of funding into the SCO lawsuit. Now that the copyright angle has pretty much folded, they are going after the patent angle themselves.


RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By TomZ on 5/15/2007 2:13:00 PM , Rating: 1
That is pure speculation; there is no proof that Microsoft had anything to do with the SCO lawsuit.


RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By TomZ on 5/15/2007 5:22:58 PM , Rating: 1
does not indicate any actual money was paid by Microsoft
Pulled from your linked article. Maybe you overlooked that part. When I said "evidence," I meant it in the sense of "fact" and not speculation.

So "Linux Watch" is the source of your Kool-Aid. Interesting.


By Jack Ripoff on 5/15/2007 6:03:29 PM , Rating: 1
Now putting that back into context:

quote:
"Allonn E. Levy, litigation attorney with Hopkins & Carley in San Jose, Calif., said, 'Although the declaration does not indicate any actual money was paid by Microsoft, it does suggest that the software behemoth was operating behind the scenes, employing its extensive industry contacts, in an apparent effort to help SCO finance its lawsuits. Certainly, Microsoft has an obvious interest in promoting the lawsuits since the lawsuits are seen as an effort to undermine the legitimacy of the Linux Operating system -- widely viewed as the only remaining viable competitor to Microsoft's Operating System.'"


Then you consider just for a moment Microsoft's pretty dirty record and everything gets clear.

What is really interesting is I can't seem to find where does your kool-aid come from, since I simply can't understand what you get defending something that is not beneficial for anyone, with the exception of a multi-billionaire company.

Is there a community of monopolistic software vendor apologists who like to give away their freedom? Are you an employee of the company trying to fuzz the issue? Is this simply human nature to not criticize the powerful? Who knows...


RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By Obadiah on 5/15/2007 5:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is pure speculation; there is no proof that Microsoft had anything to do with the SCO lawsuit.
No evidence at all, except for testimony in court under oath by the managing general partner of the investment firm that Microsoft persuaded him to invest $50M in SCO.

http://www.computerwire.com/industries/research/?p...


RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By TomZ on 5/15/2007 5:31:55 PM , Rating: 1
It says pretty clearly in that article also that "the guarantee was never provided." So Microsoft is somehow related because a Microsoft employee said they would or might guarantee the investment, which they never did, and because the investment happened anyway, that constitutes Microsoft's "involvement"? That's quite a stretch.

Did it ever occur to you that the partner making this statement might be engaging in a little CYA, spinning a tale, since he was apparently responsible for the complete loss of the $50M investment?


By Obadiah on 5/15/2007 6:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It says pretty clearly in that article also that "the guarantee was never provided."
Yer spinning in the wind tommy boy. It said MS promised the guarantee and that they reneged - and once they reneged Baystar tried to pull their money out. Do not try to spin it as if they never promised it in the first place.

quote:
Did it ever occur to you that the partner making this statement might be engaging in a little CYA, spinning a tale, since he was apparently responsible for the complete loss of the $50M investment?
Did it ever occur to you that such a lie a would be perjury and that that no one, from MS, SCO or elsewhere, have denied the points under oath? That in fact MS practically admitted to making the promise by issuing a denial statement that did not actually deny that key point? That a memo from within SCO, released to the public two years earlier said substantially the same thing as Goldfarb's testimony, also receiving the same non-denial denial from MS at the time?

In either case, it is abundantly clear "that Microsoft had plenty to do with the SCO lawsuit" -- three people specifically:

1) Richard Emerson - MS VP of Corporate Development and Strategy
2) Kenneth Lustig - MS Managing Director of Intellectual Property
3) Tivanka Ellawala of MS's Corporate Development Department.

These three people introduced Baystar to SCO and ultimately encouraged Baystar to invest the $50M that ultimately went to paying for SCO's legal fees.


RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By PC Repair Guy on 5/14/2007 3:20:06 PM , Rating: 4
This is true- Open Source software often does clone commercial software to provide a free alternative. Open Office is a free 'rip-off' to MS Office. But what about Corel's Word Perfect Office? That's the same thing, but they charge money. But if you look at software such as Firefox and Thunderbird, those are superior to Microsoft's offerings, and Microsoft was suddenly cloning open source features. Then you get into stuff like, 'well isn't Open GL a DirectX ripoff'? Or look at Microsoft's new Sparkle. That's a rip off of Adobe's Flash, but you don't see Adobe throwing a hissy fit (yet...). People copying other people is how innovation works. One person creates an idea, and another person emulates that and improves upon it, and the process repeats itself, going back and forth.
This will be an interesting battle, considering that all of the computers the courts are working on no doubt have a linux backbone.


By zombiexl on 5/14/2007 3:28:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or look at Microsoft's new Sparkle. That's a rip off of Adobe's Flash, but you don't see Adobe throwing a hissy fit (yet...).


Not sure its the same thing or a sparkle replacement, but isnt it silverlight now?

In any case technically its a cross platform web browser embedable technology like flash, but then again java applets existed many years ago and before flash MS had embeded activeX. While activeX was a huge failure (on the web) technically it existed and worked.


By Jack Ripoff on 5/14/2007 6:44:26 PM , Rating: 1
I suggest you take a look at some really innovative opensource software like KOffice, Metisse, Chandler, Blender, Mezzo, Ruby, Enlightenment, Linux (the kernel itself), Qt, etc.

PS: OpenGL predates Direct3D.


RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By Jack Ripoff on 5/14/2007 6:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
“...proprietary source code at the infrastructure level can actually make it much harder for other players to enter the market. So if anything, open source is what makes capitalism in software possible at all. Without open source, you´d have just a set of monopolies: effectively, economic feudalism”

Linus Torvalds


RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By TomZ on 5/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By Jack Ripoff on 5/14/2007 8:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
Just read the goddamn essay with no preconceptions about it, OK?

It's not like I'm quoting Richard Stallman because I think he's God. I don't. In fact I disagree with his view that proprietary software is evil and immoral. I just prefer free software because if something goes wrong I can fix it (or ask someone to). I'm quoting the man because I find it much simpler to do it than to re-writing something that has already been written.

As for Linus Torvalds, he isn't God either. But he's close ;)


RE: I hate to say it, but I agree with MS
By TomZ on 5/14/2007 8:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
I've read Stallman's views before, and I agree with him as much as I agree with Communism or Socialism.

I've also used a lot of open source code in the past, and I'm sorry but the "I can fix it myself" is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. From a practical perspective, only people with copious amounts of time on their hands can really get into the source, make meaningful changes, recompile, and maintain their patches. For the rest of the world who have a "real job" that needs to get done, open source is the biggest time-waster and productivity-killer there is. The only time that open source makes sense is "when it just works." So that means staying with the most super common use cases (e.g., compile C code with GCC on Linux). Anything outside of this, and the cost of commercial software is well worth the value.


By Jack Ripoff on 5/14/2007 9:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
As I said, I like opensource software because I can fix it. If you can't , well, then that doesn't hold true for you then. Free software has many other advantages thou, and is far from being a "productivity-killer" as you say.

http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html

quote:
"I've read Stallman's views before, and I agree with him as much as I agree with Communism or Socialism."

Now that's a preconception.


I find this offensive
By bupkus on 5/15/07, Rating: -1
Who is Microsoft to cry foul?
By askorte on 5/15/07, Rating: -1
not likely
By lester2007 on 5/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: not likely
By thebrown13 on 5/14/2007 2:46:45 PM , Rating: 1
wut?


RE: not likely
By lester2007 on 5/14/2007 4:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yes, the robot comment: comes from a message you get from this website when you post. LOL - I think whatever mechanism the webmasters use to determine whether or not a post is done by a human or a robot needs some FINE TUNING. Nice work guys.


RE: not likely
By Tuan Nguyen on 5/14/2007 3:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
I was reporting on Microsoft's plans on obtaining royalties so I'm not sure I quite understand exactly what you're trying to say here.


RE: not likely
By TomZ on 5/14/2007 4:22:48 PM , Rating: 3
The problem is that you assume all readers/posters are sober. Clearly certain posts shows this to not be true. :o)


RE: not likely
By lester2007 on 5/14/2007 4:49:30 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry Daily Tech I am not a robot. Furthermore this M$ / Linux razamatazz is just so much jimmy-jiggle. Old news -- last year. SCO pretty much set the stage for this lawyer finagaling... its a real laugh when the non-tech try and techspeak their way to fame and fortune. So does Bill own the finger motions I use to push the right mouse button or what? Maybe he and Al G. invented the internet, no wait, maybe stored information, heck why stop there, implication and craftily applied legalese tally forth -- what HO!! They own the process of rational thought. In fact, maybe since I use the word Windows in my mind maybe I need to license the synapse's that store that info or NOT.

Woa Tommy-- No reason to make personal assumptions. Let me 'splain it so you can understand: All this talk from Microsoft about *enforcing* patents is static. They pursue earning money, not spending it in provable legal sinkholes. If you reaaaaly think that Bill Gates and crew didn't stand on a few shoulders (Check Isaac Newton for the meaning of that) you joined the game a bit late. Too obscure for you still? Plainly; Windows didn't come out of a vacuum -- wasn't the first or the most innovative OS on the block -- works OK, and is marketed well, so it IS the most popular -- that won't cut any ice when you try and prove patent infringement.


RE: not likely
By lester2007 on 5/14/2007 4:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
It WAS an interesting report. My comment is regarding the use of a news item to further commercial interest. Is Microsoft going the way of SCO and begging press by specious legal threats -- I don't think so either... but do they really intend to pursue this... tip: good followup story op.


RE: not likely
By cybersirf on 5/14/2007 7:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
Why doesn't Linux have something similar to Directx? so companies can make games that will run directly on linux.


RE: not likely
By Jack Ripoff on 5/14/2007 8:41:38 PM , Rating: 1
Like Allegro, SDL, OpenGL, OpenAL, OpenML, etc?


RE: not likely
By cybersirf on 5/14/2007 9:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
This replay is what I'm talking about. There needs to 1 single Graphics API built into linux and it should be used by all linux distributers. That way it can be updated easily and will become better then directx in the long run.


RE: not likely
By floffe on 5/15/2007 6:48:39 AM , Rating: 2
OpenGL is cross-platform, and ships with the linux drivers for graphics cards. OpenAL is for sound, and used by for example Quake4, Doom3, the UT series on windows, and in some cases on linux too. The linux versions of Quake4/Doom3 use the native-to-linux ALSA instead.


2 things
By FITCamaro on 5/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: 2 things
By zsouthboy on 5/14/2007 3:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
That's some fine illogical commenting there, Lou.

OMG did you know that most cars have a steering wheel?!

They must be ripping off the poor first guy to invent it!


RE: 2 things
By FITCamaro on 5/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: 2 things
By Amiga500 on 5/15/2007 5:23:52 AM , Rating: 2
Yeap, so, are microsoft gonna try and sue for use of the left mouse button?

Or, are you saying that Linux should have front and back mouse buttons instead of left and right?

Its already been shown that taskbars were around before Microsoft used them. I am 95% sure that it was Lotus that introduced the spreadsheet with graphical functions. Excel later added improved GUI interaction [ which is exactly like the steering wheel on the car, a means of control, not functionality ].


RE: 2 things
By TomZ on 5/15/2007 9:05:43 AM , Rating: 2
What does any of this discussion have to do with software patents and IP licensing???


The road ahead.
By Jared on 5/15/07, Rating: -1
Lame
By Alexstarfire on 5/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Lame
By TomZ on 5/14/2007 11:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft has been profitable every quarter since forever. What the heck are you smoking?


RE: Lame
By Alexstarfire on 5/15/2007 12:22:15 AM , Rating: 1
Just because they are profitable doesn't mean they aren't doing badly. Man, that sounds really stupid doesn't it. If you take out the OS department everything else has lost money: Zune, xBox 360, probably xBox, etc have all been losing money. The only reason they are even afloat is because the OS department does very strong. It's not like it won't remain that way until the end of time. They monopolize the OS market. Don't give me the Linux crap either cause Linux has too many different builds to become a strong player. If they choose one build and go from there then they can start taking over.


RE: Lame
By mars777 on 5/18/2007 1:18:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If they choose one build and go from there then they can start taking over


Would you agree that somebody chooses a television model/brand instead of you?

Don't be silly its YOU that must choose one distro and stick to it.

I've chosen Ubuntu.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki