Authored by: chaz_paw on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:43 AM EDT

Corrections, if any, here, please.



---

Proud Linux user since 07/26/04

Registered Linux user #422376



Charles [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: MDT on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:45 AM EDT

Clickies if you have them



---

MDT [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Toon Moene on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:51 AM EDT

If you can call it an offer. "Nice restaurant you've got here. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it." I'm sorry, but I'm still more impressed by the following: Dino: How many tanks you got, Colonel? Colonel: About 500 altogether. Luigi: 500! Hey! Dino: You ought to be careful, co1onel. Colonel: We are careful, extremely careful. Dino: 'Cos things break, don't they? Colonel: Break? Luigi: Well everything breaks, don't it colonel. (he breaks something on desk) Oh dear. ... ---

Toon Moene (A GNU Fortran maintainer and physicist at large) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:55 AM EDT

Wikipedia Quote: A protection racket is an extortion scheme whereby a powerful

organization, most often a criminal organization or gang coerces individuals,

other criminals or businesses to pay protection money which allegedly serves to

purchase the organization's "protection" services against various

external threats.



Hmmm no legitimate company would stoop that low?...

... oh... wait...



---

Linus: "The bulk of all patents are crap...

Spending time reading them is stupid...

It's up to the patent owner to do so, and to enforce them."

:p [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:01 PM EDT

Those few that purchased an SCOsource license, should be pushing SCO to sue

Microsoft, saying it is damaging to "their IP" in Linux.



How's that for Irony? [ Reply to This | # ]



More like poetic justice - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 06:02 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:01 PM EDT

lest everyone forget,



Novell indemnifies its customers also,



in fact, they were the first,

Red Hat is just playing copy-cat. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Tweeker on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:08 PM EDT

If Microsoft isnt willing to sue (and has now even said as much), how can it force "alliances" and licensing from anyone willing to call its blatant bluff? Sun Responds to Microsoft's Patent Claims [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: magikfingerz on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:25 PM EDT

Excuse me if I sound so negative but, since I read This Article describing how Novell's Engineers have access to Microsoft's Code, I'm continuously thinking: What if MS is trying to somebody "accidentally" introduce some of his "protected code" to Linux kernel?... or at least to some key apps what Novell maintains (remember OpenOffice? Novell is one of the maintainers) letting Engineers to see their code. They alleged that is part of the arrangement between Novell and MS but, if this happens... What we will do when the agreement ends? MS will sue for sure if any of this Engineers adds at least a bit of this code protected by Microsoft to some of the apps. Of course if this happens we will know who and when do this and we will remove the code almost immediately, but in the meantime nobody will save us from Microsoft's wrath and FUD will rise the sky... :( PD. Sorry about my English... I speak Spanish :) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:30 PM EDT

A recent article raised the question of waivers when you know about infringements and don't sue. With an annual be afraid tour, don't we have a pattern that would justify waiver? The thought of a mega corporation like Microsoft investing millions in a patent portfolio just to make it go poof into a puff of smoke makes my head go dizzy. IANAL, and I have more question than answers here. Q1: What does it take to make the waiver incontrovertible and legally indisputable? I think Microsoft will dispute the waiver and makes all sorts of excuse to keep the FUD going. But if we dig out case law and document that Microsoft actions meet the standard for the waiver ... Q2: Did Microsoft actions meet the standard for waiver? We have a quote database, why not fill it? Perhaps we should go year by year document the annual be afraid tour, what what said and what the response was. We have, OIN. We have the GPL2 and GPL3. Why not have a track record for a waiver defense as well? Q3: Doesn't a corporation has an obligation to watch the competition and protect its flagship products? When the bulk of your revenues come from a few products, you have an obligation to know who your main competition is, isn't it? You are required as part of your responsibilities to shareholders to see what they are doing and find out about patent infringement, isn't it? If after finding out you don't do anything, this should be a waiver, isn't it? Q4: Is mutual assured destruction a waiver or in the alternative promissory estoppel? We all know large software patents portfolio are not used for suing. They are used to countersue in case someone is mad enough to sue. But if the entire industry doesn't sue for years because of MAD, doesn't this become an implicit covenant that can be used in court? Q5: Is all the above like waving a red flag in front of a raging bull? This amounts to tell Microsoft that if they don't sue fast enough, their entire patent portfolio will go poof in a puff of smoke. What do you expect them to do? But if on the other hand they still don't sue after being waved the red flag ... Q6: If businesses have the choice between mutual assured destruction and waving their patent portfolio, what is the point of software patents? Patent as supposed to promote useful art and science don't they? If they can't be enforced without destroying their owners, what good are they for? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:43 PM EDT

Not to be a troll, but it seems to me that a lot of the crowing in this article

hinges on the phrase "court validated".



What does it take to get a patent "court validated"? Survive a

challenge to the patent itself? Something else? If it has to be challenged in

court, I would think the vast majority of patents would not fall under that

label.



And court validated or not, a patent lawsuit is not something an individual

developer can withstand on his own. Unless, perhaps, it's Linus. And even

then...



I would like to know: Are there any legal defense organizations that would

support patent infringement cases against open source developers? A weak

defense might very well set precedents we would rather not see, so best we take

care and make a strong one, come the day. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:49 PM EDT

Eben Moglen in his statements above really proves

that Novell's plan is working.



why do I say that? because the whole idea was to get Microsoft to push it too

far, and get all those banks, other major corporations to push back, and force

Microsoft into the position it now finds itself.



it's the perfect plan.

If Microsoft proceeds to sue anyone or make threats (now that they've stated

they won't) they look like idiots and lose credibility and they lose



if Microsoft gives in and does nothing, they lose again.



There's no way out.



And the best part is, Novell laughs all the way to the bank with the hundreds of

millions they've taken from Microsoft.



And in the end opensource, the GPL, and we all win.



Novell are crafty little devils. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:53 PM EDT

The Fortune article is quite specific that they are talking about patents owned by Microsoft, rather than just about patents that Linux may violate: "The Redmond behemoth asserts that one reason free software is of such high quality is that it violates more than 200 of Microsoft's patents." So there are several options here: Microsoft has done its own new study that found more patents that the previous one (plausible, patents are couched in such broad generalities that it must be hard to match their claims against actual code). The earlier study only looked at the Linux kernel, while this new data from Microsoft looks at a much broader amount of FOSS (Doesn't quite match. The Fortune article says 42 patents against the kernel, while the old one says Microsoft owns about 10% of the patents in their count). Fortune mis-reported the statements as claiming ownership of these patents, when the actual weasel words used were quite ambiguous. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: warner on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 01:03 PM EDT

n/t



---

free software, for free minds and a free world. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: mks on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 01:08 PM EDT

I was reading up on some of the public statements from Microsoft about the patents that it claims Linux infringes on and this one struck me as almost an exact copy of the SCO quote about copying of code: Microsoft is now making claims based on its own evidence, though it will not specify exactly what patents are infringed. "This is not a case of some accidental, unknowing infringement," Microsoft vice president for intellectual property and licensing Horacio Gutierrez told Fortune. "There is an overwhelming number of patents being infringed." I seem to remember SCO saying similar things about it being more than just coincidental copying and how it was an overwhelming number of lines of code. (I don't have the quote at hand, but it really sounds so familiar that I wonder if it was written by the same person - you know, in a talking points type of paper...) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 01:12 PM EDT

RIM's blackberry network was almost shut down over a patent. This seems to say

that no matter who you are or who depends on you (US govt) that patent problems

at a supplier can be problems for a customer.



Time to reread the Microsoft EULA. Then look at the fact that Microsoft has

settled a number of lawsuits over patents and copyrights. There is a definite

danger in closed source code. Someday the provider may just not be able to

protect their customers.



In the old days once you had the OS you were free. Beware the software as

services model being pushed by Microsoft (monthly license checks etc). These are

making a central off switch that could be applied under court order (also by

accident or maliciously).



It seems to me freely auditable code is a requirement for critical systems. The

old mantra was to second source critical elements of systems. Barring that an

open system seems the next best option. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 01:25 PM EDT

Is there a case, anywhere, of a patent holder sucessfully suing end users for

patent infringment? I can see someone suing Linux distribution makers, but I

just can't see where receiving and using Linux makes the end user liable for

anything. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 01:43 PM EDT

Suppose I get a copy of Suse that can be directly traced back to Microsoft (such

as buying a Dell computer with it).

I then proceed to "infect" source repositories with it (such as by

commiting Suse's source code followed by a diff of what has changed since the

version Suse uses).



As far as I can see, this could:



- Force Microsoft no not enforce patents on the "infected" projects

because of the implicit patent grant of GPL2.



- Put Suse upstream in the source code distribution, so any attack to force a

party to not use/distribute said projects would also force Suse to cease it's

own distribution. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 01:51 PM EDT

One trouble I see with OIN is that it only protects programs specifically named

on their list of software in what they call the "Linux system". I

work on free software that is not on their list, even though it is official GNU

software, and so I don't feel so reassured by their presence. I don't see how

one can apply to have software added to the "Linux system" list; I did

send an email inquiring about this to their contact address, but so far there's

been no response. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Simon G Best on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 02:26 PM EDT

I like the emphasis on lack of court-validated patents :-) It reminds me of that old FUD propaganda about the GPL having not being tested in court. From what I remember, the main problems with that propaganda were:- It confused copyrights with copyright licences, as if an invalid licence would mean an invalid copyright.

Most copyright licences never get as far as being tested in court, and most never need to. The copyrights are usually valid anyway, and that's usually what counts. In contrast, as you say, about half of patents tested in court turned out to be invalid, before KSR. And now, in light of KSR, it looks like it's going to be even worse (from those patent holders' perspectives). It's significantly and fundamentally different from that FUD about GPL validation. I'm hoping that PHBs, and the like, who tend to be susceptible to such stuff as the old GPL FUD, will pay attention to this superficially similar-sounding - but substantially different - stuff about patent validation. What I'm hoping is that they'll actually stop and think about this stuff, about what's being said by Microsoft, et al, and their opponents. It also nicely re-emphasizes the "put up or shut up" message to Microsoft that keeps getting voiced. There's also a delicious hint of "by their rod shall they be measured" :-) ---

"Public relations" is a public relations term for propaganda. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 02:42 PM EDT

"Only 10% belonged to Microsoft, and they just told us they're not

litigating."



Microsoft lies.



Period.



Microsoft sells lies, not software.



So NOTHING - I repeat, NOTHING - they say is to be believed until proven true by

events or third parties (who aren't being paid by Microsoft.)



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: IMANAL on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 02:51 PM EDT

How could anyone check MS' code if they have violated

someone elses patent?



I guess the leaked NT code would not be permissible in

court.



-



---

--------------------------

IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: John Hasler on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 03:03 PM EDT

> Nearly half of all patents that were brought to trial under

> the old patent system's definition of obviousness were

> thrown out.



That doesn't mean much. Clearly valid patents are less likely to end up in

court.



---

IOANAL. Licensed under the GNU General Public License [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 03:41 PM EDT

Linux is not the cleanest code on the planet. That distinction falls only to

OpenBSD. Linux is allowing itself to slowly be commercialized, while the OpenBSD

crown refuses on grounds of pure freedom. Yes, the BSD license is not as

"good" as the GPL for freedom on down the road, but look to BSD for

"clean" code. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: mram on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 04:58 PM EDT

"What, you think Microsoft's patent on IS NOT is not obvious?"



Well, that one could patent IS NOT is definitely not obvious :)



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 05:07 PM EDT



of modern business in the IT industry.



'Dey can do dat & de law let em'



So 1st we had SCOgie, a lieutenant, who failed miserably. Now Stevie Capone (a

relative of big Al), has to step in and try to do the job properly.



"You wanna trouble, you gunna get it, we got de law to help us, but you buy

our protection, you gunna be ok. Capice?".



DSM [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 05:10 PM EDT

Microsoft is using P.T. Barnums adage" You can fool all of the people some

of the time and some of the people all of the time but not all of the people all

of the time." And they are using this as a intimidation tactic. Plain and

simple. Unfortunately there are a lot that fall into the second category and not

enough in the third category which is what Microsoft is counting on. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 05:26 PM EDT

Microsoft is in deep doo-doo with Vista. Despite BG's bravado and - ahem - sales

figures, it is crashing. The SP1 may do something for it but I see that as

needing a complete re-write, not so much a service pack as a new OS.



Where do they go next? They are stuffed.



They could use thousands of engineers to produce another, late, bad OS. There is

an alternative. I am thinking that a light is starting to glow dimly over a few

heads at HQ. It would take less engineers, less time and produce a better

product if they produced a Microsoft Linux.



Now you have done going ewwwwww, think about it. It does make sense for

Microsoft to do that. If they are going to do that then what should they do

about the patents - nothing. They may need to learn to play nicely after all. It

could be essential to survival.



Tufty

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 06:19 PM EDT

"The primary enforcement gravity of the GPL is everyone's understanding

that anti-community behavior is bad for business."

- Eben Moglen, November 2005



IOW "Nice restaurant you've got here. It'd be a shame if anything happened

to it."

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 06:34 PM EDT

If MS can export compiled code to be installed by manufacturers in foreign

countries where patents don't apply due to some assumption that that code

doesn't embody the practice of the patent, it is inconceivable to me how the

distribution of source code to anywhere whatsoever could be construed to embody

the practice of a patent.



So how could MS sue developers or for that matter, any subset of the FLOSS

community other than distributors? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Fredric on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 07:02 PM EDT

Now if I understand Mr. Eben Moglen correctly he claim that MS got into the Novell deal to make it possible for large and powerful corporations to buy and use Linux and still feel safe from The Patent Threat. The idea is that these large corporations will then sit in the stands and cheer while Microsoft hunt Linux developers. I find this idea a little absurd. Maybe I did not get that right but wouldn't it be like telling a farmer that "we will shoot your cattle but don't worry, we would never harm you or your family". Those banks and Fortune 500 companies will probably want to continue to enjoy the fruits of FOSS in the future and without Linux developers that may not be. Maybe MS expect the large corporations to reason that "with the current developers gone we can just commercialize Linux and drive on". We all know that's just a dream (or rather, nightmare) and I am pretty sure that the guys making decisions in a Fortune 500 company will also have the brains to figure this out. Then again, maybe I got the whole thing wrong. ---

/Fredric Fredricson

--------

-- Heisenberg was maybe here [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: webster on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 07:31 PM EDT

..

FUD works. A lot of people aren't going to buy Linux this week. It isn't safe.

Many don't know if they would pay or fight, but they don't want to be the one

that gets sued. Best to let this thing blow over. It must be pretty bad. Look

at all the hysterical articles. Even the Supreme Court is dragged into it.



The SCO FUD no longer does the job. Monopoly FUD is awesome. They have

billions to play around with. They can sue, lobby for laws, manipulate

campaigns. Maintaining Monopoly share is sacrosanct, like self-defense. All's

fair. By definition a Monopoly has no significant competitors. So destruction

is necessary and fair game. Pay or perish.



---

webster

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: pajamian on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 07:48 PM EDT

Well, they are likely getting thier Linux support either from IBM (considering that the other platform they are switching to is AIX, this would make sense) or HP (because the Linux servers they are getting are HP servers). IBM to my understanding supports both Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SUSE Enterprise Linux. I think they also support YellowDog Linux on their PowerPC platforms. I think they also support Oracle. HP Lists the distros they support on this page as Debian, Mandriva, SUSE, Oracle, Red Hat and Red Flag. I think we can eliminate YellowDog, Mandriva and Red Flag as possibilities, so that leaves Debian, SUSE, Oracle or Red Hat. I think it's likely to be one of the latter three of those. ---

Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: schaste on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 08:28 PM EDT

I was just reading an article in a fine art photography magazine called View

Camera, when a line from the article made me think of the issue of software

patents. I've been trying to get my head around the idea of how anyone thinks

they could patent an idea, and then this line hit me (paraphrased so there's

hopefully no copyright issue): The author was discussing his view of creating a

picture versus producing a record of the scene. Human beings can only see a

limited range of light. In a photo of the interior of an old church lit only by

daylight, unless there is some additional lighting, the only way to see the

detail in the shadows would be to _walk into the shadowed area_.



This struck me as a forehead-slapping, "of course, it's obvious!"

moment. Without some extra light, one can't produce a photo with more tonal

range than the human eye sees without changing position to be within the shadow

itself. So a device, the flash, might be patented to resolve the problem of lack

of light. But no-one could patent the _idea_ of moving from one place to another

in order to get better light; they'd be laughed out of the patent office, I

hope. So, how could a programming concept (e.g. clicking on a button to open a

menu with some contextual items listed in it) be patentable either? Maybe the

mouse button itself, but not what you _do_ with it!



To paraphrase the Australian patent officer to a young Albert Einstein

("Who is this barbarian?" "I'm a Tasmanian.") when the young

scientist tries to patent E=MC^2, "A patent must be accompanied by a

working invention! You can't patent an idea!"



OK, that's enough coffee for me. Obviously my brain is starting to backfire. But

if anyone else sees what I'm trying to say here, that the comparison of software

patents to a patenting an idea in the real-world shows that patenting software

is ridiculous, then I've hopefully made my point. Whatever it is.



Steve S



---

- Still working on a signature... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: mashmorgan on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 08:30 PM EDT

Ahh another interesting patent, only issued in January.. amazing



## Client side, web-based spreadsheet ##



Look out google

http://www.google.com/patents?id=PIF4AAAAEBAJ&dq=smarty

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: fenris on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:07 PM EDT

This afternoon, NPR's "All Things Considered" in a segment entitled

"Microsoft Royalty Claims Help Fuel Patent Backlog"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyid=10239441 interviewed Rodger

Parloff basicly presenting a rather FUD-ified version of Microsoft's current

breastbeating. No open source view was offered, and a statement that blatently

ignored patent holders such as the OIN was allowed to stand. Sigh, I tend to

expect better out of NPR.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SirHumphrey on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 02:18 AM EDT

Silence of the SCAMS.



Where M$ refuses to be specific about the patent "violations"



Where tSCOg refuses to be specifically specific, with specified specificity,

about the "millions of infringing lines of code"

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 02:34 AM EDT

A What if poser.



Suppose that Microsoft 'allows' Novell to contaminate the Linux Base code with

some patented method (assuming that these hold up in court etc etc) and starts

legal action against every distributor and user of Linux with that offending

code

AND

the rest of the world shuns Software Patents.



Could it be possible that the USA becomes a virtual Microsoft only zone while

the rest of the world reject Microsoft products completely.



Could the US become a technological backwater as many major IT companies leave

the US to Microsoft and its ever diminishing circle of friends. Remember that

even 10 years ago, the US was the biggest market for IT Product. This is no

longer the case. The EU and increasingly Asia present bigger markets to

companies that the fairly stagnant US Market.

I think that the stranglehold that companies like Microsoft have on computing

(at least as far as most Joe Public is concerned) is stifling innovation and

progress.





How did these thoughts come about?

The USA has a record of protectionism that is virtually unrivalled elsewhere. In

times like this the US (as seen by the rest of the world) does the Wagon Train

act or circling the wagons and repelling all threats. As an American who has

lived and travelled outside the US for the past 30 years most of my fellow

citizens really have no idea about how the USA is perceived beyond the 50 states

although the debacle in Iraq is starting to make the current generation at least

a bit aware of what the World thinks of Bush etc. At times I don't let on that

I'm American (I hold dual US/German citizenship) as frankly, I'm embarrased by

my country.



As I say, just a bit of crystal ball gazing. Ja!

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:32 AM EDT

If we take the estimate of 27 Microsoft patents from Ravicher's study and Microsoft's current claim of 42, that is a difference of 15. This is an increase of 55% ((42 - 27) / 27). I believe that Ravicher did his study in 2004, which would be about 3 or more years ago (depending upon how long the study took). I don't know the kernel size that Ravicher examined, and I don't know exactly which version Microsoft is talking about now, but assuming 55% increase in code size in that time is not unreasonable. It is also not too far from the actual kernel increase over the last three years (keep in mind that this includes the transition from 2.4 to 2.6). This means that Microsoft's claim of "42" could just be a linear projection of Ravicher's estimates based on the increase in code size since then. Their other numbers for GUIs, e-mail, etc. could be also just be an extrapolation based on code size of a selection of those projects as compared to the kernel. When looked at in this way, I'm not prepared to accept without evidence that Microsoft has done any genuine research at all on this subject. These could just be quick back-of-the-envelope estimates to give to the press and there really is no "list" for Microsoft to show anyone. There could be a lot less to this issue than there appears to be at first glance. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: fudisbad on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 04:12 AM EDT

Keyboard warning ---

"SCOs failure to provide code for the methods and concepts it claims were misappropriated is [...] a violation of this courts orders." - Judge Brooke Wells [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: AndyC on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 04:25 AM EDT

First off, I'm a Brit, and an engineer/physicist to boot, so legal wheeling and

dealing is completely alien to me (thank goodness!).



I was reading something on the web (I've slept since then, so I can't remember

where it was) concerning the Microsoft/Novell deal and I was wondering whether

Novell have been really crafty. IF MS sell vouchers for SLES, don' they, by

default, become a distributor of GPL software? Therefore, if I'm right (and I

doubt it) won't the copyright holders or original writers (say, Red Hat or FSF)

be able to withdraw their permission for MS to distribute said code?



If MS then continue, wouldn't they be liable to be sued by those copyright

holders?



Maybe this was the plan all along and it wasn't about patents after all?



AndyC



P.S. I have got SuSe9.2 installed on a partition at home. I haven't touched it

since the deal was announced. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: KC on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 07:22 AM EDT

I have mostly lurked Groklaw for "Lo, these many years," and being an

"old guy" I have memories of the computer world older than some of

you. I've used computers, and written code, but not they are merely a tool to

get my job done.



I'll not go into the issue of patents being granted for absurd applications -

that is nothing new, though it appears to be getting worse. And

"software" patents seem a perversion to me of the whole patent process

- a patent for an idea that cannot be realized without some external (and

undefined) instrumentality to actually cause something to happen!



However,



While IANAL, I do recall that there is a Federal statutory requirement about

having proof for all the claims being made in advertising a product. Since SCO,

and MS (and others) make these sorts of claims to cause users to think they need

to buy a "license" - this seems to be, by the definition of the

statute (as I recall it), ADVERTISING. And since they make these announcements

to national, and international audiences of 'press' representatives - this

should fall under the Federal Statutes. As I recall the statutes require that

one have, and reveal, complete documentation to prove the claims made in

advertising. This could force the company to reveal precisely what they think

they have in the way of patents or IP that they believe is being infringed.



Are there any lawyers out there who can speak to this?



How does one go about getting a Truth In Advertising investigation started?



---

KC [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Morosoph on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 08:05 AM EDT

This doesn't affect the thrust of his reasoning, but there is a bug in Eben's reasoning in one important respect: How traders in a competitive market rate a stock isn't based upon their own interests as customers, but rather their interests as shareholders. In fact, the opposite is likely to hold, as ownership of a stock is a reasonable partial hedge against being ripped off. The reason why this doesn't matter so much is that whilst the banks might bid up the stock (as it now has some additional value as a hedge), they will vote for their larger interests when it come to shareholder meetings. Thus, although referring to those who "determine the value of their stocks" is misleading the audience, the simple fact that the banks have voting shares is extremely relevant. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 08:34 AM EDT

"Microsoft has already begun collecting payments and gaining access to the patent portfolios of companies that use the open-source Linux operating system in their products. The list includes Novell (NOVL), Fuji Xerox, and Samsung Electronics. "



From the Business week article by Joseph La Sala



It is one thing to extort money. It's something else again to extort patents! Somehow this bothers me more than the money does. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Toon Moene on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 09:16 AM EDT

Several "traditional" news media, among which the Washington Post, report the following: To some observers, Microsoft Corp. seemed to have an odd sense of timing when it complained recently that open source projects have allegedly violated 235 of its patents. At the same time, Microsoft's Washington, D.C., staff is pushing for a patent overhaul bill that would make it tougher for patent holders to sue and collect large damage awards against infringers. That patent reform bill came up for debate Wednesday, just days after Fortune published a story in which Microsoft officials claimed widespread violation of its patents in open source software. Make of it what you want ... ---

Toon Moene (A GNU Fortran maintainer and physicist at large) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 09:24 AM EDT

P.J. Please analyze this question: What if someone like RH before making a new version of their Linux distro, wrote MS and made an official "request for disclosure" under United States Code/Title 35/Chapter 29/Section 287? What would MS do? They don't want to disclose what patents they think apply, but if they don't disclose would the freesoftware company have some protection? What if everyone involved in Linux began making such requests? What would be the consequences for the Free software community? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 09:41 AM EDT

By chance I caught a part of 'Feedback' on Radio 4 just now in the car (Program

for people to praise/complain/ask questions) and a question asked was what was

happening about the media player being developed. That was not actually directly

answered but the brief segment highlighted two things.



One the media player is not the only internet development activity going on

within the BBC.



Two at least some senior people do grok the fact the world has changed unlike

the MPAA, RIAA and others and are actually keen on the possibilities it creates.





They actually ended up talking about ability to tag comments to programs

available for replay on the website, which was using wiki technology, and

sounded potentially rather interesting. In the example given a presenter had

mentioned some terms program length presumeably did not allow him to detail and

someone had added a tag explaining them briefly and giving a book title for

reference. Wikipedia and the dynamic around it was explicity mentioned and the

person was clear he saw a big role for enabling people to add to content freely

on the BBC site in a similar, in principle, fashion that enriched the experience

for everyone. That sounds useful and enriching use to me.



So when a reporter makes a dumb statement on the BBC remember he/she is a

reporter with their own knowledge set and bias and not necessarily reflecting

what the BBC is actually doing internally and developing for web use. Mind you

recent reporting I'm aware of seems to have been largely pretty sound.



Richard. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 10:57 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 12:06 PM EDT

The fact of the matter is that the patent office is rubber stamping patents

without properly examining them and without properly examining obviousness or

prior art. The result is a chilling effect on innovation and business and

commerce, contrary to the puropse of the patents system.



There is no God given right to own ideas. In Nature as God intended ideas are

free and uncontrolled. Patents are an artificial creation of man which is

intended to further technological innovation by granting someone with a new idea

a monopoly on it's exploitation for a limited period to allow him/her to go

public with it and seek and recover funds for research and development and

marketing the product before others enter the market. Ideas cannot be owned -

patents are just a time limited monopoly for the R&D phase. If patents are

granted for trivial, obvious, or non-novel ideas, then patent law has the

opposite effect of that intended - stifling innovation, stifling R&D

expenditure, and stifling free competition.



What is required to correct the patent mess is the following:



1) Simple and objective rules that can allow a quick and definitive

determination as to patentability. Ie. until and unless you can define in law

exactly what is patentable and what is not, simply and unambigiously, then

exclude it from patentability, since if you don't, the patent office will grant

loads of bogus patents which do more harm than good.



2) Patent protection should be limited to an appropriate timeframe - for the

time required for R&D and to bring it to the market. 20 years is too long

for software since the useful life of inventions is about 6 or 9 years max, and

the intention of patent law to grant a monopoly for the R&D phase of an

invention, not for it's entire useful life. Patent protection for 2 to 3 (approx

one third of the useful life) should therefore be all that is granted for

software if software is to be patentable.



3) Scientific principles or mathematical principles/techniques, pre-existing DNA

structures etc. should not be patentable no matter how they are dressed up -

these are discoveries of what is existing already - there is nothing inventive

here, and being granted a monopoly on the laws of nature or something you didn't

invent would be damaging to progress, innovation, and business in general.



4) Standards, and specifications for protocols, file formats, methods of

encoding and enumerating data etc. should not be patentable. Patenting standards

is contrary to both the reason for having standards and the reason for having

patents, since patented standards would force people to use a single standard

for which the state grants a monopoly. Because it is a standard all vendors are

expected to be able to use it on an equal basis. Because it is protected by

patents, other vendors are supposed to invent alternatives rather than

implementing what is specified in the standard. Patented standards are an

oxymoron.



5) Software should be patentable only in as much as the physical effects of the

code are patentable on their own. For example if a mouse trap uses a spring and

a trigger is patentable, then the idea of an electronic sensor and software

controlled actuator doing something similar should be patentable. It is the

physical behaviour initiated by the software that should be patentable, not the

code or algorithms used in the code. This was the way that patent law was

intended to function originally. The reason for this is:



a) Software is abstract and apart from open source software, code is secret.

Hence it is not possible to search for prior art. It is stupid to allow

patentability of something where it is not possible to search for most of the

prior art.

Note:

i) it is not easy to determine the ideas thay may be present in software by

looking at the code or by looking at the software's effects (except for the

physical effects) - a considerable amount of effort decoding/reverse engineering

of what the code does and how it does it, is required to find prior art. The

patent office and nobody else for that matter has the resources to trawl through

anything like a reasonable amount of prior code to find prior art.

ii) In addition most code is closed source and therefore is unavailable for

checking prior art.



b) Software like writing is a creative art not an inventive one. Both use a

basic language in different combinations to achieve something new. Patenting

code is no different to patenting writing. You can't patent the syntax, since

these are common to everyone. You can't patent the algorithms because they are

basic mathematical principles. You can't patent the ideas behind software or

writing any more than you can patent different patterns of laying bricks to

build walls - they are a creative not an inventive expression, and using them in

different ways and combinations is explicitly how languages or bricks were

intended to be used. There is nothing novel about that.



c) Patent protection is not necessary for software, or writing, since they are

protected by copyright. Patent protection is crude in that it grants an

artificial monopoly, and it's effects may be more harmful to society than good.

Therefore wherever copyright protection is possible, this and not patents should

be used for IP protection. Other forms of protection also available are trade

marks, and design copyrights. Patent protection is a last resort that should

only be applied to physical embodiments which have no other form of protection.



d) In software, thinking up ideas are cheap, and requires little effort. On the

other hand developing an idea into working software and marketing it is

expensive and difficult. Patenting software therefore protects those that don't

put in any effort, and allows them to extort from those who do - ie thise who

develop (ie. coding) and market software. When applied to software patents have

the opposite effect intended - they stifle innovation and encourage freeloading

off those who invest money and effort to provide a useful product. Copyright on

the other hand does protect and reward those who put in investment and effort.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 12:53 PM EDT

The Fear Factor works both ways. A few year back (before I retired) one of our

young engineers traveled to Redmond to get a driver bug fixed (DOD shipboard

application). Once he found the right guy, the Off-by-One error was quicked

patched.



Being observant, he noticed that the system prompt on the development lab's

server looked off for a M$ shop. It was Linux. When he asked about it, he was

told that they use Linux because they don't want to lose their work in a system

crash (Linux doesn't crash).



I doubt that has changed. If M$ pushs too hard, somebody might just do

Discovery about how many Linux system M$ is using and get a C&D order if GPL

violatons can be proved. GPL extends not only the right to Distribute, but also

the right to USE.



GPL is your only right to use copyrighted code. Violate GPL and you are legally

barred from using GPLed products. If M$ loses that right, the Howl will be

heard around the world.



EK, a recovering Workaholic. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: darkonc on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 06:09 PM EDT

At the end of the First World War, things were set up to discourage another war from starting. Among other things, most of the countries around Germany were set up with a good defensive system and a series of mutual defense pacts (If someone declares war against you, we'll consider it a war against us). (( We should point out here, that it came out in the Justice Department against Microsoft that they think very much in warfare terms when dealing with their competition, so this analogy is rather apt. )) What Germany did is they isolated the various members of the european community and went after them one at a time -- sometimes arranging non-aggression treaties with other related parties so that they didn't get anxious until it was too late (The Soviet Union being the most famous of those). Of the countries that Hitler "Made peace" with, I think that only Japan wasn't attacked. Even their staunchest ally, Italy, ended up under German control by the end of the war. By the time that the overreaching nature of Hitler's ambition was impossible to deny, Nazi Germany controlled most of Europe and was poised to squash much of what was left Once again: peace treaties didn't do Germany's neighbors much good -- it simply allowed Hitler to safely express aggression in other directions until he was ready to squash his erstwhile ally. I think that anybody considering an alliance with Microsoft should consider themselves about as safe as 1938 France. ---

Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Alan(UK) on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 07:14 PM EDT

It seems that nowadays we get evidence daily that Microsoft is yesterday's

company. This patent rant (and I would rate it no higher) is typical - the

company cannot even tell a consistent story - if I was a shareholder, I would be

asking, 'Where is the business plan in all this?'



The Vista launch has been a fiasco, the media that rushed to publish the

Microsoft hype, has been quick to publish articles rubbishing the product once

they saw which way the wind was blowing.



Microsoft has relied on lies and bullying tactics to maintain its monopoly. This

is now wearing thin; people are beginning to see through it and some (like Dell

- who sorely needs to pull a rabbit out of the hat) are actually calling

Microsoft's bluff. The ODF/MA business has severely shaken Microsoft - they now

keep harping on about 'interoperability' (Billy G even mentioned it on UK TV),

but eveyone who is actually concerned about it (and you have to be a *X user to

be concerned) knows that all the incompatibility lies on the Microsoft side of

the fence.



So where do things stand today?



Microsoft has a problem with their end users. They do not want Vista 'upgrades'

on existing machines and they do not want Vista at all until the problems are

sorted out. Office 2000 worked fine and everyone could read everyone elses

files, the users do not even know what the 'interoperability' problem is - let

alone how MSOOXML is going to solve it.



Microsoft still has the PC industry by the short hairs. Dell is going to offer

XP for the moment but as this will be on machines that are already obsolete,

Microsoft is not too bothered - it is still a Windows sale and if it locks in

one more customer...



Microsoft still has one big advantage when it comes to Linux on the desktop -

the big PC firms have no idea about how to run a Linux business.



The area where, in my opinion, Microsoft is having an increasing influence is

among hardware manufacturers. The original IBM PC was a very general-purpose

machine. The modern PC is very much a Windows machine. A retail DVD drive

will come with Windows software - Linux is not an option. Most Linux

installations have to be made on machines which are not really suitable for it.



So, where do things go from here?



Vista will get patched until it is acceptable - by which time PCs will have the

power to run it. Users will find that Office 2007 XML, Office 2003 XML, and

Office 2000 documents are not interchangeable between systems. Users will get

more vociferous in their complaints about Microsoft.



PC manufacturers will try small scale trials selling Linux boxes - but they will

be loaded with much proprietary code in the form of drivers, fonts, DVD and

other media players. This will be at odds with the Linux philosophy,

particularly of frequent updates. The PC manufacturers will try to sell Linux

with the Windows business model (or just sell a few unsupported systems for

hobbyists).



This all looks a very gloomy outlook for everyone. The problem is that nobody

will actually be supplying the product that the market needs. Microsoft cannot

do it, but on the other hand, they will still have such a large market share

that they will stymie any attempt by others to do it.



Now proponents of the capitalist system would say that this should not happen -

someone will always step in to fullfill a market need. (Of course opponents of

the capitalist sytem would say that proponents of the capitalist system are more

interested in maintaining the status-quo while cashing-in on their monopoly.)



Why does someone not do the obvious thing - put together a PC with a completely

open hardware specification and install Linux on it and market it directly. The

'someone' needs to be someone who can muster sufficient resources to do the job

but who would find that serving perhaps one or two percent of the world PC

market to be adequately rewarding. Above all they should be someone who has no

existing dependency on Microsoft for their business.



The basic problem will be to obtain chips with completely open specifications.

These things can be designed and there are people who will make them. It would

probably have to be accepted that you will not be able to have a

top-of-the-range GPU suitable for game playing. The new DTX form-factor is

claimed to be made with only four layers and leaves off a lot of the legacy

hardware support - so it should not be too difficult to design and make cheaply.

The end result should be a small, light, PC with low power consumption, that

will run circles round a Vista machine with all its cooling fans.



---

Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 11:16 AM EDT