| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft aims patent guns at Red Hat | |
|
||
| Time: 06:01 EST/11:01 GMT | News Source: VNUNet | Posted By: John Quigley | ||
|
Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer has warned users of Red Hat Linux that they will have to pay Microsoft for its intellectual property. "People who use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to compensate us," Ballmer said last week at a company event in London discussing online services in the UK. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 339 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:39:32 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at 10/10/2007 6:15:12 AM |
| So many people have asked for MS to demonstrate which patents are being violated, without disclosure on MS's part, that this can only end up in court where the case can be made or not. It's time to call their bluff rather than give into what one can only call extortion, without mitigating evidence from MS. |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/10/2007 8:11:52 AM |
| #1: MS will never disclose anything because they have nothing and they know it. This is the purest MS FUD in every sense. If they disclosed the patents they believe are being infringed (if any), the patents would either be coded around or proven invalid under the new patent obviousness tests. MS gets more mileage out of the FUD, so Ballmer will continue to make vague threats. However, this time they've specifically called out Red Hat instead of just "Linux". MS already approached Red Hat with the same deal Novell swallowed, and Red Hat rightly told MS to take a hike. I wonder if Red Hat will accuse MS of violating the Lanham Act. Red Hat could claim MS is harming its business with these unspecified infringement claims. It's embarrassing that MS, who talks the talk about competition and interoperability while enjoying a 90+% market share, has to stoop to these levels. It sounds like they're whistling past the graveyard. |
| #3 By 2960 (68.100.112.199) at 10/10/2007 8:30:48 AM |
|
It sounds to me like Microsoft is picking up where SCO left off.
And they are using the same tactics of non-disclosure. That worked out real well for SCO :) Another thought. MS needs to be careful here. If any of these 'patents' are brought to attention, and are proven to have prior-art, MS could actually lose the patent altogether. TL |
| #4 By 52115 (66.181.69.250) at 10/10/2007 9:03:04 AM |
| Would be interesting to have access to MS's source code.. Makes you wonder how much GPL open-source is in there? I wonder what would happen if a disgruntled MS programmer comes out and says that he and others used open-source code to correct an issues Windows was having.. |
| #5 By 32132 (64.180.198.233) at 10/10/2007 9:52:07 AM |
| RedHat distributes thousands of applications in its distro. Of course some of them violate Microsoft patents. |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/10/2007 9:53:58 AM |
|
#5: "Of course"?? You seem awfully sure of yourself. Can you specify which ones, since Ballmer won't/can't? I await your reply.
|
| #7 By 32132 (64.180.198.233) at 10/10/2007 11:37:44 AM |
|
"OSRM, a provider of open-source consulting and risk mitigation insurance, announced that the group has found that there are 283 issued, but not yet court-validated, software patents that could conceivablly be used in patent claims against Linux."
"OSRM won't publicly say what the specific software patents are that potentially affect Linux because it "would put the whole developer community at risk." http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1630082,00.asp And remember, thats just in the core Linux as of 2004. It does not include open sources apps on the Linux distro, or additions to Linux since 2004. |
| #8 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at 10/10/2007 11:54:55 AM |
|
latchy - "I await your reply. "
SMACK! |
| #9 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 10/10/2007 12:01:59 PM |
|
7 & 8: I don't want to give Latch ammo, but :
"OSRM (Open Source Risk Management)will be offering a litigation insurance policy starting in 2005." Don't you think they are just trying to sell insurance by making this claim? |
| #10 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/10/2007 12:38:32 PM |
|
#7: Sorry to confuse you. I was asking for the patents that Ballmer recently said Red Hat in particular is violating. I was not asking for OSRM's 3 year old opinion on potential patents not yet granted that might perhaps maybe possibly infringe. Care to try again?
#8: You've made strides this past year to come out from under parkkker's skirt and have an actual opinion on some of the issues, so it's unfortunate that you're once again acting like Salacious Crumb to parkkker's Jabba. |
| #11 By 23275 (71.12.191.230) at 10/10/2007 12:52:46 PM |
|
#10, Latch, legal proceedings are about evidence.
MS is not going to present evidence outside of any legal proceeding, or closed door sessions with potential parties to any possible legal case. You've read enough Groklaw texts to understand this. For the unofficial record, MS is very likely giving RH a chance - one it would do well to take. Further, the law is the law - so debating the merit of a case based upon more general arguments against SW patents wouldn't be relevant. |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/10/2007 1:10:22 PM |
| #11: Oh, come on Lloyd, you don't even believe that. That's not how it works with patent infringement. The onus is on MS to inform any entity suspected of infringement with specificity as to which patent(s) MS believes are being infringed. The infringer can then either license the patent and continue using it, stop using the patented tech, or continue using the patented tech unlicensed and risk the legal wrath and triple damages for knowingly infringing. It has already been established that MS tried to deal with RH and were rebuffed. If MS had any case at all, why are they being shy about suing? They're not exactly neophytes with regard to using the courts as a weapon. Why all the weasel words about "in a sense having an obligation"? And this isn't the first time Ballmer has made his vague patent threats, so they've had long enough to act instead of talk if there was any meat on the bone. Just call a spade a spade -- it's FUD in the most literal sense of the term. |
| #13 By 17996 (131.107.0.105) at 10/10/2007 2:52:00 PM |
|
You all* are under the impression that Microsoft needs to *publicly* disclose these alleged violations. However, they are under no such obligation. You and I, non-parties to any patent negotation that would be entered into, have no right to this information. If an infringment lawsuit is filed, then that information would be made known to the public in the same manner as other lawsuits.
The only ones who need to receive the details at this time are the various commercial Linux companies in question, such as Red Hat. Note what #7's article said: "OSRM won't publicly say what the specific software patents are..." *ok, not you all, but many of you... This post was edited by PatriotB6007 on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 14:53. |
| #14 By 32132 (64.180.198.233) at 10/10/2007 3:05:01 PM |
|
#10 Can't you read?
"OSRM won't publicly say what the specific software patents are that potentially affect Linux because it "would put the whole developer community at risk." Latch, ask OSRM. They know what the patents are. Surely if they are actually "open", they would disclose them. Microsoft has an obligation to its shareholders to play the game as smart as possible. They aren't part of the "open" con game. This post was edited by NotParker on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 15:06. |
| #15 By 37047 (99.241.37.218) at 10/10/2007 3:11:40 PM |
| It should be noted that because of the flurry of patent applications made by Microsoft, IBM, Apple, and tons of other companies in the last 20 years, you can't write anything more complex than a HelloWorld application without violating several filed patents. And I'm not even willing to bet that HelloWorld is not patented. This is an unfortunate state of affairs that makes writing any useful programs a big challenge. You almost need a dozen lawyers for each developer hired, just to do constant patent searches on each line of code the developer writes. Soon, you won't be able to actually perform work, due to patent problems, unless you are a huge multinational conglomerate. Unless you have your own significant patent portfolio to cross-license with, you'll be unable to actually develop a useful product, unless you have deep enough pockets to purchase licenses for each function or sub-routine you want to write. This could cause the death of the SME as we know it today. |
| #16 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/10/2007 3:50:33 PM |
|
#14: I'm asking *you*, since you said (and I quote) "Of course some of them violate Microsoft patents." with certainty. Sounds more like you don't know what you're talking about. As usual.
Meanwhile, RH just called MS FUD for what it is: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2193713,00.asp MS says RH violates their patents. RH says buzz off. So, MS, either crap or get off the pot. And I'd like to see Ballmer make the same statements regarding RH in the US. But of course he won't because then MS would be liable under Lanham. |
| #17 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/10/2007 3:55:18 PM |
|
#13: You all* are under the impression that Microsoft needs to *publicly* disclose these alleged violations. However, they are under no such obligation. You and I, non-parties to any patent negotation that would be entered into, have no right to this information. If an infringment lawsuit is filed, then that information would be made known to the public in the same manner as other lawsuits.
Funny how they won't tell RH either, and RH is (according to Ballmer) the infringing party. MS seems quite happy to keep announcing in public every few months of the supposed infringement, but they never actually do anything about it other than accuse. Then another 3-5 months go by and they're squawking to the press about Linux infringement again, round & round, here we go again, lather - rinse - repeat. It's classic FUD. I'm simply amazed that even the die-hard Microbots are shamelessly denying it as the FUD it is. |
| #18 By 32132 (64.180.198.233) at 10/10/2007 4:02:05 PM |
|
#16 I can't believe you called the OSRM/Groklaw team liars!!!!
Are you suggesting they lied to steal money from gullible open source users? WOW!!!! As for RedHats "rebuttal". "when viewed from the perspective of pending lawsuits related to intellectual property, is at least as safe as proprietary software" So, RedHat could survive multiple IP lawsuit losses in the billions of dollars? I don't think so. |
| #19 By 8556 (12.207.97.148) at 10/10/2007 4:06:00 PM |
|
Since Google uses Linux as the OS on their cloud computers, this might eventually turn into a Google vs. Microsoft battle down the road. That would be interesting to see two deep-pocket Goliaths battle in court.
I presently have two servers at a customer that have Windows Server loaded on each of them. However, in order to migrate PICK for Unix onto the servers and be able to utilize all of the existing features of the Unix version, I need to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. So what if there is an MS tax later on? Businesses need to run their business. The cost of a server OS is a pittance compared to the cost of downtime. Getting rid of the Linux threat distractions from MS would be a good thing for all. |
| #20 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 10/10/2007 4:10:34 PM |
|
#12, Latch, yes, I absolutely believe that MS would not publicly disclose any detail about any potential case, whatever - and they would be both right to conceal such details and entirely consistent with what others would do/not do.
It is imprudent to do otherwise. Also, I do not think that MS would risk defending any patent that was not very clearly valid, strong and of import to them. In the same way I do not think that the likes of Novell would not enter inter cross-licensing agreements with MS if they did not assess it was in their best business and legal interests to do so. |
| #21 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at 10/10/2007 6:25:07 PM |
|
#18: Which patents, with specificity, were those again that supposedly infringe?
#20: You're saying some pretty silly things in order to continue to defend the MS FUD. But let me get this straight in case I'm misunderstanding you. According ot you, the prudent thing to do when you think someone has violated your patents is to do nothing other than whine to the press at 3 month intervals... Here's an idea: why not ask the infringer to cease & desist or force them via law? Would that not be more prudent? Either get paid for your work or stop the infringement? Also, I do not think that MS would risk defending any patent that was not very clearly valid, strong and of import to them. And yet they refuse to do exactly that, for some mysterious reason. In the same way I do not think that the likes of Novell would not enter inter cross-licensing agreements with MS if they did not assess it was in their best business and legal interests to do so. I'm sure they felt it was in their best business interests to do so, but they have categorically denied that any software patents or MS IP in Linux licensing was involved. MS backstabbed them before the ink on the contract was even dry when they announced "Novell bows down before mighty MS IP!", thus setting a new MS record for screwing a partner. |
| #22 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/11/2007 8:51:39 AM |
|
<crickets>
|
| #23 By 2960 (68.100.112.199) at 10/11/2007 9:18:14 AM |
|
Like I said. Looks like SCO all over again...
TL |
| #24 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/11/2007 10:36:34 AM |
| What's extra hilarious about this is that MS has been hauled into court and found guilty more than any other tech company in the history of computers for violating other's IP and patents. |
| #25 By 32132 (64.180.198.233) at 10/11/2007 11:59:43 AM |
|
#21 "Which patents"
Ask OSRM. Or the person who runs Groklaw, She was on the board of OSRM. I ask again. Do you think they were lying? .... crickets .... "when you think someone has violated your patents is to do nothing other than whine to the press at 3 month intervals" Actually, you negotiate cross-licensing deals with various companies like Novell etc. Its been very successful. #24 "What's extra hilarious about this is that MS has been hauled into court and found guilty more than any other tech company in the history of computers for violating other's IP and patents." In relation to valuation, RIM and other tech companies might disagree. Microsoft is the biggest target, therefore attracting the most attention. Thats why RedHats rebuttal was extra-extra-hilarious: "when viewed from the perspective of pending lawsuits related to intellectual property, is at least as safe as proprietary software" |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 339 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:39:32 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
