| 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 |
 |
Court Blocks Microsoft's Chimney in Longhorn | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
A preliminary injunction has been issued Tuesday against Microsoft in connection with a patent infringement case, preventing the software maker from using a networking feature in Longhorn, its upcoming operating system release. Last August, Microsoft Corp. was sued by San Jose, Calif.-based Alacritech Inc., a data networking firm that claims Microsoft infringed on its patents in developing its TCP-offload technology, code-named Chimney. The technology was slated for inclusion in the Scalable Networking Pack for Windows Server 2003, originally set for release in 2004. Alacritech had requested an injunction that would have covered Longhorn itself, effectively stopping the OS in its tracks. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 327 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:34:36 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 5912 (145.222.138.61) at 4/15/2005 7:06:12 AM |
| What is "TCP-offload technology" and what would it do? |
| #2 By 31441 (68.252.217.77) at 4/15/2005 7:47:19 AM |
| Typically, TOE (TCP-offload engine) is a hardware technology. The network card has a separate processor to handle the processing of data sent and received rather than allowing the main processor (and OS) to do the work. I imagine that this technology allows some other portion of the OS to perform the processing without inhibiting the kernel. |
| #3 By 2231 (68.100.199.62) at 4/15/2005 1:00:14 PM |
| What NICs today have this capablility? Is it called an NPU(network processing unit)? Anything that speeds up an online fragfest is a good thing. |
| #4 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 4/15/2005 1:16:14 PM |
|
Yeah, I thought the higher end 3COM and Intel cards were already doing this ?
TL |
| #5 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 4/15/2005 2:52:10 PM |
| TL--yes, that's what I was thinking, too. This must be on a different level than the offloading handled by those cards... which, from what I've seen, isn't much. |
| #6 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 4/15/2005 5:44:29 PM |
|
Oh man...Ok, this one is going to have a lot of folks fuming and bad... Let me see if I can get this at least part way right...Microsoft builds a technology it shares with not only the claimant, but "ALL" manufacturers of networking equipment, cards, etc... - it gives driver tools to these ocmpanies and supports their work with millions of dollars in support - developing Scalable Networking Pack as a stack [no pun] of tools to allow these manufacturers to work with the new OS easily and in better ways. It is my opinion that the claimant is worried more about "its" competition wiht 3COM, Broadcom, and Intel, than it is about alleged patent violations. It is a fact that TOE's like iSCSI have been around for a long time and equally that TCP Checksum and placement [e.g., packet shaping] have been around for a good bit, too.
MS's technology and millions of dollars in support to companies like the claimant with SNP to be regarded in this way - has got to make MS's engineers just want to puke. I know I do. I hope claimants in such suites as this get their backsides handed to them in court and eaten alive in a counter-claim. Every single one of us ought to be furious about this one. "I have to go gak!" |
| #7 By 8556 (12.217.175.226) at 4/15/2005 7:40:59 PM |
| Alacritech might be hoping for a nice sized check to help them ease their pain and go away. It's difficult to know what the real story is based soley on press releases. Is the claim valid or just chest-beating? Let the judge sort it all out. |
| #8 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 4/15/2005 9:11:24 PM |
|
I presume this story isn't about the new chimney they are building on the Vatican in anticipation of the election of the new Pope.
Does it have any more relevance than that “news” story? |
| #9 By 12071 (203.217.72.18) at 4/16/2005 4:20:08 AM |
|
#6 Wow, reading what you wrote makes Microsoft look like Mother Teresa... Can you please back up everything you wrote? The only reason I ask is because from what I have read it's quite the other way around and you are just priceless at times when it comes to selling Microsoft as the beacon of everything that is good.
This story is from Mr Microsoft Zealot himself, Paul Thurrott: http://emea.windowsitpro.com/EMEA/Article/ArticleID/46069/EMEA_46069.html "According to court documents, a San Jose start-up named Alacritech claims ownership of two patents for what it calls TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) offloading technology. Alacritech shared this information with Microsoft in 1998, hoping to license it to the software giant. But Microsoft broke off talks and then announced a surprisingly similar technology, Chimney, in May 2003. Alacritech offered Microsoft a license at that time, but was rebuffed, so it filed a lawsuit in August 2004." Imagine that, Microsoft being all buddy buddy with a company just to steal their technology, it must be all lies right? "A Microsoft spokesperson says that Chimney was developed independently by developers at the software giant." Imagine that, Microsoft spend several years working with Alacritech and then completely independently working on exactly the same technology! Here is Alacritech's version of events: http://www.alacritech.com/html/041305Alacritech_Granted_PI.shtml All that's left now is for Microsoft to settle the case so they don't get a guilty judgement made against them in court. Puke away buddy! Here's a bucket for your troubles! This post was edited by chris_kabuki on Saturday, April 16, 2005 at 04:27. |
| #10 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 4/16/2005 4:04:24 PM |
|
#9, As if the claimant's press is proof, or Paul's reiteration of it?
Give me a break - after I empty the bucket, I'll just have to fill it again following your presentation of the above... Send me a legit address and I'll escrow a hundred buck that says MS and the Law will mop the floors of the CA court system with this one. And Paul BTW, has a real issue - he has to "Appear" objective and often he'll repeat some bad dope - that's his gig - his job. Not mine - I have several small enterprises to support. Joint Development works both ways, and I'd bet all I have that the claimant in this case received a lot more value than they brought to the deal. And yes, I do in all sincerity, believe that Microsoft is popoulated with very good people - not just skilled, but good as in the word "decent ." If you've ever worked with any of them closely at all, you'd know that, too. Some days I really wish Bill and Co. would just walk away from it all and kick back - the world very soon learn just what they have meant to it. |
| #11 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 4/16/2005 9:56:55 PM |
|
#10 So not only have you completely and utterly failed in backing up what you initially wrote, you went on to completely dismiss the other side of the story which actually has some form of detail behind it. Congratulations! And I even pointed you at a story from Mr Thurrott so that you wouldn't feel like i was using some anti-Microsoft source to try and smear their name. If you don't have anything to backup your original "Microsoft is God they can do no wrong, Alacritech are a bunch of thieves" comment then just admit it.
"Send me a legit address and I'll escrow a hundred buck that says MS and the Law will mop the floors of the CA court system with this one" You can bet your whole life that MS will "win" this one - as long as your definition of "win" includes settling which I agree that they will do! However, settling won't prove a single word of your last comment! "If you've ever worked with any of them closely at all, you'd know that, too." And that proves that they did not steal another company's IP how exactly? What exactly makes you so sure that Microsoft didn't steal Alacritech's technologies? Faith? |
| #12 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 4/17/2005 12:20:29 AM |
|
#12, "Process" and the "Law"
MS has several layers internal and external "oversight" As puny a shop as I have, I employ a full time lawyer - a General Counsel and also hire external lawyers who specialize in IP and technology. I don't know what experience you have, but deals have steps to them - term sheets, deal points, deliverables, who does what and with what. Each side works from a well known framework that is reviewed many times over and by each side's leaders, technical staff, lawyers and accountants. They do this precisely to manage issues like this and no side takes as firm a stand as Microsoft has unless they can prove what they say. I've done a lot of deals - small ones and bigger ones and certainly supported many for clients -there is a process and even source code gets placed in escrow and is assigned an executor, or trustee that is mutually agreed to, or appointed by a judge. I've seen some wild cases over the years - testified as an expert witness in many cases and I have seen this process play out so many times. In order for you to make the statements you have made, you must presume MS to be in the wrong. I am not willing to do that and based upon the processes they and others particpate in, it is very unlikely that they will be found to be in violation. True, they may settle, but I wish they would not. #11, there is no argument for open source - not in this country in any case. The right to own and dispose of property is central to our freedom and laws. OSS does not work for these reasons. You miss my real point - companies like Microsoft are sewn into the fabric of our economy. They represent a part of what our economy is, a faith based system of interdependent systems that tie our society together in many ways. That has less to do with technology than it does influence in general. Imperfect yes, but in no way is it unimproved. I do believe Microsoft is a force for good - it has to be. No one in Mr. Gate's position, with the cash he has would endure the drumming he takes and keep on going unless he was fundamentally good and companies are what their leaders are. He'd have gone fishing a long time ago if he was not. |
| #13 By 12071 (203.217.72.18) at 4/17/2005 4:16:23 AM |
|
#13 You know that instead of writing those 6 paragraphs you could have answered in a single word "faith". You believe that Microsoft are in the right. You have absolutely no evidence for why you believe that to be the case, you simply believe that Microsoft are above stealing technologies and IP from other companies. It can't be any more than faith as I've already asked you, on two occassions, to back up your original defamatory statements. The statements that I made were based on information that's available and prior knowledge of cases such as those against Burst.com. It's a little coincidental that Microsoft are once again being accused of allegedly committing IP theft.
So I'm with you, I want this one to be played out to the end, but it'll never happen, Microsoft will never allow themselves to be found guilty for IP theft. If they are in fact guilty of what Alacritech claim (and they are just claims for the time being) and the case starts going against them, they will offer Alacritech anything they want to shut them up - they have enough money to be able to do so after all. Keep using that bucket! |
| #14 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 4/17/2005 4:40:30 AM |
|
#14 You repeated an opinion - nothing more. You ought to know better than to believe that just because it is on the web, or you wish it to be true that it is in fact true.
How can you convict anyone or any company of any wrong doing without a trial? Just because people like you wish for Microsoft, or any successful company to be guilty of one malicious thing after another does not make it true much less right. Watch how it plays out - and by the way, we sell a program to help big companies decide whether to try a case or settle it - you'd be pleased I'm sure at the number of times an innocent company dolls out millions to end cases and simply get back to work. I on the other hand love supporting companies in court, and very often work months without billing a dime - just so I can help stuff people seeking a free ride back down their holes. There are two sides to this and I hope both are heard. And finally, as long as people like you keep on with the trolling I'll keep on buying buckets. |
| #15 By 12071 (203.217.72.18) at 4/17/2005 8:07:16 AM |
|
#15 "You ought to know better than to believe that just because it is on the web"
I do know better, which is why I try to find as much information about an issue as possible, it's also why I take your initial comments with a grain of salt. "How can you convict anyone or any company of any wrong doing without a trial?" How can you convict anyone or any company of any wrong doing like you did in comment #6? Christ your a hypocrite, it's ok to criticise any company you like as long as it's not the great Microsoft that can do no wrong. "Just because people like you wish for Microsoft, or any successful company to be guilty of one malicious thing after another does not make it true much less right." I don't wish that any company is guilty of anything, regardless of whether they are successful or not. I, unlike you, just don't leap straight into calling an allegation a load of lies especially given that Microsoft has been accused of similar activities in the past. The comments you make are just hilarious - people like me. If I was to join in, I'd say to you that "people like you" will blindly defend Microsoft to the death, regardless of any facts. "you'd be pleased I'm sure at the number of times an innocent company dolls out millions to end cases and simply get back to work" And how many of those times has a guilty company paid out to keep the case quiet? Let me guess, it does occasionally happen, but never in the case of Microsoft. "And finally, as long as people like you keep on with the trolling I'll keep on buying buckets." Seriously, try to take a step back (i know it's hard), read your original comment (and the fact that you STILL haven't been able to back it up after being asked on numerous occasions to do so - reminds me of Parkker when he's trying to backpaddle!) and then see who the troll is (hint: use a mirror). The fact I don't buy into Microsoft being the beacon of everything that's good doesn't make me a troll, perhaps you need to get a clear perspective of both sides of Microsoft (and any corporation for that matter). Next you'll be telling me how wonderful Nike is, paying people 3 cents per shirt. You keep buying those buckets! |
| #16 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 4/17/2005 9:54:58 AM |
|
#16, I'll tell you how bad it is...boutique litigators begin preparing cases ahead of any claimant allegations. Much of it started in the mid 80's with the emergence of environmental cases being brought against companies for alleged wrong doing going back nearly 50 years.
There isn't time or space on AW's servers to address it all, but please read up on both process and method patents and the challenges to them. To help understand only one reason why the claimant in this case has no case is to understand the basic #2 pencil. It has an eraser [worthy of a patent]... it has an ability to write by distributing lead graphite [another patent]... place the two together and one, perhaps you, would file for a patent, and these days, perhaps secure one.... STOP, invalid... why? because together the pencil with an eraser is not capable of doing anything that either one could not do on their own if they were kept separate. You may demonstrate this by simply removing the eraser from the pencil and using it - it still does what it was designed to do as does the pencil sans the eraser. While convenient, it isn't unique and one may still accomplish both goals either with or without a pencil that also has an eraser attached. Obvious advances that rely on existing thought do not qaulify for protection under patent law. Watch for a higher court to void or stay the injunction. As I said, there isn't room on these servers to address all of this, but since your sources only include the same two para story restated by editorial pundits, there is little point to it. I do hope that MS does not pay to settle this, quickly - I'd like to see this challenged and beaten down once and for all. I maintain my original position that there is no basis for the claimant's case. |
| #17 By 9589 (66.57.141.130) at 4/17/2005 10:33:56 AM |
|
I don't get Alacritech's grievance. We have use their cards in our servers - on older 100Mbs LANs. The technology off loads TCP from having the CPUs of the server do it. It has extended the life of some of our older servers and forestalled upgrading that server area's LAN to 1000Mbs. The heart of Alacritech's technology is the hardware on their Ethernet cards and the firmware that makes it perform its job. They, Alacritech, would necessarily partner with all OS software companies to co develop the drivers that would optimally function with their hardware product. In other words, they need Microsoft and not necessarily the other way around. Now, they are biting the hand of a OS software company that has 60% of the server OS market - not smart.
Meanwhile, it appears that Microsoft has technology built into their newest OS that allows any and all Ethernet hardware companies to easily and inexpensively build this technology on to their Ethernet cards. So, instead of paying thousands for Alacritech's cards you pay a couple of hundred. Sounds like a win for the consumer and all Ethernet card companies if this is true. But, a nice to have NOT must have function built into an OS that is almost overwhelming in its functions and features. I agree with Iketchum's remarks that the real target of Alacritech's grievance are those companies that sell Ethernet products. |
| #18 By 16451 (65.19.16.248) at 4/17/2005 11:26:21 AM |
|
>>> Some days I really wish Bill and Co. would just walk away from it all and kick back - the world very soon learn just what they have meant to it.
I ran into Paul Allan vacationing just about a week ago in Mexico. In addition to his usual horde of taff, he had two FBI bobyguards. Our tax dollars at work... |
| #19 By 9589 (66.57.141.130) at 4/17/2005 11:47:11 AM |
| Somehow, RH7.3, I'll bet those are Paul Allen's tax dollars at work and not yours and those are the most expensive FBI agents on the planet! lol |
| #20 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 4/17/2005 7:42:39 PM |
|
#17 Whether or not the patents are infact valid is indeed a separate discussion which we can both miss. The US PTO is a joke as I've mentioned many times over, especially when it comes to handing out software patents like they were on special - pay for 2 get 1 free! But don't try and come off all high and mighty about Microsoft in this regard as they have filed for and received moer than a handful of completely questionable patents - yes much worse than your pencil an eraser example. Funny how you don't see that side of Microsoft, funny how I'm willing to bet that your defense of Microsoft in this regard will boil down to "other companies do it too" - you know, other companies like Alacritech perhaps?
"perhaps you, would file for a patent" Read my short comment above re the US PTO for an answer to that one! After reading everything you wrote, and once again ignoring my questions which you're getting very good at, I wondered why you spent so much time and energy telling me about patent cases and pencils and erasers. As I already mentioned whether or not Alacritech's patents are valid are for a court to decide - if they were invalid, then here's a though for you, perhaps the US PTO should take more care and not grant such patents in the first place rather than creating a haven for lawyers to exploit! So perhaps the point you are trying to make is that it is OK for one to allegedly steal IP from someone else as long as you believe that their patents are invalid - or perhaps it's only ok for Microsoft to allegedly do that. #18 "Meanwhile, it appears that Microsoft has technology built into their newest OS" And is this case not about where Microsoft got that technology to begin with? Yes, wonderful thing for us all, Microsoft bundled more software into their OS. And if they did it completely on their own then there's nothing wrong. If they stole the technology then there is indeed something wrong. After all Alacritech went to Microsoft to try and license their IP but failed to agree on the terms (perhaps they saw this as an opportunity to become multi-millionaires over night!). |
| #21 By 23275 (68.17.42.157) at 4/17/2005 10:21:45 PM |
|
#21, I cannot always comment on every matter in great detail, because frankly, it would divert from what the real underlying issues are. There are some important issues at work here and all are driven by money and the very often unrealistic pressure placed on businesses by shareholders who own them. It is why I never took in any outside money and gutted out the first five years, but that is a different matter <in many ways, they were the most fun>. MS does not file process patents and does not believe in them - nor do they file method patents. They file for patents in large measure to establish a record - not necessarily to defend them. The USPTO has no real means to properly process all the patent applications which arrive there each hour. Going through the process a few times, and the profunctory patent research <just another legal bill in my opinion, because it is equally limited>, reveals just a small part of how big the problem is. The other factors are the skills available to the USPTO - they simply are not qualified to make such determinations and they do not have the people on staff as are needed.
#18, You have it dead on - that is the real driver here. #19, The man pays tens of millions in taxes each year - he also pays millions more in payroll tax - the Govt. is most pleased to see to his safety - particularly when he's underwriting deals worth billions to the US economy. Like many in his position, he never fully vacations, you may trust that he was working most of the time, or the agents would not have been present. BTW, my accountant tells me I paid 72% of every dollar generated in one form of tax or another - Yikes! back to #21, I am saying it is very difficult for a company like MS to violate a patent - especially within a deal - there is too much oversight. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 327 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:34:36 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
