ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

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

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

Linus Torvalds Responds To Microsoft Patent Claims

Time: 16:28 EST/21:28 GMT | News Source: InformationWeek | Posted By: Andre Da Costa

Linus Torvalds, lead developer of the Linux kernel, has a sharp retort to Microsoft executives' statements in a Fortune magazine article that Linux and other open-source code violate 235 Microsoft patents. "It's certainly a lot more likely that Microsoft violates patents than Linux does," said Torvalds, holder of the Linux trademark. If the source code for Windows could be subjected to the same critical review that Linux has been, Microsoft would find itself in violation of patents held by other companies, said Torvalds.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 1 through 25 of 162
Last | Next

The time now is 1:20:49 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By 32132 (142.32.208.234) at 5/15/2007 5:27:50 PM

"Microsoft should name the patents that it claims have been violated so the claims can be tested in court or so open-source developers can rewrite code to avoid the violation, Torvalds wrote. "

Kind of like a "do over".

Torvalds wants the benefit of the market share obtained by violating Microsoft patents, but not the consequences.

#2 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 5/15/2007 7:40:38 PM

No, he wants what we all want, for Microsoft to "put up or shut up"! Oh and we all want one other thing, for Microsoft to stop being a hypocrite... unless of course by some miracle they don't infringe on anyone else's patents (good luck with that one!).

So far it's been more of the same from Microsoft and their shills (look in the mirror) - FUD!

#3 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 5/15/2007 9:10:10 PM

kabuki - "he wants what we all want, for Microsoft to "put up or shut up"!"

then linus says "It's certainly a lot more likely that Microsoft violates patents than Linux does"

So kabuki, why dont you tell ole linus to put up or shut up? He's making a claim as bold as msft is.

2 face!

#4 By 32132 (142.32.208.234) at 5/15/2007 9:21:27 PM

Microsoft and Novell (and others) are being responsible corporate citizens looking out for their customers and shareholders by signing cross-licensing agreements.

The FOSS movement is philiosophically opposed to patents and want a free ride based on an ideology that claims freedom but preaches hate.

The hate directed at Novell for singing a cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft was appalling. It spilled over into threats and hate directed at Miguel Icaza.

This issue is really about the "religion" of open source and the fact that "Microsoft must be hated at all times" and you get excommunicated if you don't.

#5 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 5/15/2007 10:32:14 PM

Did you guys read Torvald's comments?

I believe that he is saying that MS source code is secret and therefore not subject to the same scrutiny as an Open Source Operating System. I find this a very highly credible argument.

I also believe that his statement that the basic structure of the operating system has not changed in fifty years is also highly credible. I suspect that as a person who wrote an OS kernel he is likely correct about this as well. Not knowing anything about the field I would point to the fact that the "latest and greatest" Apple OS is based on the decrepit old UNIX.

Moreover, I suspect that during Vista development that when the basic Windows structure was scrapped in favor of a "safe and secure" OS that that basic structure mirrors the UNIX/Linux model.
How much of that structure was completely MS written from the "ground up"?

I have never written a line of code but I will tell you from my field that anything as complex as Vista or any other OS must use code based on something else. Is all of it proprietary MS work? I highly doubt it.

I believe that MS has no intention of perusing this legally it would force them to open their source code! And it might just bring down the whole silly process of software patents in the process.

That would be far worse for MS than for the open source movement.

#6 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 5/15/2007 10:32:54 PM

#3 Hey champ... I already asked you to provide us with the list of patents that are being infringed upon yesterday:
http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?HeadlineIndex=39267&Group=1

How about you answer that first before rattling off the same FUD? As for Linus' comments, in case you had trouble comprehending, they were there to point out what a hypocrite Microsoft is being (how many times have they been taken to court over patent infringement?). But let's settle this once and for all, with something we can all agree upon. Microsoft was the first to throw the "patent" FUD so right after they produce the details, Linus and the OSS community will do the same. Put up or shut up! Of course you won't do that... for all the reasons that have been mentioned in this and prior stories, like the cnn one yesterday.

It would be hard to find too many semi-complex applications that violate at least one software patent out there somewhere. Developers don't go through USPTO whitepapers to determine how they should implement an algorithm, they just do it, but with the number of ridiculous software patents being granted left right and center, you're sure to be infringing one or more somewhere. e.g.

IBM's "Dynamic hierarchical selection menu" patent which has been given to the OSS community - I'm sure that hasn't been infringed upon by anyone!

#4 Small correction...
"The FOSS movement is philosophically opposed to [software] patents..."

#7 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 5/15/2007 10:44:18 PM

#6... you've lost me in your whirlwind of circular logic. I'll just summize your point to be that you have no point... and we'll call it a day. But it is worth noting that Microsoft was clear that they delve into the details of the infringements in discussions with partners concerned about their exposure. And damn if that doesn't make perfect sense... to discuss it at the table of business... and not on forum comments. Seriously, I think you folks are so warped in your thinking that you expect them to release book/chapter/verse of the infringements as a digg post or something.

PLUG IN and get a CLUE how the real world works. You'll feel smarter, and as a side benefit... you'll look less dumb.

ps... linus - "It's certainly a lot more likely that Microsoft violates patents than Linux does" = the definition of FUD

This post was edited by mooresa56 on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 22:48.

#8 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 5/15/2007 11:58:40 PM

#5, Oldog/all,

Some things to consider, most lines of source code Microsoft produces are reviewed by our own government. Thousands of people using very powerful systems for this purpose analyze not only Microsoft's code, but any source from any manufacturer before it is used on systems supporting sensitive government information systems. This has been the practice for over two decades. Any assessment that Microsoft's source code is not reviewed exhaustively is not true - it is exposed to very great scrutiny and peer review. It is not limited to a more selective shared source initiative.

Further, Microsoft source code is not secret and there are shared source initiatives outside of the reviews I have mentioned. There are also peer reviews and multi-lateral agreements which share both source and access to proprietary technologies. The process is very democratic, but at the same time subject to controls on the government side, and business processes opposite many others - e.g., there is a business relationship supporting the effort.

I assess there is a myriad of myths associated with the perceived benefits of the review process surrounding OSS/FOSS - among them that there is some larger body of people working opposite an aggregate of source code that is larger or more effective than the engineers devoted to Microsoft software. Simply, yes, one "may" work on various parts of OSS/FOSS source code, but how many in number actually do - for how long and subject to what coordinated effort and governing body? With what consistency and against what standards?

I asses further that OSS/FOSS in practice, is worse than even the largest of bureaucracies with departments pursuing their own interests, ideas and concepts. I assert that this assessment is supported by the overwhelming number and type of OSS/FOSS distributions in circulation and the complete lack of any effective unifying force as reflected in the numerous conflicts surrounding interpretations of the GPL.

Such disjointed, rudderless development processes leave themselves open to exploitation, which I assess is represented in the efforts of the OIN.

OSS, not FOSS, can compete, but they will have to pick a horse and play by the rules which govern business - that of course conflicts sharply with the alleged spirit of OSS, which is why this is such a mess and we're discussing it. The contradictions have to end - and the idea that "anything" is, or should be free does nothing but devalue and impoverish those that produce "anything."

This post was edited by lketchum on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 23:59.

#9 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 5/16/2007 1:15:39 AM

#8

So I understand. You are saying MS code is freely available to investigate for possible patent infringement? I highly doubt this statement.

Moreover, it is ludicrous to conclude that because some government wonk is looking over MS's code (for possible back door security code breaches or code that could jeopardize national security) that they are somehow going to find patent infringing software code.

Please address the issues:

Is MS infringing on other patents? How would you know this? Is it fair for another company to say that you are infringing on their patent if that patent is not easily available for review?

#8 please be succinct. I understand that you're likely years away from high school English, but to refresh your memory brevity counts!

#10 By 21203 (76.27.192.67) at 5/16/2007 2:31:32 AM

#9 - http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/Initiative/FAQ.mspx

Clear enough? I'll grant you there is no "random end-user license agreement" but the simple presumption that the code is not out there or available for review is just hogwash.

This post was edited by mram on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 02:35.

#11 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 5/16/2007 3:50:31 AM

#9, As I said, "Further, Microsoft source code is not secret and there are shared source initiatives outside of the reviews I have mentioned."

#12 By 12071 (203.217.60.182) at 5/16/2007 4:36:19 AM

#7 The only circular logic is the one you inserted yourself because you're obviously incapable of comprehending what anyone else says - or is it just things that you don't agree with?

They can discuss whatever they want with whomever they want, but the instance that they come out on public record and throw out accusations, they better have some evidence to back it up. And I'm talking about REAL evidence, not the "here are the facts, trust us, they're all valid" kind that you seem to fall for every single time. They mentioned 235 after their exhaustive study, excellent, it should take someone a maximum of 5 minutes to produce the list of infringing patents and start suing all the Linux companies! Go right ahead... sue! We'd all prefer it to standing on the side lines throwing out threats of lawsuits and god knows what other FUD they, and you, come up with.

Saying Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents... but we're not going to tell you which patents... but pay us now, because it's all true, start paying now... IS the definition of FUD. They started it, you clueless wonder, whatever retorts they get now they deserve for throwing the FUD in the first place. Don't worry there will always be shills like yourself, Parkkker and lketchum to run to their defenses.

#10 Ahh yes, the great "Shared Source" initiative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source

Make sure you're in one of these markets, otherwise no source for you:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/Licensing/Availability.mspx

Make sure you're in the right "community" otherwise you miss out on almost 10% of their programs (and I'm sure you can think of just about every product in that 10%!):
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/Initiative/FAQ.mspx

And then hope that the source code you get isn't under the Ms-RL license, or the "look but don't touch" license.

So no, the code is not out there, and I don't think anyone is really making the case that it should be, but to say otherwise is misleading to say the least. With open source there are no restrictions, it doesn't matter who you are, where you are, who you know, what community you belong to, etc if you want access to the code you've got it. If you want to play with it, you can. If you want to support the product by writing code, you can, it won't always be accepted (life a bitch huh) but at the same time there is nothing to stop you from producing your own version if your vision of the product differs from those who created it initially. The only thing that you have to be aware of, is the license of the code that you are using. Some licenses specifically state that IF you want to use that code then you must provide the source code (and any modifications to THAT source code) to anyone who wishes to see it so that they can do what you originally did. And in many ways, philosophically, why shouldn't you... you were helped out by the hard work of others, why shouldn't others benefit from the work you've done.

#13 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 5/17/2007 4:25:24 AM

oh but comprehension still eludes you kabuki

"but the instance that they come out on public record and throw out accusations, they better have some evidence to back it up."

Since when?

"Saying Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents... but we're not going to tell you which patents... but pay us now"

What part of "Microsoft was clear that they delve into the details of the infringements in discussions with partners concerned about their exposure." do you NOT understand?

So, if you're still not content and want to re-ask the same questions for a third time, just let me know. I'll be happy to re-re-paste my earlier answers for you.

This post was edited by mooresa56 on Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 04:27.

#14 By 1153703 (91.236.75.41) at 5/20/2013 1:20:07 PM

Im up!! As i said this is my favoured ocupation. I am on all topics in "la red" if you smite some captivating sites you commitment always lay one's hands on me posting. I love it , this is my in seventh heaven

http://pi-ma.pl/shop/product.php?id_product=35&id_lang=3
http://pi-ma.pl/shop/order.php?ipa=622
http://www.noat.com.pl/strony,blogi,fora/ogrody,od,a,do,z,nawadnianie,ogrodow,s,805/
http://pi-ma.pl/shop/product.php?id_product=835&id_lang=3

#15 By 4240821 (213.139.195.162) at 10/27/2023 4:05:24 AM