| 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 running scared from Linux | |
|
||
| Time: 07:00 EST/12:00 GMT | News Source: IT Wire | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
Speak to anyone outside of Microsoft who knows anything about Microsoft's claim that Linux software violates 42 of its patents and most of them agree - Microsoft is running scared. Many believe that Microsoft's public announcement smacks of desperation and is a risky move by a company that has run out of ideas. This is not the first time that Linux has been under attack for alleged patent infringements. "We've heard all this before with the SCO (Unix) case," says Steven D'Aprano, operations manager for Windows-Linux integration consultant Cybersource. "We know that Microsoft had been funding SCO, tossing them a few million here and there to keep the case alive. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 172 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:33:08 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 12071 (203.217.60.182) at 5/16/2007 7:39:47 AM |
|
"I don't believe Microsoft genuinely believes that its technology has been ripped off," he says. "If that was the case it would have done something about it years ago. The Linux kernel and all the source code is open. Anybody can download it and read it. You can't tell me that Microsoft hasn't had its people going through every line of the Linux kernel for last 10 years. Of course they have.
"The fact is this is not about preventing Linux from ripping off Microsoft technology. This is about scaring off potential Linux customers. They don't know how to compete with Linux directly. Come on Microsoft.... Put up or shut up! |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/16/2007 8:05:20 AM |
| #1: They prefer to FUD up instead. Nobody thinks MS has a leg to stand on. |
| #3 By 37 (76.210.78.134) at 5/16/2007 8:51:26 AM |
| MS has plenty to stand on if indeed their patents were infringed upon. If they were, I hope they win every case. If they don't win, then lets throw all patents out the window. |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/16/2007 9:00:35 AM |
|
#3: For the sake of argument, let's assume the Linux kernel does infringe upon 30+ MS patents. It is now up to MS to inform the Linux kernel maintainers of the patents being violated, and then to give the Linux guys the opportunity to either a) license the patent or b) stop infringing upon it. This is how it's done. Except that MS is only going halfway where they accuse of infringement, but then stay silent as to the specifics and desired remedies. MS even has the gall to say they can't tell what patents are being violated and where, because then the FOSS guys would write around it -- like that was a bad thing, like working around the patent was somehow insidious or under-handed, when in reality it's one of the legal, ethical & expected responses (license or stop infringement). You say you hope MS wins every case. How can it be resolved when MS won't make an actual case out of it, instead preferring to just badmouth without any substantiation whatsoever.
btw picked up Fear of a Blank Planet yet? |
| #5 By 32132 (66.183.202.89) at 5/16/2007 9:17:45 AM |
|
"If that was the case it would have done something about it years ago."
Like making a deal with Novell? Remember, the FSF and related companies have registered themselves as charities to make sure it isn't worthwhile to sue them directly. Microsoft has to do it indirectly via companies like Novell. This post was edited by NotParker on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 09:19. |
| #6 By 8556 (12.207.97.148) at 5/16/2007 9:31:19 AM |
| I don't believe that MS ever runs scared. They run with the intention to continue sales and profit growth, and to cripple or crush competitors, while at the same time running to the bank with truckloads of money. Their current tactics concerning Linux are legal maneuvers only. Once they release the specific patent violations, which likely are valid, they know full well that the Linux community will recode to avoid the patent infringements. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/16/2007 10:02:36 AM |
| #6: The patents MAY be valid, or they may be the kind of junk patent that SCOTUS has pegged as obvious and therefore invalid. MS may not want them under scrutiny, so there is another theory as to the MS mystery patents. Just like SCO. "We have all this evidence that you took something from us, but we won't tell you what so just trust us m'kay?" Yeah, right. |
| #8 By 37 (76.210.78.134) at 5/16/2007 10:08:55 AM |
|
Latch,
You are at the mercy of the media. You nor I have ANY idea what is happening behind the scenes right now. Maybe MS is putting a list together? Maybe MS is getting their attorneys to do all the paperwork for the lawsuits? MS isn't responsible to inform joe public EXACTLY what they are doing every second. How do you know that next week, or next month that MS isn't going to provide the evidence? We have no idea. |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/16/2007 10:35:42 AM |
| #8: True, but speculation is all we have when the main party involved won't provide full details of their gripe. And don't believe for a second that MS hasn't had a team going over the Linux kernel source for the past many, many years. If there was meat on the bone, MS would have used this avenue to kill Linux years ago. MS, while ethically challenged, isn't stupid when it comes to the law (PR is another matter altogether). If there was something to their claims, MS would have done something long ago. Meanwhile, the list I'm interested in seeing, which I'm sure exists but will never see the light of day, is the list of patents infringed by Windows. Software patents and the flurry at which they've been issued, makes it a virtual certainty that most software today violates someone's patent somewhere. |
| #10 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/16/2007 2:20:56 PM |
|
More interesting tidbits. The guy who wrote the initial study had this to say about Ballmer:
"Ballmer makes a very bold statement by saying Linux infringes hundreds of patents…. That is extremely different than saying ‘Linux potentially infringes x patent,’ because the requirement to prove infringement is much more difficult than the requirement to simply file a case claiming infringement." "He misconstrues the point of the OSRM study, which found that Linux potentially, not definitely, infringes 283 untested patents, while not infringing a single court-validated patent." "Open source faces no more, if not less, legal risk than proprietary software," report author Ravicher told technology news site eWeek. "The market needs to understand that the study Microsoft is citing actually proves the opposite of what they claim it does." Now for either an avalanche of apologist explanations, or silence. |
| #11 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 5/16/2007 2:24:33 PM |
| Ahhhh... silence. |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/16/2007 2:35:06 PM |
|
More MS double standards. MS' position on their own infringement is, if you think MS is infringing one of your patents, it's up to you to go to MS and tell them exactly what, when & where. However, when MS accuses you of infringing their patent, it's up to you to go to MS and figure it out for yourself -- or just take their word for it and whip out your chequebook.
I loved the analogy on Groklaw, where they liken MS to a dog that has decided to back down from a fight, but still gives one last growl before it slinks off. This FUD won't go anywhere because it was instantly debunked 'round the globe and it's all over the web. |
| #13 By 17996 (131.107.0.105) at 5/16/2007 3:40:20 PM |
| I don't have any links handy, but I remember reading somewhere that Microsoft has given details on the alleged infringed patents to various Linux companies (I'm guessing Red Hat, IBM, etc.). However they have not released details to "the world." |
| #14 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 5/16/2007 3:50:33 PM |
|
A lot of opinions are being shared and absorbed by people as fact - perfect examples of the influence of blogs.
Analogies, speculation, etc... what value does it have and what surprise is any of it? We do know and can examine the record, that Microsoft’s patents are considered to be among the most solid there are in this space. We know that their most senior leaders have specified the number and area that they reason there is evidence of infringement. We also know they are willing to and have sought and succeeded at working with OSS vendors and that they are less interested in legal action over cross-licensing. They'll get action, I am sure. I think everyone is missing one point, "why" would Microsoft do this now? The answer is pretty clear to me - they are forcing two questions to be asked and answered: What does software of any type really cost, and who do I call when I need help, or service - and by doing so, they are differentiating reality from the ideals behind OSS - forcing OSS to declare itself. It is a stroke of pure strategic genius. I am also certain that Mr. Ballmer would not have made any statement unless any patent that is at the basis of potential litigation, was not well researched. I am equally certain that patents at issue, are well known to those who have commercialized the distribution and support of OSS. The matter is too serious to be treated so casually and analogies and positions aren't of any import. So serious in fact, that the word "willful" had to be one of the criteria applied in assess which if Microsoft's patents was being infringed upon. Just because some OSS/FOSS advocate blogs the planet about it, won't change how this will end up. This of course, includes my own posts on this or any subject. |
| #15 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/16/2007 4:00:02 PM |
|
#14: Here we go.
"We do know and can examine the record, that Microsoft’s patents are considered to be among the most solid there are in this space." We can, can we? Maybe you can. I'm not so sure. The FAT patent comes to mind. "We know that their most senior leaders have specified the number and area that they reason there is evidence of infringement." Anyone can make claims about anything. btw did you know that MS is violating 126 of my patents? Really, because I say so. "I think everyone is missing one point, "why" would Microsoft do this now? The answer is pretty clear to me - they are forcing two questions to be asked and answered: What does software of any type really cost, and who do I call when I need help, or service - and by doing so, they are differentiating reality from the ideals behind OSS - forcing OSS to declare itself." Everyone except you, of course. And your explanation is pure nonsense. Utter nonsense. Take your MS Gold Partner hat off for just a minute and let your brain expand. MS has FUDded Linux for years, to the point where everyone knows. Now, whenever MS opens its mouth about Linux, people expect it to be FUD. "Just because some OSS/FOSS advocate blogs the planet about it, won't change how this will end up." Don't try to marginalize this story as being something that only SlashDot Linux geeks are up in arms about. This story is all over the web in every major online publication, and the general consensus is that MS is full of crap -- no matter how the faithful want to believe otherwise despite all evidence to the contrary. |
| #16 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 5/16/2007 4:20:52 PM |
|
#15, Your post is a perfect example - all over the web...
Bunk! Man, the web is a trailer park in need of a tornado - 99% of it is pure'd Bovine Scatology. I don't have to try and marginalize a thing - reactions to Microsoft's statements provide ample proof of that. Microsoft has been very consistent about OSS/Linux - they ask the same questions any customer does when they work opposite any operating system and environment. Look Latch, I run 7 very large Linux servers every single day - before any one of them was placed into production for customers, we do what is called a R.A.D. - a Requirements Analysis Document. An entire section of the R.A.D. is devoted to the OSes running and every detail attending them - with specific line items for licensing, and indemnification. In other words, the customer responsibly demanded that contracts be in place from the distributor, indemnifying not only them, but my company, from any form of liability. In the real world where details, fairness, contracts, and yes, IP, matter to people, these things are normal, expected and of no surprise. Microsoft isn't FUD'ing and they aren't asking anything that I have not had asked of me countless times: Who is selling what- for how much - and who do I call when it breaks? All fair questions. They are stating what is obvious to anyone in business - OSS? Fine! Play by the rules attending business and what it is to own property. What you seem to advocate is that when it comes to IP, there is no property as it has been understood for thousands of years and therefore it should not be protected. It is that position that has no merit and that position that marginalizes people and ideals that advocate for OSS/FOSS. "let my brain expand..." Tell us, Latch, exactly how many servers running Linux do you own and support each day that underwrite the businesses that allow companies to perform? How many? I have 7 - Dell 4400 and 6600 models - each so damn dependent upon adjacent Microsoft servers it isn't funny [literally not funny at all - I run these things for very close friends that made dreadful business decisions]. This post was edited by lketchum on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 16:21. |
| #17 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 5/16/2007 5:47:53 PM |
|
Thank God. Before reading all the comments, I quickly scanned and noticed latch had a half dozen. So, plenty of time on his hands today. My my my, receptionist work do have its advantages.
Skipped, in the same vein as my not reading the mac observer and macworld articles from this week. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 17:49. |
| #18 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 5/16/2007 6:33:07 PM |
|
I've said it before, MS doesn't care squat about Linux. Linux is a chimera. Google on the other hand is not.
The play here is to dissuade that nice little silicon valley company from crashing the MS party. MS doesn't want anyone else to play in their sandbox. |
| #19 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/17/2007 8:20:21 AM |
|
#16: "Microsoft isn't FUD'ing and they aren't asking anything that I have not had asked of me countless times: "
Well, that settles that I guess. Everyone else in the universe, with the exception of the AW holy MS trinity, sees it differently. Major IP legal firms are weighing in that MS is full of crap. "What you seem to advocate is that when it comes to IP, there is no property as it has been understood for thousands of years and therefore it should not be protected." Put your strawman down, please. What I advocate is shitting or getting off the pot. If MS has some problem, let them tell whomever what it is with specificity and the problem will be resolved. I don't want FOSS violating any MS patents. Of course I disagree with software patents entirely as I believe you should not be allowed to patent an idea, only an implementation. "Tell us, Latch, exactly how many servers running Linux do you own and support each day that underwrite the businesses that allow companies to perform? How many? I have 7 - Dell 4400 and 6600 models - each so damn dependent upon adjacent Microsoft servers it isn't funny [literally not funny at all - I run these things for very close friends that made dreadful business decisions]." Tell me, Ketchum, why I need to, and how it's the slightest bit relevant to this discussion on MS patent FUD? Please try to stay focussed on the matter at hand without going off on tangents down lketchum lane. Funny you should mention it though. I have 7 Linux servers doing mission critical everything, and I've got several Windows servers totally dependent on them for everything. I manage them for business friends who bought into MS FUD... See how fun it can be here when anyone can claim anything? Whee! btw how many of those servers do you personally manage? And where do you find the time, what with you flipping between the data centre one minute, rebuilding children's computers by hand the next and posting a dump truck's worth of text here daily the next? This post was edited by Latch on Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 08:21. |
| #20 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 5/17/2007 10:13:05 AM |
|
#19, I am personally responsible for all of them - it is my company and if anything goes south, it is my fault alone - no matter who did what, or when. On the other hand, if things go well, I step aside and credit the engineers that I have the privilege of working with and leading.
Practically, I set each of these up years ago and review their logs each day - along with dozens of other reports from a management app we built for this purpose. Whenever they need physical parts [the 6600's in particular, had a rough first year due to defective controllers and buggy firmware], it is my hands that are in them. I have the time because we are a unit and work as units work - efficiently. Most of our guys are former soldiers, so they understand this and the backwards planning process. We also work hard - really hard and start early and end late - partly because we all love the work and partly because our names are defined by what we do - so if things don't work, we take it seriously. This site is special to me personally - I respected the guys that started it and how they started it. So I help. I don't know if you personally know what it is to "sing" something - where you know it so well, the working of it is reduced to muscle memory. That is how much of technology is to us - so it isn't particularly strenuous to fog out a few lines about it here. I realize that you get stressed over the text length, but do trust that I assess people deserve a proper explanation - it is a sign of respect, which has to be given before it can be earned. You can always skip over the posts. |
| #21 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 5/17/2007 4:41:10 PM |
|
"have 7 Linux servers doing mission critical everything"
latch, those aren't servers... those are coffee makers. And I highly doubt they run off of linux. |
| #22 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 5/18/2007 8:46:22 AM |
| But they do use JAVA! |
| #23 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 5/18/2007 11:36:41 AM |
| ;-) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 172 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:33:08 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
