| 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 |
 |
Hilf: Microsoft won't sue over Linux, for now | |
|
||
| Time: 10:40 EST/15:40 GMT | News Source: Macworld | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
Microsoft ignited hostility following its assertion in Fortune magazine on Monday that Linux and other open-source software infringe on 235 of the company’s patents. The software giant, which signed a controversial patent cross-licensing deal with Novell last November, is encouraging other companies to reach licensing agreements to resolve intellectual property claims. It has made companies nervous about whether they could eventually be targeted by lawsuits from Microsoft. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 166 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:22:57 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 5/17/2007 11:03:49 AM |
|
I'm surprised you haven't commented, Latch.
Is it because what Mr. Hilf is saying here is the truth and that he and Microsoft are sincere? In line with my post in response to you yesterday where I offered, 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." So what part of Mr. Hilf's remarks are not sober, responsible and consistent with all else Microsoft has said and done regarding this matter? Why is it that when people are responsible, moderate, considerate and professional, guys like you can't handle it and do your worst to debase everything? Is your rage and hate so profound, as NotParker suggests? I've always been curious about such things and what the heck it is that moderate people do that is so offensive to those on your side of things. |
| #2 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 5/17/2007 11:52:46 AM |
|
Hilf states: "If you write a patent, it has to be very specific — you can’t have a generalized patent. "
I have to disagree with that statement. This is one of the key points that is driving the desire for patent reform; that you can indeed get patents that are overly generalized. Whether or not you are supposed to be able to is irrelevant. The USPTO is so overwhelmed that it gives patents to pretty much anyone who applies, and leaves it up to the courts and the litigators to determine which ones are valid, and which ones aren't. And much of the blame for this situation goes to the US Government, who takes the patent fees and puts them into the general funds, and at the same time, reduces the funding that the USPTO recieves, at a time when it clearly needs more money to hire more patent claim processors and prior art checking people. Patent reform, expecially where software patents are concerned, are certainly desperately needed. However, the fix to the problem is non-trivial. On the other hand, software IP protection worked fine, in my opinion, under the old rules, where software was treated like other creative works, and protected under the copyright system. I feel that this is where software IP protections should be placed once again. That way, the idea is not protected, but the way it is implimented would be. |
| #3 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 5/17/2007 12:05:22 PM |
|
#2, Good observations, but I think he meant to imply that one should seek and defend good patents - solid, as many have assessed Microsoft's to be.
I have only been personally involved in the application of two patents, and in both cases, discovered that the patent attorney/firm engaged is another, and perhaps most important factor. The process was long, and very detailed and specific and the research for existing patents took months. One of our clients who specializes in IP agrees with your recommendation - it would add a great deal of clarity - treating copy protected SW much as one protects certain types of applied mathematics. It would interesting to see this examined. |
| #4 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 5/17/2007 12:24:40 PM |
|
I have a problem with all software patents, whether solid or overly broad. I think the whole concept is just plain dumb, and inhibits more than it enables creativity.
For example, have a look at your screen right now. Do you realize that you are looking at a number of Apple Inc. patents? That scrollbar on the right side of your browser, for example, is patented by Apple. So is the mouse you used to get here. And the window concept in general. GUI buttons? Patented by Apple. And it has only gotten more insane from there. One-click patent, anyone? I mean, come on, a patent on the idea of doing a bunch of things when a single button is pressed? What kind of nonsense is that? That would be like me patenting the concept of separating collections of words by visible means to improve readability, and then sue everyone who writes more than a single sentence, or has the nerve to use a paragraph break, chapter break, etc., without a suitable license. And software patents have gotten to that level of stupidity in the last decade or two. I can write a book about a subject, and copyright it. If you write a book on the same topic, but do not write it using generally similar language and style, you are not encumbered by copyright laws. If you just re-write my book, changing a few words and sentence structures here and there, then you can be sued for copyright infringement. This same concept would work just as well for software, IMNSHO. |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/17/2007 1:06:51 PM |
|
#1: Some of us have real jobs and can't spend all day evangelizing here. Plus, it was lunchtime.
Man, when you drink the Kool-Aid, you take a BIG swig... How is it that you know Hilf & MS are being sincere? Sincerity is measured by actions, not words. Hilf is doing damage control because of the storm they caused. It's the oldest media trick in the book, "I never said what I said, everyone just misunderstood me." Uh-huh. "A lot of opinions are being shared and absorbed by people as fact - perfect examples of the influence of blogs." Yes, and?... "Analogies, speculation, etc... what value does it have and what surprise is any of it?" What value does any form of communication have? "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." Who is 'we' here? You and MS? Are all their patents as solid as the FAT patent and the IS NOT patent? "We know that their most senior leaders have specified the number and area that they reason there is evidence of infringement." Their most senior leaders have spouted some numbers that even the author of the report is saying they're misrepresenting. "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." MS pays lip-service to OSS when it suits them. They partner with others when it suits them, and (more often than not) the partner comes to regret the decision to work with MS. Even Novell had to start opposing MS' statements the day after their agreement was announced. It is true that MS would rather avoid litigation, but it's not for any altruistic reasons. It's because they would get their ass handed to them at worst, or have their bogus patents invalidated at worst. Why spend time & money when idle threats work just as well? Hilf, as with all executives at his level, is a very adept dancer: "Hilf: What we heard back after the Novell deal was “Give us more transparency. You say that there is IP involved, give us an understanding of what that is.” So the attempt was that if we give a number and category of where these things fall, maybe that will help people get an idea of the scope." Well, Mr. Hilf, if everyone is asking for transparency, perhaps you could actually deliver what they;'re asking for and specify which patents are being infringed and where, or in which module? Then we'd have a much better idea of the scope. Geez, even the title of the article is FUDdish. "Hilf: Mircosoft won't sue over Linux, for now, but maybe later we will... you just never know... perhaps it's best for you to stay away from Linux just in case we, you know, change our minds?..." |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/17/2007 2:09:17 PM |
|
#1: No response, Mr. Ketchum? I guess my argument is so airtight that it's blown your head clean off. That MUST be it.
|
| #7 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 5/17/2007 3:58:51 PM |
|
gents,
do you think hilf is related to milf? methinks i'd change me name. |
| #8 By 28801 (68.81.50.122) at 5/17/2007 4:58:39 PM |
|
The mere fact that Latch has to toot his own horn proves how lame he is. His rambling has grown increasingly truculent and down right mean in some instances. That usually signals frustration. His arguments are so weak that even the normally verbose Ketchum can’t be bothered to respond. Perhaps Latch should find a new soapbox made of wood not paper. This post was edited by rxcall on Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 19:51. |
| #9 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 5/17/2007 8:40:14 PM |
|
Well OF COURSE they won't sue (and the reasons for why they won't have been discusses to death over and over again) and as Hilf mentioned, they don't want to sue as it's not their strategy! Spreading as much FUD as possible is their strategy! It's that fear that they instill that they COULD at any time come around and SUE you or your whole company should your developers use any of that open source voodoo code! Sure they've used it int he past when it has benefited them, but right now it doesn't benefit them if you're using someone else's products!
And then we have lketchum and co. who keep stirring the huge FUD pot. Keep spreading the fear guys! #4 "One-click patent, anyone?" That was denied (and is being appealed)... but it's a perfect example of how easily the US PTO give out patents to anyone and everyone... funny how Microsoft have been granted so many in the last few years huh! All software patents should be thrown out. |
| #10 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 5/17/2007 8:44:04 PM |
|
#6, Just got back in from finishing another deployment, Latch - you know, one of those real job things we all do.
I stand by my statements, because they are sound and I assess that how Mr. Hilf stated things is exactly how they are. |
| #11 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 5/17/2007 8:50:24 PM |
|
#9, Nothing I have said, and nothing anyone from Microsoft has said, is about fear inducing.
On the contrary, it has been solidly in the camp of cross-licensing and OSS acknowledging that where it is used effectively, it is just as commercial, as proprietary software is. As I have said repeatedly, this is nothing more that stating what is true - business requirements demand this - accountability, etc... Where IP is at issue, actually forms the basis for licensing agreements, which I suspect will follow. Call it FUD all you like, but until the very essence of what it is to own property changes and the laws attending that also change, you're going to have to deal with it. If you think about it, there are very large international issues and concerns in play and it is OSS's best interests to have work based upon OSS regarded as valueable property subject to protection under the law. |
| #12 By 9589 (70.184.247.75) at 5/18/2007 12:32:29 AM |
|
Microsoft has been sued for all manner of things bogus and well founded, but mostly because they were the deepest pockets on the planet. Now, the shoe is on the other foot. Go get'em Microsoft!
Meanwhile, without waiting for the appellate process to conclude the EU (which can't seem to get its member countries to even agree on a constitution) has filched nearly a billion dollars from the Microsoft coffers. Color me ignited with hostility!!! |
| #13 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/18/2007 8:13:09 AM |
|
#10: Of course you stand by your statements. I didn't expect for a moment to convert one of the faithful. I guess when you're making money off the beast, it's best to pretend you don't see the fangs & warts, or the large pile of bones in its lair.
I have a question for you: Are you (or your company) a Microsoft Partner? |
| #14 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 5/18/2007 8:32:41 AM |
|
#10, No, I stand by what is right. What is right is adherence to the law as it is written. When one disagrees with that, one has many means to see laws changed. Similarly, if I do not respect the laws that protect others, what right do I have to expect equal protection.
Yes, we are Microsoft Partners, but we are also partners with many other companies - large and small. We are also OEM Systems Builders. Couple things you should know about my business model [only to illustrate how inaccurate your characterizations are]: We do not make a dime off of Microsoft software sales - nor do we seek to. We do not make a dime off of the bandwidth we sell - nor do we seek to. We do not make a dime off of the hardware we sell - nor do we seek to. Whatever the costs of are, we pass them through directly to our customers - our costs, only. I regard such things as commodities - subject to intense pricing pressure. The only thing we buy is RAW bandwidth, which is distributed from our own concentrators and component parts and fully boxed retail copies of software/licensing. So for example, we'll engineer, equip and provision a DS-1 to a customer and charge only the actual costs of the line distance from that customer to our center [a PL, if you're familiar with the language]. Since I sign and hold that contract, I do not have to go through a re-seller/VAR and I do not charge for Managed DIA [Dedicated Internet Access]. Each such line is tied back to the RING and directly to our center [one hop at about 5 ms]. We operate our own fully authoritative Host DNS and we are the delegate authority [forward and reverse]. We fully manage these routes and they benefit from the same SLA [Service Liability Agreement] as our mains [< 17 ms] - so people have a killer experience that is dead reliable. We also provision and manage the security, IDS, NDS, and scanning. We operate in very similar ways across all aspects of a company's needs - network, hardware, software, help and support. All are fully managed and all are part of turn-key initiatives. Cont... |
| #15 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 5/18/2007 9:10:30 AM |
|
We make our money by earning it - by what "WE" do, not what Microsoft does, or ATT/Bellsouth, or Cisco. If any of them change, tank, merge, or declare war on the Cub Scouts, we don't care - they are, or produce tools and nothing more. Microsoft makes good tools, but so does Cisco and Samsung, etc...
We charge zero turn-up, or consulting fees. I donate all of my time to each effort and charge nothing for engineering, design, or turn up. If a customer does not like the service, or the circuit of what we do with it, I eat it personally. We make our money by charging one flat - lower cost fee, that extends myself and our team as a small/medium business's IT/MIS staff - where we can only grow if our customers grow. Our customers have grown and by amazing percentages. To do this and do it well, centralized management and consistency are vital - things Microsoft does well and extends well. Similarly, our machines, and networks have to be perfect - or the support costs would kill me. So, our machines are made of 100% premium components - ZERO White Box Monkey Models and nothing off of the spot market. We buy only from the pallet market where items are not handled but once - by ourselves. I sign each machine and every customer - right down to the temp in some shipping department has my personal numbers and they are invited to call if they so much as forget where the Outlook icon is. Response times are near immediate and since we built it all - wire by wire, or line of code, by line of code, we know exactly what to do to fix it. We extend all of this [at no added fee] to each home, of each customer's staff and we make house calls [every day]. We try and spoil the customer so bad that they never shop us, or move away - and they don't. They regard us as an integral part of their success, and in many cases, lives. Many of our customers have become friends and thier children often intern with us - so when a mom and or dad sends a son to work with us, that is an expression of trust that I do not take lightly. Unlike a lot of businesses, everything we've earned goes back into the people and our infrastructure. I have taken nothing from it and regard leading our people as a privilege they extend to me - not a right. As I said, it is a unit, not a company. I am the Godfather of my staffs' kids and also for many of my customers' children - honors so profound and compelling that there are no words one may speak to express what that means. You need to know one last thing, what I write here is 100% factual and based upon what we do and can prove to be factual at the time. I won't write it otherwise. It is shared in some hope that we can help, or at least help people look at things in a more positive light - to say, yes, Microsoft will drop the ball from time to time, as we all do, but that is not the same as being fundamentally evil, or bad. I think that is true of all companies and people - if it isn't, then what is the point of any of it? We have a sign in our center, it reads, "Help All, Hurt None" We've never turned a soul away from our door - doesn't matter what they need, help, a job, a PC for their school, or help with a son that seems lost. As I said before, we are former soldiers and we learned the hard way that we could only change what was around us. Now you can crap on all that if you want, but you have to know, it absolutely doesn't matter - whatever we had to prove, we did a long time ago. So you can read my "walls of text" if you like, or skip right on by, that's fine too. If any of them help even one guy, then I'll have accomplished what I set out to do. Now, I have some laptops to build - I'll be back later and we can spar some more. I enjoy the exchanges and the mental exercise. Thanks, L |
| #16 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 5/18/2007 9:29:54 AM |
|
lketchum, your leadership methodology and business culture are certainly admirable and all-too-rare in these days of greed and disloyalty.
However, none of that changes the obvious view that this news story shows us Microsoft FUD at its finest. Hilf states, "So we have no plans to litigate. You can never say we’ll never do anything in the future, but that’s not our strategy." But, Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt is Microsoft's strategy. #13: Are you (or your company) a Microsoft Partner? (Question directed to lketchum.) I'll answer for myself since it seems to befuddle the Microsoft zealots here. I've been using Microsoft products continually since 1986. I've been a MSDN Universal subscriber since 1998 and I still buy separate licenses for my non-business PCs. My income comes primarily from using Microsoft products. However, what Microsoft is doing here is not good for the industry. I can take off my Microsoft propeller hat and see this for exactly what it is: FUD. |
| #17 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/18/2007 12:27:52 PM |
| #14: That helps explain why we've never heard a discouraging word about anything MS-related from you. It also puts everything you say into the proper context. |
| #18 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/18/2007 3:02:26 PM |
|
Update: Looks like Mr. Hilf was right; MS won't sue over Linux -- because they won't be able to:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070518124020691 |
| #19 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 5/18/2007 3:29:24 PM |
| #18: Well, they certainly have a small window of opportunity to do so, based on that article. That means that it is now put up or shut up time, as GPLv3 will basically shut them up. |
| #20 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 5/18/2007 3:34:06 PM |
|
#18, Okay - so now, the argument is not that Microsoft's patents are not solid, or valid and not that they are not being infringed upon... and further, the argument is now not that patent law itself is flawed, but that to phrase it more exactly, it provides a probable defense to all Linux users and vendors, not just Novell's paying customers, if Microsoft does sue. as the author clarifies in his blog post?
So the matter has gone from opinions running contrary to established law - declaring patents either invalid, weak, or irrelevant, because all software patents should be voided, to this? In effect what this represents is an admission of sorts, or at least it serves as an example of the real fear being amongst those advocating and using OSS/FOSS. One does have to ask, where is respect for the law in such a shift and further, where is the sense and credibility in previous arguments? This is as bad as those continuing to rewrite the GPL, in their efforts to steer around laws protecting IP. I mean, wasn't the GPLv3 in part, structured to prevent other distributors from forming business relationships with Microsoft, as Novell had done? Even if suchg a defense were to prove effective, how could anyone feel comfortable in exercising such a defense? I know a lot of lawyers, and despite the jokes we all hear, not one of them has proven to be anything other than decent. |
| #21 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 5/18/2007 3:52:40 PM |
|
#20: "I know a lot of lawyers, and despite the jokes we all hear, not one of them has proven to be anything other than decent."
I am glad you have had such wonderful experiences with those in the legal profession. I have known quite a few in my lifetime, too, owning to my mother working for various law firms as an office manager, and I got to know many of them, and some were decent guys, and some were absolute scumbags. I send my mother lawyer jokes, and she can put names to lawyers that the jokes sound like. On the main topic, what is being said is not an admission of anything. It merely states that once the conditions specified occur, it will become a moot point who is right or wrong, because MS will be indemnifying every Linux user by way of the Novell certificates. |
| #22 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 5/18/2007 6:30:13 PM |
| #21 They are of course limited to those I know and of course subject to any influence that they themselves may experience. So perhaps they are scumbags toward others - I just have not seen it. It is as much to say, words like, "always, never, all, etc..." when applied to people, are rarely ever so definitive. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 166 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:22:57 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
