| 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 |
 |
Google to rescue Linux from Microsoft lawyers | |
|
||
| Time: 00:29 EST/05:29 GMT | News Source: *Linked Within Post* | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Google has joined the fight to save Linux from an army of patent-waving Microsoft lawyers. With Redmond threatening to collect royalties from Linux users and distributors across the industry, claiming that the open-source operating system violates 235 of its patents, Google has thrown its considerable weight behind the Open Invention Network (OIN), a consortium of companies bent on protecting open-source software from legal attack. All OIN members - including big names such as IBM, NEC, Novell, Philips, Red Hat, and Sony, as well as Google - agree not to use their Linux-related patents against each other, and all have free access to a collection of additional open-source-related patents purchased by the consortium as a whole. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 227 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:02:22 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 8/8/2007 7:37:36 AM |
|
"agree not to use their Linux-related patents against each other"
But only against each other - so much for "Open"! "open source developers are more likely to drive the industry forward:" Please tell me what innovation open source has driven. From what I can see, Open Source just copies other software and releases free versions that aren't as good. This post was edited by rxcall on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 at 07:48. |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 8/8/2007 9:31:41 AM |
| What a silly headline. Linux doesn't need Google's help as there are no lawyers from Microsoft. All they have is Uncle Fester throwing out vague, unsubstantiated claims of infringement and veiled legal threat FUD (and the odd chair, but that's a story for another day.) But no lawyers, only empty suits. |
| #3 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 8/8/2007 9:52:15 AM |
|
What an expose!
Open source is just a front for big companies! Like we didn't know. |
| #4 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 8/8/2007 11:05:43 AM |
|
#1: Please tell me what innovation open source has driven.
Microsoft had enjoyed the big, comfy chair of market domination with IE for years and we were expected to just keep using IE6 as is. If it weren't for Firefox, we would have never seen IE7. (Not that IE7 is innovative, but Microsoft "innovates" everything, so maybe it is...) |
| #5 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 8/8/2007 12:44:22 PM |
| The conversation was about Open Source innovation. I never said that MS is a big innovator, but the argument can be made that MS innovates much more than Open Source. |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 8/8/2007 1:24:35 PM |
|
#5: The thread is about the OIN, but for whatever reason you took it down the path of innovation comparisons. And I'm sure that, once we reach a consensus on what constitutes an innovation, we'll be well on our way to wasting a lot of time since it's really irrelevant. MS hasn't innovated in years (if ever, depending on your definition of 'innovation'), but does that really matter? *Innovation* isn't something restricted to the realms of open or closed source. Companies like MS don't innovate. It's much cheaper & easier to watch which way the winds are blowing and then go with the flow. Let the startups take all the risk & expense of innovating and growing a developing market. If they survive long enough and their tech grows and the market ripens, steal their IP or buy them. Boom! Instant innovation.
A better question might be why are you so hostile to open source? Did it somehow screw you in some Microsoftian fashion? Is it affecting you negatively in any way? Or are you just spouting the usual pro-MS talking points? |
| #7 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 8/8/2007 1:42:47 PM |
| No hostility here, I just have not seen any Open Source apps that are anywhere near as good as their commercial counterparts. |
| #8 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 8/8/2007 1:54:09 PM |
|
#6, The trouble many people have with OSS/FOSS, including myself is the "insistence" about it - where people insist is good enough, it isn't in a great many cases, and commercial software very often is "good enough" and worth the money people pay for it [in addition to attending support and usage costs].
The trouble continues when those choosing commercial software are made to defend the purchasing decisions so continuously, while those on the left, er I mean, those favoring OSS/FOSS again "insist" that our decisions have been unwise. Agreeing 100000% with you that whether something is "innovative" matters not one whit, but whether it is useful and worth the money one pays does matter. Okay, so much of the software that we do buy is built and supported by Microsoft - and purchased for reasons that do matter. "Insisting" that it is not while "insisting" that OSS/FOSS versions/solutions are better for us is where the scrub is. For most of us, we're here to stay current on things and share bits of information about what is and isn't working for us - continuously having to defend that is what is so tiresome. |
| #9 By 3653 (68.52.54.161) at 8/8/2007 2:08:57 PM |
|
rxcall - "I just have not seen any Open Source apps that are anywhere near as good as their commercial counterparts. "
To follow up on that thought... hey 2sugars, ch, kabooki... why don't you shut rxcall up with a nice healthy list of software? And please start the list with Apache. |
| #10 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 8/8/2007 2:13:50 PM |
|
# "why are you so hostile to open source"
Why is hating Microsoft the core belief in open source? Why do you hang out here to spew hate directed at Microsoft and those who use Microsoft software? |
| #11 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 8/8/2007 2:40:14 PM |
|
#8: Zealots are annoying, no matter which side of the aisle they're on. While I agree with your opinion about some FOSS types insisting FOSS is good for everything (it's not), I have to point out that you advocate MS as a solution for every problem, so you're not much different. Those types are a vocal minority.
#9: Define 'good'. For my uses, OO is just as good as MS Office even though it supports less features. #10: Because of MS' unethical business moves, poor security record, illegal behaviour, dirty tricks and predatory practices, silly! |
| #12 By 3653 (68.52.54.161) at 8/8/2007 6:02:39 PM |
|
"Define 'good'"
Take your pick: Good = Useful. More so than its competition Good = Functionally superior Good = Cheaper (total ROI, before you get too excited) Good = Widely recognized as better (append market share stats, if you care enough) Good = Oh, just invent your own definition. You're going to do that, regardless of how good my list is |
| #13 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 8/8/2007 10:41:49 PM |
|
#11, What?!? advocating MS SW for every solution - oh my, NO! By far, the vast majority of software we use is the software we write ourselves and that is true of our customers, too. We use MS SW as a platform, for sure, but the guts that runs my business and the businesses we support, we write ourselves. In fact, that SW is powerful enough - so powerful, that most of the time we and our customers don't have to use it - we CONSUME the intelligence it produces, which we use to make decisions, or conduct interventions.
Our entire goal is to build software that is so complete and smart enough that it does not have to be used much and even where transactions are entered [regardless of type - medical, financial, engineering, etc...], they are based upon instrumentation and data capture is largely automated. All that allows people to focus on growth, one another, and things they like to do - like really get to know patients, or the design of new devices, or anything else that interests them. I haven't opened Word in over a week - BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE TO. I can build visual products [of the information type] so much faster via automation and push that to consumers [where a consumer is a person, or group that "consumes" information]. Tell you what, I'll post up some examples for you and just show you what I mean. |
| #14 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 8/9/2007 8:13:39 AM |
|
#12: Good = Useful. More so than its competition
Why the qualifier? If it suits your needs in a satisfactory manner, it's good. If 10 competing products meet your needs, they're all "good" even if one is best. Good = Functionally superior Again, if it already does what you need, why does it need to be superior to anything else? Good = Cheaper (total ROI, before you get too excited) Lies, damned lies and statistics. MS' ROI studies aren't worth the MS partner's paper they're printed on. Nobody needs 2 weeks of training to recognize a desktop, email and web apps. MS skewed & cherry-picked ROI figures are laughable. ALl other things being equal, free forever is cheaper than not free per year. Good = Widely recognized as better (append market share stats, if you care enough) So something is only good if a particular percentage of other people think it is? You must have an awesome Michael Jackson & Britney Spears music collection. Good = Oh, just invent your own definition. You're going to do that, regardless of how good my list is I don't need to. You've done a *good* enoguh job of reinventing the word yourself: Good = MS Office better than OpenOffice. And for you it may be. |
| #15 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 8/9/2007 11:09:53 AM |
| #14 Still waiting for the list... |
| #16 By 15406 (74.104.251.89) at 8/9/2007 7:11:22 PM |
|
#15: Keep on waiting. I'm not your errand boy. If you have kind of point to make, you do the legwork.
|
| #17 By 3653 (68.52.54.161) at 8/9/2007 7:14:40 PM |
|
rxcall... latch doesn't provide background for anything he mutters. Look no further than his debate on ROI above. He goes straight for the "MS' ROI studies"... but where are studies that HE agrees with?
I think notparker is right... "hate is not a sucessful strategy" |
| #19 By 3935637 (92.100.151.212) at 8/6/2021 12:31:30 PM |
|
Online fashion store with a huge range of products. We value our customers: A professional customer support team is always on hand to help. Delivery of orders is carried out all over the world https://fas.st/R9F5z |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 227 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:02:22 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
