OSNews

And to never call property property. Did you know that property rights protect your property and not your ownership of your property?

Apparently if you own something people can't hurt it...

I know, I also always thought property rights were about owning and not protecting... This is obviously a use of weak language in order to hide the true effect of what's being described. The later explanation of the cost of patent analysis is proof enough that software patents are very broken right now!

Patents were supposed to protect innovators and not force them to pay people to check their innovations to make sure no one else also came up with it: The concept of novelty has been lost somewhere.


They also avoid discussing trade secrets because they're well aware that the general public would be appalled by this practice and the "law" behind it.

Yes, it does. And they were very clear with stating it.

They haven't got shit. Either that or they don't have a f--king clue what they would have. But it is more likely to be first.

It was a simple and political statement "if your speech is long and boring enough maybe all spectators will fall asleep before you would even touch the facts"

+5

Linux still has a lot of hurdles to overcome, not the least of which is ease of installing ALL software (i.e. not just that in the given repository). God help you if the software you want hasn't been compiled for your particular distro or CPU. I can't for the life of me figure out why the OSS community hasn't embraced Autopackage, or something similar...

This is not to say that Linux has not made a great many in-roads over the years; however, to say that it surpasses Windows on all fronts is simply hiding your eyes to the reality of the situation. Rather than trying to find ways to blame Microsoft for impeding the acceptance of Linux in the market, just keep looking inward to resolve the remaining problems. Once this has been done, the market will simply migrate on its own.

//God help you if the software you want hasn't been compiled for your particular distro or CPU.//

Actually, this isn't difficult.

Take OpenOffice 2.04, for example. It was available for download (from OpenOffice.org) as a set of RPM packages. Some people didn't want to wait the few days that it took for this to be repackaged and become available in the Debian repositories, so what to do?

The answer is Smart Package Manager.
http://labix.org/smart
http://labix.org/smart/features
"Channels are the way Smart becomes aware about external repositories of information. Many different channel types are supported, depending on the backend and kind of information desired:

APT-DEB Repository
APT-RPM Repository
DPKG Installed Packages
Mirror Information
Red Carpet Channel
RPM Directory
RPM Header List
RPM MetaData (YUM)
RPM Installed Packages
Slackware Repository
Slackware Installed Packages
URPMI Repository"

So what you do is install Smart Package Manager for debian via Synaptic, then download all of the OpenOffice RPM packages, then run Smart and make a new channel by pointing to the directory where you downloaded the RPM packages, then tell Smart to install them.

Presto! Install OpenOffice 2.04 on Debian via the provided RPM packages without it having been compiled for Debian!

This method should work for any Linux distribution running on x86 hardware. If you have a different CPU family ... then you must compile it from source, or alternatively wait for your distribution repository maintainers to do that for you.

Well, you always have the option of compiling it yourself, as most things have source available.

The unfortunate reality is that MS does maintain, and trys to enforce, a monopoly position on the desktop environment. So, while Linux matures as a mainstream-desktop capable OS and Windows degrades into an expensive, encumbered & often inferior OS, there will still not be any mass-switching.

I can't for the life of me figure out why the OSS community hasn't embraced Autopackage, or something similar...

Because once you install kits made by virtually anybody you will eventually get spyware, trojans and so on. Unverified kits are the number one vector for propagation of Windows spyware.

I for one much prefer to know that my kits come from a trusted repository, and that they were assembled by honest people and are guaranteed free of malware.

Look at update.mozilla.org. They don't keep up with checking the extensions properly, and at some point some smartass figured this out. Today there are at least two dozen shady "toolbar" extensions listed which conduct at least some amount of spying on the user.

Oh, and yes, while this guy did say a lot, in reality, he really didn't say anything at all.

Quote [Hey, Linux bigots: Reality bites, doesn't it?]

Words fail me? What reality?

If MS get away with this patent nonsense that will damage more than Linux, what about Haiku, BSDs, Sky OS, Riscos etc etc. in fact small to medium sized commercial software companies are more at risk than Open source as it's rather a diffuse target. Do you think that a small software company can stand up to MS and it's lawyers What about other software this isn't just about the OS.

I hope a patent war (genocide might be a better word) doesn't happen if it does, this is simply about large un-innovative companies protecting their monopolies by manipulating the law and throwing Millions to the lawyers. If the world is stupid enough to fall for this, they're just saying MS you can be the richest company in the world forever forget about innovating anything just watch the cash role in.

Every person and/or company in the world who writes software (either for pleasure or for a living, either commercially or for Open Source) is in danger of being sued for Patent Infringment by the likes of Microsoft.

As long as companies like MS can get away with beng non specific about what patents are being infringed then ANY software could infringe their patents.

So, companies like Microsoft (and they are not the only culprits here by any means, they are just the most visible) can hold a Sword of Damocles over ever virtually software developer in the world except where Software Patents are specifically disallowed (eg Europe) or ignored (China etc)

Just imagine the furore in forums like this when the Software equivalent of the RIAA/MPAA start legal action against several million software developers.
How long will it be before someone tries to make compilers illegal as they are essential tools in patent infringement and problably infringe a zillion patents anyway.

This might sound silly but this is where things could end up if this FUD is allowed to continue unabated.

This isn't (as quite frankly anyone should see) a function of which OS/GUI is 'best', but which has the critical mass of applications that joe user wants to run.

I won't make a call about which is best but I will point out which owns the apps. I'll also point out the illegal and anticompetative means that it employed to aquire that market dominance, starting with the licensing model that ran from 1980 untill the FTC's decision to squash it in 1991. Oh and there was some more antitrust cases too I believe.

linux: quality/license revenue = excellent

windows: quality/license revenue = pathetic

qudos to the linux guys.

Thanks, M

dead on :-)

Once software vendors begin to recognize the Linux OS as mainstream and begin deploying such commercial hits as Quicken, Adobe Creative Suite, and AutoCAD, Windows will be in serious trouble.

Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but Linux zealots have some deep issues with software that is open but not Free, let alone commercial software!

(Like there was really a need to start GNOME other than Qt being "just open" rather Free?)

Any vendor who is porting their software to linux is just begging zealots to begin work on some half-assed Free software clone that they can call "superior".

Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but Linux zealots have some deep issues with software that is open but not Free, let alone commercial software!

(Like there was really a need to start GNOME other than Qt being "just open" rather Free?)

Any vendor who is porting their software to linux is just begging zealots to begin work on some half-assed Free software clone that they can call "superior".

Perhaps you should do a little research before posting. KDE licensing itself under GPL was incompatible with Qt's QPL at the time. There was a valid reason to go the legal route back then. And Gnome is hardly a clone of KDE - they are worlds apart, using different software at the core.

Where are the clones of Maya, Mathematica, realplayer, scalix and others? I don't see clones of NVidia's and ATi's drivers either, despite "zealots" hating them. Not everybody using Linux is a zealot, and most people will acknoledge good software isn't necessarily open-source.

Perhaps you should do a little research before posting. KDE licensing itself under GPL was incompatible with Qt's QPL at the time. There was a valid reason to go the legal route back then

Typical zealot nit-picking. Does it really matter if it was KDE or Qt that was incompatible? The point is, it wasn't Free with a capital G.

Where are the clones of Maya, Mathematica, realplayer, scalix and others

"Moonlight|3D strives to become a free modern, flexible, feature-rich and extensible modelling and animation tool."

If you remember, I said the clones are always of lower quality, so don't tell me that Moonlight3D isn't Maya-quality yet. Of course it isn't, and never will be.

And aren't there 50 zealot media player clones for Realplayer? I was sure there are.

Here are some more examples.

How about clones for GetRight? SmartFTP? ICQ? Norton Commander? WinZip? Beyond Compare? TextPad? Acrobat? Partition Magic? Winamp? Nero? Cakewalk? ACDSee? Photoshop? Flash?

I was going by http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html but I think I'll stop half-way through. I'm sure you get the idea. 99% of all commercial quality Windows shareware have some kind of lame zealot GFree clone.

No commercial vendor will create quality software for you, when linux forums are filled with people celebrating lower quality clones, simply because they are GFree.

> How about clones for GetRight? SmartFTP? ICQ? Norton Commander?
> WinZip? Beyond Compare? TextPad? Acrobat? Partition Magic? Winamp?
> Nero? Cakewalk? ACDSee? Photoshop? Flash?
>
> I was going by http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html but
> I think I'll stop half-way through. I'm sure you get the idea. 99% of all
> commercial quality Windows shareware have some kind of lame zealot
> GFree clone.

Unfortunately, you are partly right here. First however, let's take WinZIP out of the discussion because, honestly, every ZIP program out there does what must be done.

You are right in that for each and every program, a "free" (as in FSF) clone exists, which is in most cases of lower quality than the original. However, only in some cases these clones exist just for the sake of having a free clone. In many cases, the original doesn't run on the intended platforms, or contains ads and other malware.

In those cases, there is a valid reason (completely independent from any licensing) to create a clone. The sad part of the story is that a fundamental will to create a product of equal quality to the original is often missing. This is very obvious with ICQ and TextPad (I use these as an example because I know them well):

Linux has Gaim as an ICQ replacement. This program sucks hard: I see many people offline who are actually online, just because libgaim screws up. The same annoys me on OSX, where I have Adium, which internally uses libgaim. Also, with some people I simply can't read their away-message. Contrast that with Miranda (which ironically is free as in FSF too), where everything works. Yet, nobody seems to recognize a reason to port Miranda over to Linux, or to fix the bugs in libgaim.

With TextPad, things are even harder to believe: There is no unknown proprietary protocol, or advanced techniques, or whatever in TextPad. It's just an ASCII text editor with a damn simple user interface. On Linux, there is GEdit which comes close, though some things are missing. There is XEmacs, which can't even handle copy&paste correctly. There is vi, which is close to physical torture. Yet, vi and Emacs are claimed to be the pinnacle of text editors.

But the problem is not Free Software. There are many free programs that are far superior to their proprietary counterparts. Compary Miranda to ICQ; compare Firefox to IE; thunderbird to Outlook. The problem rather seems to be a lack of appreciation for quality for which I have no explanation.

//How about clones for GetRight? SmartFTP? ICQ? Norton Commander? WinZip? Beyond Compare? TextPad? Acrobat? Partition Magic? Winamp? Nero? Cakewalk? ACDSee? Photoshop? Flash?//

I'll avoid the "zealot" type of goading in your post, and attempt to answer the actual question here.

GetRight ==> KGet http://www.tuxmagazine.com/node/1000123

SmartFTP ==> gFTP http://gftp.seul.org/ http://gftp.seul.org/screenshots.html

ICQ ==> I don't use this. Perhaps Licq. http://licq.sourceforge.net/

Norton Commander ==> Midnight Commander (Krusader for GUI version)

WinZip ==> Ark or FileRoller http://fileroller.sourceforge.net/

Beyond Compare ==> Meld http://meld.sourceforge.net/ http://meld.sourceforge.net/screenshots.html and Krusader http://krusader.sourceforge.net/

TextPad ==> Xemacs http://www.xemacs.org/ or Gedit http://www.gnome.org/projects/gedit/screenshots.html or Kate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_%28text_editor%29

Acrobat ==> KPDF http://kpdf.kde.org/ or Evince http://www.gnome.org/projects/evince/

Partition Magic ==> Qtparted http://qtparted.sourceforge.net/ http://qtparted.sourceforge.net/screenshots.en.html

Winamp ==> Beep Media Player http://bmp.beep-media-player.org/index.php/BMP_Homepage (but seriously, you would really want to run amarok instead, surely?) Amarok http://amarok.kde.org/

Nero ==> Nero for Linux. But K3b is better anyway http://www.k3b.org/

Cakewalk ==> ardour http://ardour.org/ (you would probably run dynebolic http://www.dynebolic.org/ or 64studio http://64studio.com/

ACDSee ==> gwenview http://gwenview.sourceforge.net/ http://gwenview.sourceforge.net/screenshots.php?album=/1.4 or xnview http://perso.orange.fr/pierre.g/xnview/enhome.html

Photoshop ==> Krita http://www.koffice.org/krita/ or GIMP http://www.gimp.org/

Flash ==> Flash http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=S... (or if you really must, use gnash).

In about half of these cases, the Linux applications are better than the Windows ones.

Edited 2006-12-12 23:17

What good ole Steve is trying to use as a threat is the fact that in the EU it is possible to obtain a patent on a piece of software IF and ONLY IF it is strictly related to a physical device, and would not have any sense without it.

So you can patent a device that does some new and useful stuff (and has some software inside). But NOT the ALGORITHM.

That's what's different.

Besides, nobody can get sued for USING a softwar, even in the states i think. This is all marketing, as usual.

> Microsoft cannot grant immunity to Novell with sueing other
> copmanies, as Novell do not own the rights to Linux. No-one does.

That's not entirely correct... but let's break it up into the four types of IP the MS guy mentioned:

- copyright: Of course this exists, and is owned by the individual authors. They'll probably not give this away, but they have granted everyone to use their work by releasing it under the GPL. Important to prevent use of the code in proprietary software, and to resist copyright infringement claims by other entities (read: SCO).

- patents: Don't exist in the EU.

- trademarks: They do exist. For example, Linus himself owns the trademark for Linux (might be specific to countries). Important to resist trademark infringement claims, and to prevent counterfeit software ("Microsoft Linux").

- trade secrets: Well... they're not really secret.

While i share your outrage, especially with regards to the "put up or shut up" sentiment, i have to correct you on one issue.

MS :Novell's products and Microsoft's products change on a regular basis and conducting a complete patent analyses for every version of every product is costly and complex.

MS: As we've stated, we undertook an analysis of our patent portfolio and concluded that it was necessary and important to create a patent covenant which Novell and Microsoft agreed on for the benefit of our customers.

kiddo: What? I thought you just said you did not have time to do full patent analysis, then you say you just did? Just hand over that report.

They said:
(a) they don't do a patent analysis for every version of every product
(b) they did an analysis of their patent portfolio.

(a) can mean a whole lot of things, but every meaning i can get from it, is different from what (b) says. Analysing your portfolio, the patents you claim, is different from analysing your product for any patents touched. (a) > (b), so to speak.

Just because it is MS we are confronting here doesn't mean we can get sloppy with our accusations.

That's the best damn post I've seen in a while.

Actually, I'm enjoying this whole thread. Anytime MS speaks on Linux, IP, innovation, or other such things, it is an absolute joy to watch them get ripped to shreds in forums and the IT post, by people that are a lot smarter, perceptive, and funnier then any of the mentally deficient blowhards at MS.

Not sure of your point there...

They state that they dont list their patents. I thought that most products listed patents. Thats all. No real point

Software shouldn't necessarily be different. The current problem with software patents is as follows:
1. It doesn't matter if you wrote the code. As long as you're the first to claim it, ownership will be yours. So what if you had nothing to do with writing the code?
2. You are allowed to charge any amount of money that you want to give other software publishers permission to use your patent. You can demand a dollar, you can demand 2 million dollars, whatever you want.
3. Almost everything can be patented. Software patents are as abstract as can be. Did you know that displaying the "Visa" logo in a web store is a software patent?

Software patents must be stopped, otherwise software as we know (and like) could not continue to be written.

I actually think the result is going to be a declaration that all software patents are void, or a complete lack of real lawsuits (only little companies fighting over real patents and not big companies fighting with a portfolio).

I'm guessing that someday MS, or someone else, will sue. And the judge will find that because the patents are so numerous and vague that if he upholds either side he threatens a whole industry.

But hey, IANAL! I'm just throwing theories out at what will happen. I just can't imagine that many people will pay attention to patents while they develop software.

"Did you know that displaying the "Visa" logo in a web store is a software patent?"

Actually, that's trademark infringment, if you aren't authorized/licensed to display the trademark.

Similar, yet very different thing.

I hate Microsoft, their employees, their software and their patents. I hope these guys, and the other groups that are holding the future back (RIAA, MPAA) are put out of business.

Edited 2006-12-11 21:56

Software patents are different from most other patents because they tend to describe a general method for doing something, while other types of patents tend to describe a specific implementation.

If hardware patents were like software patents, the first bicycle maker would have gotten a patent for "a device which transports a person using wheels and a frame", and the auto industry would have been paying him royalties for that basic concept for the past 100 years...

//If hardware patents were like software patents, the first bicycle maker would have gotten a patent for "a device which transports a person using wheels and a frame", and the auto industry would have been paying him royalties for that basic concept for the past 100 years...//

Another example that people might be able to relate to is a patent for an "electric light". For a hardware invention patent such as that, it is necessary on the patent to describe how the "electric light" invention works. In the case of the original electric light, that method was to take a thin resistive wire, place it inside a sealed globe filled with inert gas, and pass a current through the wire so that it became white hot and emitted light.

So then the patent for "electric light" really becomes a patent for an incandescent light. This allows another inventor to make a competing product by coming up with a "flourescent electric light". The new device does the same thing effectively as the original electric light (it uses electricity to produce light), but it does not use the method described in the original patent, and so does not violate the original patent.

Similarly for "headache tablet". Panadol should be able to patent a specific formula for paracetmol, but that patent should not prevent someone else making Aspirin, Tylenol or Nurofen.

It should be possible to do the same with any patent. That is, it should be possible to achieve the same thing in a different way, and so not violate the original patent. If it is not possible because the patent claims "all methods of doing <whatever>", then the patent is too broad and should be invalidated.

Also, if a patent describes only what and not how something is done, then that patent too should be invalidated. It should not be possible to patent a "network server protocol" without describing exactly how that protocol works, in the same way that it should not be possible to patent "antigravity machine" without describing exactly how it worked.

Edited 2006-12-11 23:34

If I remember correctly someone recently tried to get a patent for a warp drive engine (from Star Trek) filed here in the US. The patent was denied unless the person who filed it had a working prototype! (I'm waiting for the phaser myself!)

That's a good point.

The point at which a software idea becomes patentable needs to be much higher than say, a mechanical patent.

I can see software patents on certain things, like say a really clever way to compress audio. If it's original and works really well, then yeah, you should be able to patent it.

However, patenting "double click" or "the if statement" is a clearly too broad and stupid to be patentable. That would be like patenting "a heavy device that drives metal spikes into a material, in order to increase its structural weight capacity." It's stupid.

The point at which a software idea becomes patentable needs to be much higher than say, a mechanical patent.

Actually, it doesn't. The same level applies, and it's an issue currently before the Supreme Court-- It has to do with "Obviousness".

IMHO, just because I figure out how to solve a problem no one has ever has to solve before, doesn't necessarily mean I should get a patent.

If another programmer of similar skill can solve the same problem, in the same way, independently-- Then my method should not be worthy of a patent, because it falls under the "Obvious" category.

Patenting the use of cookies to track purchases within an e-store, for example, isn't really that brilliant. Any moderately competent programmer looking at HTML, and browsers, would be able to figure out that cookies are a data store, because, well, duh-- that's what they were designed for.

Figuring out how to obtain 10:1 compression of audio and still produce something that sounds like the original, that takes talent, time, and effort. I'm not saying I'm in favor of the mp3 patent, but if software patents are legal, that's the sort of thing that should be patentable.

I also think they should be more emphatic about enforcement-- using patents to ambush the competition (GIF, MP3, SCO) after years of non-enforcement should be discouraged, preferably with live ammunition.

//I'm not saying I'm in favor of the mp3 patent, but if software patents are legal, that's the sort of thing that should be patentable.//

It should perhaps be patentable if it is not "hidden" or "submarine", and if it allows alternatives.

It does appear to allow alternatives ... because mp3 and ogg both work by "throwing away" parts of the information contained in audio waveforms, but they throw away very different parts of the information. (That is why it is not good to convert from mp3 to ogg or vice versa ... you end up with too much info thrown away).

However, as I understand it, the mp3 patent was "submarined". That is, mp3 was used extensively, became the defacto standard method of audio compression, and was proposed as a real standard, when suddenly someone piped up and claimed "we have a patent on that, you all owe us money".

IMO, that behaviour should not be allowed.

"Microsoft has no idea what Linux infringes upon. If they did, it would have been made a lawsuit by now.. and the Linux community would have removed the offending code immediately"

I'm not so sure about that. There is really no good outcome for Microsoft if they would start a lawsuit.
What can happen is:
1. Their patent is proven to be invalid.
2. Their patent is valid and the code in Linux will be changed. Possibly a bit of cash will find its way to Microsoft.

In the end, the signal to the world is: "Patent problems with Linux solved. There's nothing to worry about."

No, what is valuable for Microsoft is that people believe that there MIGHT be problems and that there MIGHT be a lawsuit.
They have nothing to gain by showing any evidence and suing some Linux company might turn out to be a PR disaster.

Possibly your right, however I find the arguments used here http://www.msversus.org/microsoft-patents.html quite convincing.

I'll Quote a little

[There are many patents held by Microsoft which should have been denied due to the existance of prior art or because they're self-evident and are not true inventions as defined by U.S. patent law:

* Double-clicking a button
* Grouping task bar buttons
* Two-way scroll mouse
* Task list generated for software developers
* Using the human body as a conductive medium for power and data (much prior art done by research labs)
* The equivalent of the sudo Unix command as old as at least 1980

The patents might seem frivolous, but all it takes is the threat of litigation to put small and medium companies out of business. A company or individual usually can't afford a defense fund if Microsoft were to decide to enforce licensing.]

And of course as MS has 5000 other patents some will be a real problem. I think I'll finish by quoting Bill Gates (again taken from the above website)

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." - Bill Gates, Challenges and Strategy Memo. 16 May 1991 I think that partly somes up my feelings.

Microsoft has no idea what Linux infringes upon. If they did, it would have been made a lawsuit by now.. and the Linux community would have removed the offending code immediately (if not only for their distaste of non-open code). Another poster was right before when they said that the whole MS-Novell deal was just a way for MS to gain some leverage over the 'idea' of Linux. They were losing their footing at the top and had to slow us all down somehow.

Oh they have very clear ideas about what patents Linux infringes on, they're just keeping quiet.

Microsoft bought and now owns the OpenGL patent, for example. You cannot remove stuff like that without seriously crippling Linux. Ironically, at one stage they were planning to drop OpenGL from Vista (or something like that), but they had no intention of losing the patent...