Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:14 UTC, submitted by Rahul
Microsoft Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer has warned users of Red Hat Linux that they will have to pay Microsoft for its intellectual property. "People who use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to compensate us," Ballmer said last week at a company event in London discussing online services in the UK.
Order by: Score:
Show 'em
by zizban on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:21 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

Show us what patents are being infringed. You are the patent holder; the burden of proof is on you.

Reply Score: 48

v RE: Show 'em
by Duffman on Tue 9th Oct 2007 19:57 UTC in reply to "Show 'em"
RE[2]: Show 'em
by SEJeff on Tue 9th Oct 2007 20:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Show 'em"
SEJeff Member since:
2005-11-05

Hate to break it to you, but IBM has a WHOLE LOT MORE patents than Microsoft. Also, do you not think that Linux distributors and companies around the world will not band together to fight a common enemy?

If Microsoft sues Redhat, what makes you think they won't sue the Gentoo foundation, or any other Linux "distributor"? Many very large companies make their bread based on Linux. Thinking they won't come together is naiive of Ballmer at best. Whos to say that Microsoft doesn't violate hundreds of patents owned by some of these companies like OIN or IBM? I bet they do.

Jeff Waugh put it best, "Say it with me: DON'T f--k WITH DIVERSITY. cf. The War of the Worlds, H. G.
Wells, 1898.":
http://lists.linux.org.au/archives/linux-aus/2003-August/msg00136.h...

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Show 'em
by raynevandunem on Wed 10th Oct 2007 01:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Show 'em"
raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

Because it hasn't gone after non-profit software organizations like Gentoo, Fedora, Debian or GNU/FSF. It is a corporation that competes against companies like Novell, Red Hat or (in the past) Netscape.

That Ballmer has specifically targeted Red Hat, a corporate vendor that depends upon a non-profit organization, in the press puts the company closer to a dangerous precedent: suing non-profit software organizations. And since GNU/Linux distributions are usually created and distributed by non-profit projects, it seems inevitable that Microsoft will target these projects as well.

However, that is the future potential of this war, once it ever reaches U.S. courts. The current situation, from the surface, seems more like a messy battle between companies for customers.

Where this could really hit the GNU/Linux fandom is in the pocketbook, as these companies - Red Hat, Novell, Mandriva, Canonical, Xandros - are often the prime corporate backers for these projects. Customers of these companies will be scared by an impending legal battle, will back out and place their bets with Microsoft. The pro-Linux companies will then have to wage their own PR campaigns to woo back the customers, which may or may not mean that the companies will publicly distance themselves from their pet non-profit projects.

So this could be interpreted in one or more of the following ways:

1) A dirty move to win customers from, and weaken, a corporate competitor.

2) A move to weaken the relationship between corporate companies and non-profit projects.

3) A protracted, indirect move to weaken the non-profit projects through hurting the marketshare of their financial backers.


Take your pick.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Show 'em
by lemur2 on Wed 10th Oct 2007 02:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Show 'em"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Customers of these companies will be scared by an impending legal battle, will back out and place their bets with Microsoft.


I don't think you understand.

There is a respectable body of patents that have already been pledged to support Linux. In the event that Microsoft sued Linux over patents, Linux would counter-sue Windows over patents.

There would be no point in customers seeking refuge in Microsoft software, because Microsoft software will be in as much strife as Linux. In fact, due to the suit and counter-suits, it may even reach the absurd situation that no-one in the US is allowed to run any software through court injunctions.

As soon as it reached that point, there would be a political solution. The US would be forced into a position of "no software patnets" to stop the insanity.

At the end of that process, Microsoft will have lost a whole heap of goodwill and money, and it will still not have stopped Linux.

Ergo, Microsoft will not sue Linux over patents.

Edited 2007-10-10 02:09

Reply Score: 7

RE[5]: Show 'em
by Brendan on Wed 10th Oct 2007 05:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Show 'em"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

As soon as it reached that point, there would be a political solution. The US would be forced into a position of "no software patnets" to stop the insanity.

Usually, if things get that bad both sides agree to give up and settle out of court - patent waivers; possibly with some cash going one way or the other, and usually with no admissions from either side (followed by both sides trying to pretend they won).

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Show 'em
by SEJeff on Wed 10th Oct 2007 03:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Show 'em"
SEJeff Member since:
2005-11-05

Yes, but do you realize how many companies using Linux are also using windows? What if it backfires and those companies go whole hog Linux?

FUD is a double edged sword, and if ballmer doesn't quiet down he is going to have to swallow it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Show 'em
by lemur2 on Wed 10th Oct 2007 03:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Show 'em"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

FUD is a double edged sword, and if ballmer doesn't quiet down he is going to have to swallow it.


Considering the near-monopoly position of Microsoft, and that the fact that Microsoft has been found in breach of anti-trust provisions more than once in the past, if Microsoft goes after Linux with some feeble patents such as the extended filenames for FAT patent and other similar trivia, then Microsoft will be looking at charges of patent abuse in retailiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_misuse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Prohibited...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Show 'em
by Ben Jao Ming on Tue 9th Oct 2007 21:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Show 'em"
Ben Jao Ming Member since:
2005-07-26

There is a big difference between owning an American patent and having the right to IP and having that enforced in a court. If they own a bunch of crap patent, then the court can actually just say "go fsck yourself, Ballmer".

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Show 'em
by unoengborg on Wed 10th Oct 2007 18:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Show 'em"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

Owning them is one thing, having them declared valid in a court case is quite another.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Show 'em
by draethus on Wed 10th Oct 2007 04:03 UTC in reply to "Show 'em"
draethus Member since:
2006-08-02

Show us what patents are being infringed. You are the patent holder; the burden of proof is on you.

eg:
OpenGL (MS bought patent in 2002)
FAT32 long filenames

Reply Score: 0

Just shut up
by sappyvcv on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:22 UTC
sappyvcv
Member since:
2005-07-06

Please Steve Ballmer. Shut up. No one likes you. You are a troll.

Reply Score: 43

RE: Just shut up
by flanque on Tue 9th Oct 2007 21:17 UTC in reply to "Just shut up"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

He cannot be a troll. I've never seen him frequent this website. ;}

Reply Score: 1

Good Lord
by Flatline on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:23 UTC
Flatline
Member since:
2006-03-06

What is it with this guy? They have been going back and forth on this for years and they haven't produced any evidence that there *is* infringement. Even if there were, the company distributing it should be liable, not the users. I am not a violent man, but I really feel like slapping Ballmer in the face on occasion.

Reply Score: 19

Pseudo code
by DevL on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:27 UTC in reply to "Good Lord"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

forever {
kick_steve_ballmer_in_the_balls;
}

Reply Score: 19

RE: Pseudo code
by GMFlash on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:53 UTC in reply to "Pseudo code"
GMFlash Member since:
2006-06-30

forever {
kick_steve_ballmer_in_the_balls;
}


Error on line 2: Balls do not exist

Reply Score: 39

RE[2]: Pseudo code
by sappyvcv on Tue 9th Oct 2007 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Pseudo code"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh he has balls alright. Big ones.

A spine is what he is missing.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Pseudo code
by tonto on Thu 11th Oct 2007 09:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Pseudo code"
tonto Member since:
2007-10-11

why do the US companies compete so much, what would happen if the talent from google, microsoft, redhat, oracle, ibm, sun, and many others shared resources to make IT (software, whatever) easy for the common man/woman. Not to be National (i.e. focused on the us as there are many nations that contribute to new technologies in the IT spectrum) But, to be blunt to all (all earthlings) would benefit from partnerships with differing ideas but shared resources, not separatist strategies. Too many times the focus is on money and if anyone is following this strategy it is microsale(soft). The industry age competition was based on competing over years of competitive development. For example, the car manufactures. That made sense 10-15 years ago. But in software and hardware development lifecycles; innovation can be driven in far greater lengths (shorter timeframes) by sharing ideas in real "shared" time to the benefit of all.

Quote: "Many minds are greater than one mind, although it takes a great mind to decipher the true path of the many. Still without the direction of the many the great mind will only see one path. A good one, but not
the right one."

P.S.
If the human race (each individual) could fight their own greed issues we would all be happy. Please pass this on to your friends who fall into the big "G" category. I believe and U should to that if they realize this, they will change. If they don't then they shouldn't be your friend and everyone needs friends.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Pseudo code
by altair on Fri 12th Oct 2007 21:00 UTC in reply to "Pseudo code"
altair Member since:
2005-07-06

Here's a Groovy variant where everyone can have their fun:
peopleInWorld.each {
steveBallmer.kickInTheBalls
}

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good Lord
by google_ninja on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:28 UTC in reply to "Good Lord"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Does RedHat provide indemnification to its users? I know commercial operating systems do, but most linux distros don't. I am not sure about RH, as it kind of sits in the middle.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Good Lord
by Rahul on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Good Lord"
Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

Red Hat does

http://www.redhat.com/rhel/details/assurance/

Novell's deals has only helped validate this kind of FUD.

"Ballmer praised Novell at the UK event for valuing intellectual property, and suggested that open source vendors will be forced to strike similar deals with other patent holders."

Reply Score: 15

RE[3]: Good Lord
by hussam on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good Lord"
hussam Member since:
2006-08-17

Novell's deals has only helped validate this kind of FUD.
Yes, that is true. Microsoft only made their deal with Novell to show that Novell, a big Linux distributor, believes Linux infringes Microsoft's IP.

I was discussing this today with one of the Gnome folks and he told me that the reason Microsoft isn't showing us what patents Linux infringes is that even if those claims were true, the affected code would be quickly rewritten or the patent claim would fail in court. Either way, Microsoft loses and they know it.

And FYI, the only reason Microsoft Windows is so popular is that wide availability of applications for it. Only a few people use windows because they are impressed by the internals of the OS itself.
If big engineering applications (not games) like AutoCAD, matlab and SAP2000 get ported to Linux, windows will suffer greatly.

Edited 2007-10-09 17:36

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Good Lord
by Constantine XVI on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good Lord"
Constantine XVI Member since:
2006-11-02
RE[4]: Good Lord
by JonathanBThompson on Tue 9th Oct 2007 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good Lord"
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

Ha!

Wishing for something to be true doesn't mean it is or ever would be true: the number of seats for all the "big engineering applications" is a rather self-limiting market by nature of the fact that it's "engineering" that requires far more than the average bear knows and comprehends in order to be useful, and the situations where the software is of value is also that limited. I've worked on such applications personally, and the number of seats (if you're doing well) numbers somewhere in the thousands for the higher-end 3D stuff. Why do you think Microsoft has never entered the fray of that market? Surely, they have the software engineering resources that if they truly wanted to, they could throw resources at it over a period of time and within a few years, they'd have something that could take on AutoCAD or Kubotek KeyCreator (what I worked on until I was laid off) ProEngineer or the other few in the field.

A HUGE thing that makes it less likely for most of those high-end packages from ever being ported to all the linux distros is precisely because there's so many mutations to choose from, and the QA testing nightmare involved. Microsoft Office is a simple thing to test for correct behavior and add new behavior, compared to complex 3D CAD software, because whatever minor nitpicky output might actually be considered a defect, at least one customer has critical drawings that were used for manufacturing their products from that, and they aren't that forgiving of their resulting products changing from one "minor" change of behavior between fixes/updates. As much as Linux and mutations change in small, subtle ways and not-so-subtle ways, combined with the practical observation that everyone else in an organization is already using Microsoft Office and other applications for managing workflow, budgeting, etc. that's all nicely integrated, that (AFAIK) isn't currently available for Linux that's not custom-written.

Reply Score: 2

They have 'entered the fray'
by IkeKrull on Tue 9th Oct 2007 19:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good Lord"
IkeKrull Member since:
2006-01-24

Microsoft bought SoftImage (previously SGI-based animation/rendering suite) in 1994 essentially to ensure it only ran on Windows, presumably in the hope that this would lock the SGI-centric film industry into the Windows platform because Softimage was so widely used and well regarded.

When this utterly failed to eventuate (because of how long it took to get the Windows Softimage working properly (early versions were awful, to say the least) - this is the product now known as Softimage XSI., and the massive popularity of Maya in that market, partly due to Softimage's woes), they sold Softimage off to Avid (MS is a shareholder in Avid, not sure if its because of this deal or not) in 1998, who seem to have done a pretty good job of delivering on the initial architectural promises made around Softimage XSI, though i believe it is still a Windows-only product, and doesn't have anything like the market penetration in the film industry it once had.

Basically, the 'entered the fray', destroyed a well loved company (SGI) through Rick Belluzzo (another story, but googling for 'sgi rick belluzzo' should make it clear enough what happened), all but killed Softimage's presence in the high end 3D film market, and eventually just gave up and went back to its standard monopolist practice of forcing the bundling of office and windows, i guess because theyre just not effective outside their core business.

Reply Score: 3

RE: They have 'entered the fray'
by apoclypse on Tue 9th Oct 2007 22:03 UTC in reply to "They have 'entered the fray'"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

There is a linux version XSI, but like you said by the time this happened Alias was already there and back again. I happen to think that XSi is a superior product to Maya, and the program is rather elegant and well put together considering its origins.

Edited 2007-10-09 22:15

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Good Lord
by sjf4 on Wed 10th Oct 2007 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good Lord"
sjf4 Member since:
2007-09-12

Autocad is a rare exception to engineering software that's not available for Linux. Most engineering software was first available for UNIX, so it's not too difficult to port it to Linux.

At least where I work, more people run Windows because they want Office or Outlook than run Windows because they need some specialty science/engineering application.

MATLab, Mathematica, Maple, Fluent, Patran/Nastran, ProEngineer, Cadence, Synopsys, ModelSim, ArcGIS, Abaquas, Ansys are just a few available for Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good Lord
by Redeeman on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Good Lord"
Redeeman Member since:
2006-03-23

i dont think you know what commercial means.... you are looking for the word proprietary.

And as to your questions, redhat does provide indemnification.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good Lord
by amadensor on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Good Lord"
amadensor Member since:
2006-04-10

Actually they often do not. Many users of Microsoft SQL Server (I believe the 2000 version) were sued and lost on a patent infringement case.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Good Lord
by wirespot on Wed 10th Oct 2007 15:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good Lord"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Many users of Microsoft SQL Server (I believe the 2000 version) were sued and lost on a patent infringement case.


I honestly don't see how that would happen. How is a user supposed to know what patents (if any) the software he's using infringes? And even if he does, why is it his problem? It should be the manufacturer's problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Good Lord
by elsewhere on Wed 10th Oct 2007 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good Lord"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

I honestly don't see how that would happen. How is a user supposed to know what patents (if any) the software he's using infringes? And even if he does, why is it his problem? It should be the manufacturer's problem.


You're making a rational assumption about an increasingly irrational situation. Unlike copyright laws, patent laws restrict the use of a patented technology, not just manufacturing and distribution.

That's why vendors offer indemnity, and many enterprise/institutional organizations require indemnity as a condition of sale for the software/hardware they purchase.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good Lord
by Soulbender on Wed 10th Oct 2007 04:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Good Lord"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Does RedHat provide indemnification to its users?"

In most countries this is not necessary since end-users/consumers can not be expected to understand the internal complex workings of the products they purchase and what patents they could possibly violate. Patent violations are the responsibility of the manufacturer and/or distributor.

Reply Score: 2

I just wish...
by HangLoose on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:28 UTC
HangLoose
Member since:
2007-09-03

That big linux companies like ibm, red hat, canonical could make some kind of lawsuit against this comments and demand microsoft to explain everything.

Sadly we dont know the positioning of Novell if this would happen.

Reply Score: 3

v RE: I just wish...
by flanque on Tue 9th Oct 2007 21:22 UTC in reply to "I just wish..."
RE[2]: I just wish...
by archiesteel on Tue 9th Oct 2007 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE: I just wish..."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

There's a difference between one says publicly (in this case, Ballmer's extortion-like rhetoric) and what one says under oath in a court of law.

Basically, the OP wants Ballmer to stop making public threats, and instead explain exactly how Linux infringes as part of legal action. In other words, he's inviting Ballmer to put his money where is mouth is (I agree: it's time to put up or shut up for MS about this).

Glad I could be of help.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: I just wish...
by Soulbender on Wed 10th Oct 2007 03:56 UTC in reply to "RE: I just wish..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"That's somewhat contradictory."

Not at all. Stop the trash talk and defamation and instead provide some proof. Nothing contradictory there.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: I just wish...
by flanque on Wed 10th Oct 2007 07:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I just wish..."
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

You've completely missed the point of what I was saying.

Reply Score: 1

..........
by islander on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:39 UTC
islander
Member since:
2007-04-11

Screw Ballmer.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: ..........
by Johnbon on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:46 UTC in reply to ".........."
RE: ..........
by timothy.crosley on Wed 10th Oct 2007 20:56 UTC in reply to ".........."
timothy.crosley Member since:
2006-06-15

Personally I would NEVER want to screw him, but that's just me O:-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ..........
by sbergman27 on Thu 11th Oct 2007 08:25 UTC in reply to "RE: .........."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Personally I would NEVER want to screw him, but that's just me O:-)
"""

No. Not just you. There are *many* in these forums who are not into bestiality.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ..........
by RandomGuy on Fri 12th Oct 2007 00:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: .........."
RandomGuy Member since:
2006-07-30

LOL
I nearly pissed myself, reading this. And not because I fear MS could sue me, that's for sure!

Reply Score: 2

They forget
by J.R. on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:40 UTC
J.R.
Member since:
2007-07-25

Looks like they forget one thing: Unlike many companies that has been FUD'ed to pay up earlier the Linux community has proven to not do that. SCO is the evidence of exactly that when the Linux community called their bluff and they went bankrupt. Of course if Microsoft is right then its their right to enforce their intellectual property, but they are not fooling anyone when they refuse to show and tell. At this point I would prefer to get this settled in court once and for all. Either way that is better than to listen to more of this shit.

Reply Score: 4

Smoke and Mirrors
by Windows Sucks on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:42 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

Don't see them suing Red Hat any time soon. To do that by proxy they would have to sue Oracle, IBM, Google and several other companies that distribute or use RHEL.

Also none of the companies I listed are fans of MS.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

Reply Score: 2

sigh
by stormloss on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:42 UTC
stormloss
Member since:
2005-08-03

I'd wish some brave people would enforce those American RICO laws against Microsoft.

Pure Racketeering.

Reply Score: 12

RE: sigh
by sappyvcv on Tue 9th Oct 2007 23:00 UTC in reply to "sigh"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Now I'm not disputing your claim, but remember it is a heavy claim and such heavy claims are pretty worthless without some sort of proof or explanation. Care to elaborate?

Reply Score: 2

Very predictable
by JeffS on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:42 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

This is all very calculated -

the attack by proxy via SCO (which failed).

The patent pact with Novell, followed shortly by the claim that Linux/OO.org and desktop environments violate 235 MS patents.

Now this.

This is FUD, slander, and extortion. IBM, Red Hat, and all interested parties (Intel, Oracle, HP, the list goes on), should sue for slander, and bring up extortion charges.

Steve Ballmer - STFU. You are a troll, a moron, a liar, a criminal. Go crawl back under the rock you came from ... OR ... change your ways and try to conduct business honestly and product products that are customer friendly.

Reply Score: 13

RE: Very predictable
by tyrione on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:54 UTC in reply to "Very predictable"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

I find the Oo.org one quite peculiar seeing as Sun was paid $2 Billion in IP violations and more by Microsoft [correct me if I'm wrong] so if there were so many violations you'd think Microsoft would have hammered out a different deal with Sun.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Very predictable
by DigitalAxis on Wed 10th Oct 2007 03:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Very predictable"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

If you believe Wikipedia, Microsoft has all kinds of covenants not to sue, even with Sun.

The patent 'landscape', if you will, is a World War I style powderkeg. Either it's defused via legislation restricting software patents and overturning existing ones, or it'll eventually blow up. I don't think ANYONE wants to see that happen, because the only ones who win will be everyone outside the USA who don't have to obey US patent laws.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Very predictable
by wirespot on Wed 10th Oct 2007 15:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Very predictable"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

The patent 'landscape', if you will, is a World War I style powderkeg.


I'd rather compare it to the atomic bomb. All the big powers have one (patent portfolio) and nobody dares to use theirs full blown, because nobody would survive the counter-strikes.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Very predictable
by Robocoastie on Thu 11th Oct 2007 15:21 UTC in reply to "Very predictable"
Robocoastie Member since:
2005-09-15

Yea like WTF does it take 10 minutes + for my computer to boot and be usable in Vista? And why does it have to slowly redraw and load files in windows explorer? Why does Windows Explorer crash so often (at least it doesn't make the whole system crash anymore). Vista is craptastic but due to MSFT's monopoly on school systems I still have to have a partition of it.

IOW there's no way Linux violates MSFT patents because they don't even resemble them - Linux's apps. work!

Reply Score: 1

no software patent in the EU
by agrouf on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:47 UTC
agrouf
Member since:
2006-11-17

Even if Microsoft had a patent, it's void in the EU. Is he speculating on the future of european laws or is he just lying? If you ask me, that is just plain classical good old FUD, getting really old.

Reply Score: 3

RE: no software patent in the EU
by Robocoastie on Thu 11th Oct 2007 15:17 UTC in reply to "no software patent in the EU"
Robocoastie Member since:
2005-09-15

I suspect that unless we have a patent revolt in the US the EU will eventually have a patent law. Why? - WTO pressures. NAFTA has enabled the US to kick around its might greatly regarding patents and copyrights so unless the EU stays strong on this issue I suspect it will become an issue at the WTO if it's not already up for discussion.

Reply Score: 1

Feeling lucky punk?
by HeLfReZ on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:53 UTC
HeLfReZ
Member since:
2005-08-12

http://www.osnews.com/story.php/17917/OIN-We-Stand-Ready-to-Leverag...

All talk, not real credibility. We have had this discussion several times. After the fortune article, Microsoft retracted their statement saying they have no intentions of acting on the IP, after being called out by several organization to put up or shutup. Beside, the OIN is ready, willing, and able to go to battle over anything they ever try to put out. Just the same ol FUD aimed at consumer and ill-advised companies who don't bother to hire experts or read the news.

Reply Score: 7

The article title is misleading
by JoeBuck on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:54 UTC
JoeBuck
Member since:
2006-01-11

Microsoft has not aimed any patent guns at Red Hat. This would require them to sue or threaten to sue based on infringement of specific patents. They haven't; rather Ballmer gave a speech where he spread some FUD.
<p>
While Microsoft has hired some very bright people, and has done some innovative research, much of Windows is based on the copying of ideas that originated elsewhere. If a patent war breaks out, Microsoft is going to be paying out more than it collects.

Reply Score: 8

Joke
by airwedge1 on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:58 UTC
airwedge1
Member since:
2006-02-22

And all you people that like the xbox 360, and HD-DVD support this stupid company? You should all be ashamed of yourselves. These comments want me to never use MS products ever again. Oh wait, I vowed that along time ago, when MS did something else like this.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Joke
by mallard on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:38 UTC in reply to "Joke"
mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

When the alternatives are the PS3 and Blu-Ray, either way is supporting a "stupid company" with very questionable business ethics.
At least its easier to live up to my "vow" never to buy Sony-branded products.

Besides, Microsoft doesn't own HD-DVD.

Edited 2007-10-09 17:39

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Joke
by Beta on Tue 9th Oct 2007 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Joke"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

One minor point: Sony encourages customers to run Linux (or any OS) on their PS3 if they so wish.

Not sure what Microsoft’s stance is wrt Linux on x360 ;)

Seems like quite the lesser of two evils going with PS3.

Reply Score: 3

Linux on PS3
by StaubSaugerNZ on Tue 9th Oct 2007 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Joke"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

I have Ubuntu on PS3. Problem is, you have very restricted access to the underlying hardware due to Sony's RSX driver prohibiting this. While Sony are better than Microsoft in that they contributed patches to Linux you also have to consider that Sony did this to head off any truly open drivers for the PS3 (since it works "well enough" for most people). Also, Sony didn't add Linux out of altruism, it's because they get a lower import tax/duty in the EU if the PS3 is classed as "computing" hardware rather than "entertainment" hardware only.

That said, the PS3 is an excellent bit of gear and I'm happy it runs Linux very well (despite the restrictions on access to the GPU, which means no hardware OpenGL).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Joke
by preem on Thu 11th Oct 2007 08:46 UTC in reply to "Joke"
preem Member since:
2007-10-11

I'd buy a sony product...PS3...and for one game only...Pro Evolution Soccer

And i'll tell you one more thing...I am on a verge of buying new pc but all im thinking is, all these dx10 gfx card and stuff....i wont run vista, so why bother with new pc since dx10 wont be ported to xp.

The only game im playing is Pro Evolution Soccer, so why spend 2000€ on a pc that can handle the game plus vista, or just spend 400€ on a ps3.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Joke
by Robocoastie on Thu 11th Oct 2007 15:14 UTC in reply to "Joke"
Robocoastie Member since:
2005-09-15

"And all you people that like the xbox 360, and HD-DVD support this stupid company? You should all be ashamed of yourselves. These comments want me to never use MS products ever again. Oh wait, I vowed that along time ago, when MS did something else like this."

Ad-hominem attack.

I don't have nor do I intend on having a 360 but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand and those are a seperate division of MSFT that could (and should have) be easily broken from the company and spun off as a different one if an anti-trust suit ever actually punished MSFT as they should have been.

Reply Score: 1

Not a snowflake's
by SReilly on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:00 UTC
SReilly
Member since:
2006-12-28

...chance in hell are MS going to start a patent war with RH.

First off, the start of a patent war is a can of worms MS don't want to open.

Secondly, with all the big guns not only using, but actively offering either RH or a RH derivative, they would be leaving themselves open for a large scale counter attack from pretty much every big player in the field apart from Novell.

Even Novell could get on the side of RH if they feel the need too as, AFAIK, they only signed a deal not to sue each other's customers.

The only thing I'm hearing from Balmer at the mo is a marketing bluff, i.e. FUD.

Reply Score: 7

OIN
by pedromatiello on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:01 UTC
pedromatiello
Member since:
2005-07-13
RE: OIN
by Rahul on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:07 UTC in reply to "OIN"
Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

If they actually engage a lawsuit, OIN can help but this is a marketing move to spread FUD with confidence gained from signing some patent agreements with a few Linux vendors - Novell, Linspire, Xandros ...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: OIN
by pedromatiello on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE: OIN"
pedromatiello Member since:
2005-07-13

Yes, I agree. But, given the state of patent system in US, it's likely that Linux infringes some Microsoft patents. But it's equally (or even more) likely that Microsoft infringes patents owned by OIN, IBM, RedHat (?) and others.

Yes, it's probably only FUD as I don't see a real patent-war against Linux friends (thanks, IBM) as something that would benefit Microsoft, but FUD is bad enough. Maybe companies from the Linux side should tell the world that their patents are being infringed by Microsoft too?

I used to think that part of the objective of OIN was to provide a sense of security. Something like "they can't sue us because we have X, Y and Z". Maybe this should be better advertised.

Of course, without software patents the situation would be different.

Reply Score: 4

MS Value
by alucinor on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:06 UTC
alucinor
Member since:
2006-01-06

Considering the smashing success that is Vista (its best feature is that given a few more months/years it may be *as* good as XP!) it seems MS's #1 product it has to sell anymore is the assurance not to force you to pay them for nothing. Their market gorging has left them with a money addiction, and they'll do almost anything now to try and sate it.

Reply Score: 4

You know.... What the law really needs...
by daddio on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:06 UTC
daddio
Member since:
2007-07-14

What the law really needs is a specific exemption from anything patent related for Free Software.

It achieves and surpasses the stated goals of the American patent system without the need for a government imposed monopoly.

What we need to have this happen is some lobbying. the grassroots support for such a move is already there.

Reply Score: 3

JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

That would be fair only if it went both ways: commercial developers could use anything that's patented and used in Free Software without any strings attached, and vice-versa. Anything else would be a double-standard and would be distinctly unfair.

Good luck convincing people and companies that have invested time and various resources towards innovative stuff that they should hand over stuff so readily, Microsoft or otherwise.

The simplest solution would be to end software patents altogether, though I'd be surprised if that happened without a grandfather clause for existing ones.

Reply Score: 4

trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

I don't agree. Why would 'Free Software' receive special treatment ? The fact that some people have given up part or all of the revenue for their own product does not make them saints in my eyes. In fact, some other words keep coming to my mind.

DG

Reply Score: 2

patents
by kurenai on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:13 UTC
kurenai
Member since:
2006-01-24

I fully believe in OSS and use linux as much as possible (server, my personal desktop, posting this from my windows work computer =/), and yet I also fully believe that it is possible or even likely that Linux is infringing on something MS owns. It would seem to me to be pretty darn easy to get something through that to us (the tech community) looks obvious, but looks innovative to a patent clerk. It also looks like a surefire way to stifle linux growth.

A basic plan:

1) patent every possible little part of your kernel
2) wait for linux developers to unwittingly violate the patent
3) sue distributions
4) profit

Completely legal and perfectly possible.

Reply Score: 1

RE: patents
by garymax on Tue 9th Oct 2007 18:34 UTC in reply to "patents"
garymax Member since:
2006-01-23

As soon as MS reveals what patents they think are being violated, the Linux community will start to point to prior art and quickly invalidate those claims.

MS doesn't stand a chance and I hope that Red Hat and others will finally call their bluff on this. Ballmer can only go around spreading FUD for so long before he has to back up his claims.

In the meantime, the penguin marches on unabated...

Edited 2007-10-09 18:36

Reply Score: 4

RE: patents
by borker on Tue 9th Oct 2007 18:47 UTC in reply to "patents"
borker Member since:
2006-04-04

but of course you have to have a valid patent that stands up as novel, non-trivial and with out examples of prior art existing that is being knowingly violated and covers an area of code impossible to remove. The chances of that are extremely small.

- A LOT of the patents MS own are for either trivial technologies or ones that have ample bodies of prior art.
- There is almost nothing they can patent that can't be worked around or removed.
- And thats before OIN step in with it's portfolio to counter sue.
- And it ignores the mountains of bad press and publicity that would come from MS playing the patent troll game (it would be like SCO * 1000).
- And it would only apply in the US and a few countries unlucky enough to have agreed to US style patent frameworks.
- And it would probably spell the end of US style patent system with the fall out of a case like this.
- And it would deter the Europeans from ever putting one in place.

Reply Score: 5

Seeem...
by brostenen on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:20 UTC
brostenen
Member since:
2007-01-16

to me, that if there were a patent infrigmentation.
Well, then companies would have been sued by the mig bad wolf a looooooong time ago.. Hence the wolf-layer is in america, were everyone sues everybody over nothing...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Seeem...
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 9th Oct 2007 22:34 UTC in reply to "Seeem..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't know what "infrigmentation" is, but it sounds unpleasant.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Seeem...
by raver31 on Wed 10th Oct 2007 06:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Seeem..."
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

It is a real word... George W Bush uses it all the time, never, ever misunderestimate him !

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Seeem...
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 10th Oct 2007 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Seeem..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I wouldn't dream of contradicting our generated, veneered leader.

Reply Score: 2

Runs both ways.
by aliquis on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:38 UTC
aliquis
Member since:
2005-07-23

Aslong as Microsoft has to pay all whatever IP bullshit they break themself and someone figure out the current system doesn't work. If noone does I guess american parts of it all are screwed since Microsoft would probably gladely pay anyone for anything aslong as it kill all their competition...

(... just look at Xbox, althought it's not working ;D)

Edited 2007-10-09 17:39

Reply Score: 1

Guns aren't toys
by A.H. on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:42 UTC
A.H.
Member since:
2005-11-11

They should be careful waving those guns around. Might just shot themselves in the foot.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Guns aren't toys
by bosco_bearbank on Tue 9th Oct 2007 22:18 UTC in reply to "Guns aren't toys"
bosco_bearbank Member since:
2005-10-12

They should be careful waving those guns around. Might just shot themselves in the foot.


or right in between there feet and about 3 ft (give or take) above.

Reply Score: 2

once again
by raver31 on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:54 UTC
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

Ballmer is being retarded.

He cannot change the EU laws, no matter how much money they throw at it, they tried before, and failed.

EU says NO to patents, and if the US keeps up with theirs, they will be left behind as the rest of the computing world marches on, without them.

Reply Score: 3

guns?
by vimh on Tue 9th Oct 2007 18:00 UTC
vimh
Member since:
2006-02-04

I hardly call Balmer's comments aiming a gun. Not even a chair. Maybe a sweaty handkerchief.

Reply Score: 4

Again and again and again
by Janvl on Tue 9th Oct 2007 18:20 UTC
Janvl
Member since:
2007-02-20

I do not know the age of Mr. Balmer but is he not to young to suffer from Alzheimer's disease? This is exactly the same thing he told several times before and nothing ever happened. I always wonder how people like mr. Balmer get to positions like that, it cannot be because of his outstanding intelligence. As a European I have severe trouble understanding this "american way" and I am very glad mrs. Neelie Kroes does not give in to some silly demands from the usa about our law-system. I like a lot of americans but somehow the Balmers drift to the surface how come?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Again and again and again
by Flatline on Tue 9th Oct 2007 18:31 UTC in reply to "Again and again and again"
Flatline Member since:
2006-03-06

Ummm...I work for a huge multinational company, and I can tell you that idiots "drifting to the surface" is not by any means a uniquely American tendency. Please do not make this discussion a forum for bashing the U.S. It is unnecessary and, frankly, it makes many people more likely to disregard any cogent points you might make.

Reply Score: 7

DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

While you do have a good point I think that the parent poster was referring to the "American way of conducting business" due primarily to this patent stupidity or at least that's how I read it.

I don't see any cheap shots against Americans otherwise in his post - intended or not.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Again and again and again
by Janvl on Wed 10th Oct 2007 10:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Again and again and again"
Janvl Member since:
2007-02-20

You are right I ment the american way of doing business especially with patents. I cooperate in an initiative in europe to try to stop this "software-patents", this kills businesses and stops innovations made by the small businesses.
There are lots of "american ways" I wish would come to europe, I moved 1000 km and have loads of trouble with all kind of administrative things due to the fact it is another country.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Again and again and again
by re_re on Wed 10th Oct 2007 03:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Again and again and again"
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

To late. It seems most discussion forums on osnews have gravitated to bashing Americans. I guess we are all the same and according to the rest of the world we are all bigots, dishonest, and just out to make a buck at any cost.

It is truly disturbing to me.

To be honest, I could come up with a thousand reasons to hate another country or nationality of people, but I choose not to because it is wrong....... I guess it is only wrong unless it is towards Americans.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Again and again and again
by l3v1 on Wed 10th Oct 2007 05:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Again and again and again"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

to bashing Americans

reasons to hate another country or nationality


You make it sound like everyone who doesn't see the US as heaven among pink clouds is some kind of extremist who just dislikes the US because they are a different country and nation. This is utterly stupid, and IMHO you shouldn't swing such accusations so uncaringly around.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Again and again and again
by Soulbender on Wed 10th Oct 2007 04:05 UTC in reply to "Again and again and again"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"I do not know the age of Mr. Balmer but is he not to young to suffer from Alzheimer's disease?"

It would be early-onset AD.

"I like a lot of americans but somehow the Balmers drift to the surface how come?"

Morons in high positions is in no way unique to the U.S or U.S companies.

Reply Score: 2

Extortion is a crime, Mr Ballmer
by irbis on Tue 9th Oct 2007 19:16 UTC
irbis
Member since:
2005-07-08

Excuse me Mr. Ballmer but what intellectual property are you talking about? As far as everyone knows Linux does NOT violate any Microsoft intellectual property.

Please, could you first show what intellectual property you are talking about if you don't want to be accused of extortion?

As long as MS continues to deal with others this way, they will only drive more and more people and also existing customers away from Microsoft. People and companies are getting more and more fed up with Microsoft trying to own the whole IT business and kill all the competition and alternatives.

Yet another thing is the whole ridiculous US intellectual property and software patent system that benefits mostly only a few big companies. More and more people and companies also in the USA demand major changes to the current software patent and IP system in order for the US IT business to become a fair free market again. The way even very simple and basic software technology is patentable in the US nowadays is making the US IT business a dystopia where programmers and quality of software matters far less than lawyers, money and various sorts of extortion schemes.

Reply Score: 6

Open Source Asymetry
by logicnazi on Tue 9th Oct 2007 19:19 UTC
logicnazi
Member since:
2005-09-21

I agree this is almost certainly a threat MS has no intention of carrying out. However, it isn't so obvious to me that the open source position is as secure as other commenters suggest.

In particular given the broken US patent system it is likely that linux (or included packages) infringes on some MS patents and that Windows infringes on patents held by IBM, redhat and others. The problem is that doesn't put the two companies in a symetric position.

Suppose they both sue each other and both win. Now maybe the judges give the OIN guys an injunction to enforce against MS but more likely they just get damages and fees from each copy of windows sold. Suppose the same thing happens with linux. Well now the open source guys are f--ked because they can only distribute software if it can be freely distributed and the patent claims of MS could prevent this.

Now there are several places in the above story that might just be my ignorance or confusion. It would be great to hear from a real lawyer. However, the general point is that the patent system is designed for use by companies distributing items for profit and not open source technologies so there is the danger of getting hung up on these points.

Reply Score: 3

SCO is dead
by dylansmrjones on Tue 9th Oct 2007 19:20 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

Long live SCO!

Reply Score: 4

This is sad...
by sonic2000gr on Tue 9th Oct 2007 19:24 UTC
sonic2000gr
Member since:
2007-05-20

When you can't make working products, you make threats...
When you can't get innovative minds to work for you, you find unemployed lawyers...

This is a sad time for a big company.
Please MS put a leash on Mr Balmer. He is RUINING the company.

Reply Score: 3

RE: This is sad...
by Soulbender on Wed 10th Oct 2007 04:11 UTC in reply to "This is sad..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"When you can't make working products, you make threats...
When you can't get innovative minds to work for you, you find unemployed lawyers... "

Don't be stupid. There are a lot of talented and innovative people working for MS and as opposed to the patent lawsuit bottom feeders (like Rambus and Eolas) MS does actually have products.

"Please MS put a leash on Mr Balmer. He is RUINING the company."

Indeed. Every time he opens his mouth in public it's a PR disaster. It's somewhat of a mystery why they let him continue making public statements.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This is sad...
by dylansmrjones on Wed 10th Oct 2007 09:04 UTC in reply to "RE: This is sad..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Because all the non-geeks eat it raw?

The spin journalists can put on his words - making it all sound reasonable - is interesting. The Engineer laughs at him, but the CEO claps.

Reply Score: 1

popcorn...
by hobgoblin on Tue 9th Oct 2007 19:26 UTC
hobgoblin
Member since:
2005-07-06

is ready and waiting.

this should be quite the show.

Reply Score: 2

RE: popcorn...
by shykid on Tue 9th Oct 2007 20:34 UTC in reply to "popcorn..."
shykid Member since:
2007-02-22

popcorn is ready and waiting.

If it's cheesy popcorn, count me in. ;p

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: popcorn...
by hackus on Tue 9th Oct 2007 21:05 UTC in reply to "RE: popcorn..."
hackus Member since:
2006-06-28

WTH? Where is the butter?

I am from Wisconsin so I have to have butter AND cheese on everything.

Including the popcorn of course.

:-)

-Hack

PS: Ballmer you suck Wisconsin Cow Teeties. Moooooooo!

Reply Score: 1

SCO couldn't prove it...
by systyrant on Tue 9th Oct 2007 19:27 UTC
systyrant
Member since:
2007-01-18

At some point Microsoft is either going to have to show what it claims or get slammed with a lawsuit by one or many of the Linux distributors (possibly anyway).

And stop slamming Novell. Microsoft would be spreading this crap regardless and those who actually believe that the Novell/Microsoft deal is proof of Linux's wrong doing would probably believe Microsoft's crap anyway. While I don't like the deal I have serious doubts that it give Microsoft that much ammunition.

If the SCO lawsuit prove anything it's that judges will require the proof if a lawsuit is taken to court. SCO couldn't produce it and I doubt Microsoft can either, but I'm sure at some point they will try.

Until they do my personal view is that Microsoft and Steve Ballmer are both full of crap.

Reply Score: 4

definition of extortion
by irbis on Tue 9th Oct 2007 19:30 UTC
irbis
Member since:
2005-07-08

The definition of extortion according to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

"Extortion or outwresting is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person either obtains money, property or services from another through coercion or intimidation or threatens one with physical or reputational harm unless they are paid money or property. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence or a lawsuit which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence or lawsuit is sufficient to commit the offense. The four simple words "pay up or else" are sufficient to constitute the crime of extortion. An extortionate threat made to another in jest is still extortion."

More detailed legal description for extortion can be found, for example, here (according to the Canadian law):
http://legaltree.ca/node/554
but it says basically the same thing as the Wikipedia definition.

Edited 2007-10-09 19:36

Reply Score: 5

RE: definition of extortion
by JonathanBThompson on Tue 9th Oct 2007 22:17 UTC in reply to "definition of extortion"
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

Well, until Microsoft ponies up proof, that's how a lot of people will see their actions.

However, if they truly do have evidence that their patents are being violated, it's no long extortion, technically, but a legal threat, and a threat that is indeed legal to make, that tends to either result in a civil court case or a settlement out of court.

Zealots would like to believe Microsoft is doing pure extortion, and that they have no legitimate claims to back up their sabre-rattling. However, that defies logic: Microsoft is the biggest software company on earth, and likely to be so for the foreseeable future, despite anyone's wishes otherwise, and that's because, for the most part, they don't do horribly stupid things like SCO did, at least not to any degree that matters towards the bottom line a great deal.

Microsoft is far from being unique in the field of software and high-tech stuff from doing this sort of thing: this is prevalent throughout the industry and any like it, but Microsoft just happens to be the most visible one, that's all.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: definition of extortion
by irbis on Tue 9th Oct 2007 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE: definition of extortion"
irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

"Zealots would like to believe Microsoft is doing pure extortion, and that they have no legitimate claims to back up their sabre-rattling."

Maybe they have legitimate claims, maybe not, I don't care and that's not the main point here. The point is that they are only throwing empty threats as long as they have no actual facts and proof to show. You know, in theory also Linux companies like IBM, Red Hat (or any others) could as well claim that it is Microsoft that violates thousands of their valuable IP patents, and ask MS to pay them, regardless of those claims being true or false. However, fortunately the IT business as a whole has not sunken to such low levels yet. Maybe some companies will still appreciate good business practices and ethics too instead of only money?

Edited 2007-10-09 23:06

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: definition of extortion
by SReilly on Tue 9th Oct 2007 23:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: definition of extortion"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

However, fortunately the IT business as a whole has not sunken to such low levels yet. Maybe some companies will still appreciate good business practices and ethics too instead of only money?

I'd like to agree with you on that one, but patent infringement lawsuits, and subsequent out of court settlements, are an extremely common occurrence in the IT industry. Just check out the settlements MS has agreed on with Sun and Novell. IBM is also well known for patent trolling.

The thing is, MS is doing this because they don't need to provide any proof, at least as far as any pointy haired manager is concerned. All they need to do is plant enough doubt in the minds of purchasing and tech managers to get more customers.

In the end, MS don't want a patent war as they would lose to the likes of IBM, OIN and Oracle. But as long as they don't take it to court, they don't need to prove that what they are saying is true.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: definition of extortion
by irbis on Wed 10th Oct 2007 08:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: definition of extortion"
irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

"but patent infringement lawsuits, and subsequent out of court settlements, are an extremely common occurrence in the IT industry. Just check out the settlements MS has agreed on with Sun and Novell. IBM is also well known for patent trolling."

Yeah, you are right, and I just wanted to be an optimist, although it is hard in current IP climate. I meant that Red Hat or IBM has not yet accussed that Microsoft products would be infringing their Linux-related patents, as far as I know. But they (and any others including my grandma or dog) could do that as well as Microsoft especially if no proof or facts are expected.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: definition of extortion
by elsewhere on Wed 10th Oct 2007 19:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: definition of extortion"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

All they need to do is plant enough doubt in the minds of purchasing and tech managers to get more customers.


I suspect he's more than likely targeting the general counsels and C-level execs that need to sign off on Sarbox-mandated quarterlies. The IP concerns of GPL-software with regards to SOX-compliance were addressed ages ago, but execs are still jittery, I suspect this is simply trying to dredge up that poor dead horse and exploit the fear of nervous executives still squeamish about SOX violations.

Realistically, they're the only people that would even care about Microsoft's empty threats. IT-savvy people know that Microsoft has been on a merciless linux witchhunt for years now, and non IT-savvy people don't understand the issues and don't really care, it's a vendor concern in their eyes.

In the end, MS don't want a patent war as they would lose to the likes of IBM, OIN and Oracle. But as long as they don't take it to court, they don't need to prove that what they are saying is true.


It's interesting to note that Ballmer is very clever in his accusations. "We believe linux violates our IP" is an ambiguous, non-commital statement. There's nothing slanderous, and yet nothing that MS can have held against them or disproven. It's no different than the anti-trust trial, where Microsoft was taken to task for using vaporware to combat competitiors releasing actual products, but it was found to be a ethically-questionable yet perfectly legal tactic.

And, of course, although the meaning is often lost on people that throw the term "FUD" around, it is a perfectly legitimate marketing technique, and hardly unique to the tech industry.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: definition of extortion
by walterbyrd on Wed 10th Oct 2007 03:45 UTC in reply to "RE: definition of extortion"
walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>However, if they truly do have evidence that their patents are being violated, it's no long extortion.<<

Big "if" isn't it? If msft does have that proof, then what is the big secret? If msft does not have that proof (and let's be honest, it is clear they do not) then is it even boarderline ethical for the CEO to make such claims?

>>Zealots would like to believe Microsoft is doing pure extortion, and that they have no legitimate claims to back up their sabre-rattling. However, that defies logic<<

WTF? Defies logic how? Why doesn't msft put up or shut up? Msft has been making these specious claims for years and years. Logically, if msft had evidence, then msft would present it. Unless it's just another msft fud campaign. Right?

>> Microsoft is the biggest software company on earth, and likely to be so for the foreseeable future, despite anyone's wishes otherwise, and that's because, for the most part, they don't do horribly stupid things like SCO did, at least not to any degree that matters towards the bottom line a great deal.<<

WTF? Did you catch the part where ballmer spoke about the $500 million settle that msft just paid. And that is far from the first such settlement. Far from the largest settlement also. Msft has caught red-handed in *numerous* outright lies and scams - how about bald face lying to the US-DoJ? BTW: scox was not stupid at all, scox was as good as dead before the scam. Scox had nothing to lose, and all that msft money to gain.

>>Microsoft is far from being unique in the field of software and high-tech stuff from doing this sort of thing this is prevalent throughout the industry<<

WTF!!? I openly defy you to name another major software company that routinely breaks the law like msft does. How about outright stealling stacker technoloy? How about the letters from dead people campaigns? How about fronting with fake think-tanks? How about astro-turfing with a letters-from-dead-people campaign? How about the obvious corruption in the OOXML scam? How about paying another company many millions to have that company file a totally bogus lawsuit against IBM, just to FUD Linux. Please, name another major software company that does all that.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: definition of extortion
by Soulbender on Wed 10th Oct 2007 04:14 UTC in reply to "RE: definition of extortion"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"However, that defies logic: Microsoft is the biggest software company on earth, and likely to be so for the foreseeable future, despite anyone's wishes otherwise, and that's because, for the most part, they don't do horribly stupid things like SCO did"

Or maybe that's exactly why they think they can get away with it. It wouldn't be the first time a large company has been infected with hubris and done amazingly stupid things.

Reply Score: 1

Bork-bork-bork - its all swedish to me
by flywheel on Tue 9th Oct 2007 20:09 UTC
flywheel
Member since:
2005-12-28

Its the same old song.
Its monotonous, boring, and incomplete.

Stevie - why don't you finish the lyrics and tell everybody - which specific IP/patents are infringed ?

Otherwise, I will consider this as the usual Redmond-FUD. With no other substance, than insanity.

Reply Score: 1

korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

RE: Bork-bork-bork - its all swedish to me

What does Ballmer have to do with Sweden and Swedish!?

Hmpf!!

Reply Score: 3

placard
by batdan on Tue 9th Oct 2007 20:12 UTC
batdan
Member since:
2007-01-12

I feel almost motivated enough to make a placard with words to the effect that "MS Are Evil" and start protesting outside their London office.

Reply Score: 1

Thanks, Bruce
by sbergman27 on Tue 9th Oct 2007 20:28 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

This is a direct result of that Linux "patent study" conducted by Open Source Risk Management, Inc. Remember? That for-profit company that Bruce Perens endorsed that did a study concluding that Linux might violate 283 patents, in an attempt to scare businesses into taking out insurance policies with them? Bruce was even on the board of directors. I *knew* that study would come back to bite us some day. And guess what? It has.

Edited 2007-10-09 20:31

Reply Score: 5

Groklaw's point of view
by irbis on Tue 9th Oct 2007 20:33 UTC
irbis
Member since:
2005-07-08

Groklaw has a detailed story on the subject too with quotes from the Ballmer speech and more:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071008205138925

According to Groklaw, software patents have to go as they are the real problem. From the article:
"Reform isn't going to work, if a monopoly player is willing to misuse patents as an anticompetitive weapon. It raises antitrust issues, of course, but ideally patents need to be taken off the software table altogether. This little speech is the clearest and most obvious proof that they are being used now not for innovation, but to crush it."

Edited 2007-10-09 20:36

Reply Score: 3

hunting wabbit?
by Rugxulo on Tue 9th Oct 2007 20:43 UTC
Rugxulo
Member since:
2007-10-09

Enough with shouting "FUD" and "troll" at everyone, it's very tiresome and usually out of line (I mean directed at "normal" people, not Steve Ballmer, who obviously has issues). It sounds ridiculous when even Linus himself uses it four times in a sentence. Please, enough already.

Anyways, MS keeps getting sued over patents (Stacker, .mp3), so why are they so eager to jump on others? Shouldn't they be as mad as anyone over the sillyness we all live with these days? Why don't they fix their own massively-hyped, forced-to-upgrade OS (Vista) to be the best it can be instead of wasting time on useless garbage like this? Oh, and stop wasting money advertising, we all have it pre-installed anyways (sheesh). Your first priority should be to fix the bugs!!

"Double click", "one-click shopping", how insane. Can anyone honestly expect these to be ethically patented? Isn't it all just about "more" money. When is enough enough?? (Shouldn't most Microsoft execs just retire? I mean, what are they still doing in the business if all they want is money? Aren't they all set for life yet? Will Vista really help their quality of life that much more?)

Oh, and quit blaming Novell, they most likely didn't (intend to) hurt free software in any way. A house divided cannot stand. If even you, FOSS lovers, hate them, who will support them? Don't tell me it doesn't matter because we're all intertwined anyways. What hurts one hurts us all.

Reply Score: 1

SourceForge: be more selective with ads!
by Rugxulo on Tue 9th Oct 2007 20:58 UTC
Rugxulo
Member since:
2007-10-09

Oh, almost forgot to mention: ;)

SourceForge (and everyone else), please be selective who you let advertise on your site. It looks VERY VERY bad to see ads that say things like "Make Patent Pirates Pay". Ugh. (Sorry, but if that's your line of work, you're really really asking for it. Horrible!) I just can't fathom anyone enjoying such work or even tolerating such mentions. Ever heard the phrase "Better dead than smeg"?

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"It looks VERY VERY bad to see ads that say things like "Make Patent Pirates Pay". Ugh."

Personally I'm more annoyed by the MS FUD ads that show up in almost every damn topic.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

"Better dead than smeg" <-- Hmmm.. Red Dwarf ;)

Reply Score: 1

Apple
by spook on Tue 9th Oct 2007 22:04 UTC
spook
Member since:
2006-01-09

If A full scale patent war developed between MS and Linux (and most people think IBM would support Linux)

I wonder which side Apple would fall down on? Would they lend support to the resistence or stay neutral and out of the way? I presume with the age of the company and the many things they have piorneered, along with the earlier battles with MS, that they also have a significant portfolio of Patents that could be brought to bear one way or the other

Edited 2007-10-09 22:05

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple
by apoclypse on Tue 9th Oct 2007 22:13 UTC in reply to "Apple"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Eventhough Apple's whole MO is to be anti-MS they are actually very similar in how they handle their business. If the tables were turned and Apple were to be the big dog, trust me it would be far worst. I genuinely like apple, NOW, primarily because the company was forced to actually make good products to survive, but that's not to say I'm naive about their business practices and how they have screwed the little guy just as much as MS has.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Apple
by spook on Tue 9th Oct 2007 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple"
spook Member since:
2006-01-09

Oh I don't disagree, just wondered whos side they'd be tempted to take, as they could bring a lot to bear against MS. But I think they do what was just best for themselves and go and hide somewhere out the way and come out onces all the fightings done.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Apple
by JonathanBThompson on Tue 9th Oct 2007 22:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple"
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

The solution to finding the answer is figuring out what would help Apple the most towards their bottom lines: after all, they're a publicly-traded corporation, and have to report to their stockholders on how they've used their assets towards making more profits.

Now, how that's evaluated, that could get a bit tricky...

Reply Score: 2

I found one!!!
by Adurbe on Tue 9th Oct 2007 22:10 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p...

Microsoft owns "Use of online messaging to facilitate selection of participants in game play"

Reply Score: 3

RE: I found one!!!
by Ben Jao Ming on Wed 10th Oct 2007 09:29 UTC in reply to "I found one!!!"
Ben Jao Ming Member since:
2005-07-26

Eh, does Linux use that one? Besides, they only got it because they purchased the company that made Halo. I wonder if they actually succeeded in innovating anything (useful) within their own company walls...

Edited 2007-10-10 09:29

Reply Score: 1

MS is not stupid
by opieum on Tue 9th Oct 2007 23:05 UTC
opieum
Member since:
2007-02-08

They will not go after the big guys first. They will go after the second tier distro vendors first. What that will do in US law is build a case portfolio to establish that they can win. By setting precedents they get the law in the US to change in their favor. This has become very typical of larger companies.

The smaller companies will likley not have enough money to fight a suit like this. Now on the other hand a larger company or companies could step in and help as it would be in their best interests as well. MS knows all this. They know what they risk. So right now it is just FUD and will be so until they do something stupid (even tho I said they are not that does not mean they cant be stupid).

As it is with that comment alone they could actually be charged with extortion. Those sorts of tactics are actually very similar. Lets put it in this context

MS: Hey you owe me protection
Small shopkeeper: What? I dont owe you anything.
MS: You do or I will come after you with(insert threat here)
Small shopkeeper: Umm yea, how much?

and on and on. This is extortion and this is how it works. It is that simple and the legal system has outlined it. Our current DOJ is a bit friendly with corporations so they can and will get away with this sort of thing while others look the other way. It is likley tho that MS with this blatent comment has shown thuggery. If they cannot produce the patents and IP violations then they are guilty of extortion and can be tried as a criminal organization. Now to get an attorney with the guts to go after them.

Reply Score: 5

RE: MS is not stupid
by spook on Tue 9th Oct 2007 23:16 UTC in reply to "MS is not stupid"
spook Member since:
2006-01-09

[quote]ow to get an attorney with the guts to go after them.[/quote]

Ha, something tells me they wouldn't try such tactics in the EU :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE: MS is not stupid
by lemur2 on Wed 10th Oct 2007 00:36 UTC in reply to "MS is not stupid"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

They will not go after the big guys first. They will go after the second tier distro vendors first. What that will do in US law is build a case portfolio to establish that they can win. By setting precedents they get the law in the US to change in their favor. This has become very typical of larger companies.


This is indeed the way it would work if "GNU/Linux" were actually an American company. Microsoft has used this very process in the past with success.

However, GNU/Linux is neither American, nor is it a company.

GNU/Linux is neither small, nor defenceless. As soon as Microsoft attacked the smallest Linux distribution with a patent lawsuit, a large array of resources would band together to oppose Microsoft's suit.

http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/About
http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Protect
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about.php
http://www.patent-commons.org/

Microsoft would be looking at a legal battle against "everyone but Microsoft", and they would be entering a swordfight armed with a US-only pocketknife.

In theory, the Linux interests could file a fair number of patent counter-suit allegations against Microsoft and be able (as I say, in theory) to get an injunction that would prevent anyone in the US from being able to run Windows legally.

Microsoft won't sue. It would become a mutually assured destruction scenario.

Edited 2007-10-10 00:41

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: MS is not stupid
by Snapper on Wed 10th Oct 2007 14:16 UTC in reply to "RE: MS is not stupid"
Snapper Member since:
2005-11-16

RE: MS is not stupid
By lemur2 on 2007-10-10 00:36:34 UTC in reply to ""
...
Microsoft would be looking at a legal battle against "everyone but Microsoft", and they would be entering a swordfight armed with a US-only pocketknife.

...
Microsoft won't sue. It would become a mutually assured destruction scenario.


------------------

Now there is some confidence! Ms with a pocket knife and the others with swords, and it still ends up a draw "mutually assured descruction..."

Reply Score: 1

Sue ballmer
by viator on Tue 9th Oct 2007 23:50 UTC
viator
Member since:
2005-10-11

I think at this point ballmer CAN be sued for defamation.
Redhat and or linus do the community a favor and and sue him.

Reply Score: 1

I just love
by Soulbender on Wed 10th Oct 2007 03:17 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

the smell of FUD in the morning.

Reply Score: 2

A question for the Americans
by Gone fishing on Wed 10th Oct 2007 05:10 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

I'm wondering how Microsoft position and the political landscape for corporations like Microsoft will change when / if the Republicans loose the next presidential election? I seem to remember last time the Democrats were in power MS was threatened with being broken up.

Reply Score: 2

Steve Ballmer
by Coral Snake on Wed 10th Oct 2007 05:31 UTC
Coral Snake
Member since:
2005-07-07

Is this the same Steve Ballmer who is known for the "Monkey Boy Dance" and the "developers-Developers-DEVELOPERS!!!" rant???!!!! ;c)

Reply Score: 1

USPTO
by wakeupneo on Wed 10th Oct 2007 06:17 UTC
wakeupneo
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think the USPTO have a clue about what a patent actually is or what qualifies as one. In Australia we have three criteria for patentability of a new invention - Utility, Novelty and Non-obviousness.

Where:
Utility means that the invention must be useful.
Novelty means that the invention is new and/or that the author is the first and original inventor.
Non-obviousness means that the invention must not be obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the invention field of applicability.

I doubt the majority of software patents approved in the US would ever see the light of day based on this criteria...and, thank the gods, never will where I live.

Reply Score: 1

RE: USPTO
by MamiyaOtaru on Wed 10th Oct 2007 08:37 UTC in reply to "USPTO"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

In Australia we have three criteria for patentability of a new invention - Utility, Novelty and Non-obviousness.

That's nice. Of course, the USPTO has the same criteria, which are described with nearly identical wording. Unfortunately wording doesn't save one from misuses made possible by an overworked bureaucracy rubberstamping stuff ;)

from USPTO:
The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful." The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.
...
In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law ... If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere in the world, or if it was known or used by others in this country before the date that the applicant made his/her invention, a patent cannot be obtained.
...
Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. For example, the substitution of one color for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable.


Edited 2007-10-10 08:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

obsidian
Member since:
2007-05-12

**Even if** MS is aiming at all open-source software, there is one area in which they do not have a leg to stand on. The *BSDs!

The *BSDs had their "legal stoush" (fight) in the early '90s iirc. Everything was sorted out for them then. No loose ends for MS to pull on.

Sure, there will be a few PHBs out there who might be spooked by MS, but the vast majority of people/companies/councils/governments will raise a vertical middle finger at them.

Heck, you'd think there'd be someone out there with big-enough cojones to call MS's bluff and sue them for
anti-competitive behaviour... :-)

Reply Score: 1

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

The *BSDs had their "legal stoush" (fight) in the early '90s iirc. Everything was sorted out for them then. No loose ends for MS to pull on.


That was basically copyright and ownership issues, much as the SCO fight with linux was. Has no bearing on patent infringement, in fact, if MS truly believes that the linux kernel violates their patent portfolio, it would be hard to believe that the BSDs don't violate some of these mythical patents as well.

If enterprises started loading their datacenters with BSD backed by an enterprise-oriented company similar to Red Hat (and please, nobody suggest Apple), you can bet that the FUD stick would be turned on the BSDs fairly quickly. MS doesn't care about linux or BSD in particular, they're only concerned about the enterprises that dare choose them over Windows.

Reply Score: 2

Respect for our intellectual property
by weckart on Wed 10th Oct 2007 07:10 UTC
weckart
Member since:
2006-01-11

Alas, poor Microsoft, too many people have so little respect for your "intellectual" property that they are finding new ways to remove it from your hardware:

http://www.free60.org/
http://tinyurl.com/3y2hzo
http://www.everythingusb.com/tattiebogle.html

Reply Score: 1

They cant show us the patent breaches!
by Kishe on Wed 10th Oct 2007 07:43 UTC
Kishe
Member since:
2006-02-16

If there's in fact patent breaches and Microsoft would show them to Linux community, all pieces of code breaching their IP would be fixed within a week...thats the beauty of Open Source.

Reply Score: 1

REM2000
Member since:
2006-07-25

i thought microsoft said that although they had these patents etc.. that they were gonna shut up and not wave them around any more.

I look at microsoft and sometimes think, what the hell are they doing. It's prett obvious i suppose, they have some really clever people working there, just none of em work in at the management level.

Reply Score: 2

Alleister
Member since:
2006-05-29

Oh no, someone gave that monkey a patent gun... that is calling for disaster.

Reply Score: 2

Lets try to break it down little
by steogede2 on Wed 10th Oct 2007 10:57 UTC
steogede2
Member since:
2007-08-17

>> People who use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to compensate us

"at least"? and at most would be what? everyone who use Red Hat?

"in a sense"? What sort of sense? In a moral sense? In a legal sense? In a "we are Microsoft all your money and technology belong to us" sense? Perhaps he means in a "everything I say makes no" sense?

I will have to download the video and see if he actually says anything which has a tangible meaning.

(I think I may have used up my years supply of question marks)

Edited 2007-10-10 10:59

Reply Score: 3

v Then Why Do We Need GPL at all?
by rakamaka on Wed 10th Oct 2007 13:09 UTC
Alleister Member since:
2006-05-29

>Are GPL violations in linux=Patent violations in MS??

No, these are very different cases. GPL just prevents illegal use of code, you are free to implement the same kind of algorithms, just not to steal someones implementation.
Software Patents try to prevent anyone to implement the same kind of algorithm, which mostly are algorithms which are obvious solutions, have been implemented earlier by other people or, while maybe not dead obvious, are one of the few possible solutions anyone would come to when trying to do something. That is why software Patents are such a big problem: they usually aren't *at all* an innovation and while programming you might infringe them just by choosing an obvious solution for a problem.
So far, Microsoft has failed to proof even one single patent infringement.

Reply Score: 3

SteveNordquist Member since:
2007-05-04

That was a wacky interpretation of copyright that doesn't sync with other plagiarism defenses. Not only that but it did not follow through on material slander defense by calling forfeit on patents Ballmer might claim if he does not enter suit and proper claim in 50 days. I would cite law but prefer: 'Kick butt, lose tablets.'

It might make sense in some country in which Microsoft does business though! Chinese (PRC) courts, right? I mean there, the fact that UI defects and cluelessness have been copied outside of parody could be very serious punitive items. Then where would our desire to serve oppressive regimes as HALO soldiers be?

Reply Score: 1

Sue Microsoft!
by ido50 on Wed 10th Oct 2007 15:54 UTC
ido50
Member since:
2006-02-06

I've said it once, and I will say it again: Sue Microsoft for libel. They will either be forced to present the alleged patents being infringed, or shamefuly admit that they are lying.

I believe they will not choose the first option, since MS patent technologies which are either not even invented by MS or are so trivial that only the fact that the US patent system is defunct allowed Microsoft to register such patents.

Reply Score: 2

Red Hat says: "Deploy with confidence".
by lemur2 on Thu 11th Oct 2007 13:06 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

http://www.press.redhat.com/2007/05/14/deploy-with-confidence/

"Our confidence in our technology and protections for customers remains strong and has not wavered. Red Hat’s Open Source Assurance protections focus on our clients’ business continuity as well as indemnification against claims raised by any holder of software patents.

...

The reality is that the community development approach of free and open source code represents a healthy development paradigm, which, when viewed from the perspective of pending lawsuits related to intellectual property, is at least as safe as proprietary software. We are also aware of no patent lawsuit against Linux. Ever. Anywhere.

In addition, the Open Invention Network provides a patent safe harbor for the Linux environment. OIN, of which Red Hat was a founding member, also has an independent patent portfolio to help protect and maintain the pro-competitive effect of this open environment."

Reply Score: 2

So it's crystal clear now:
by deb2006 on Thu 11th Oct 2007 14:56 UTC
deb2006
Member since:
2006-06-26

Everyone who has regarded the deals between MS and Novell/Linspire/Xandros as some kind of friendly gesture from MS towards OSS was dead wrong. MS has always had a very ugly face - sometimes they were able to hide it, but it's now visible again. And it is indeed very, very ugly.

But good to know.

Reply Score: 1

put up or shut up Ballmer
by Robocoastie on Thu 11th Oct 2007 15:11 UTC
Robocoastie
Member since:
2005-09-15

Prove and list the infringements Ballmer. Linux is an open system so if there is actually any they could be corrected overnight. But then again look at how vague and sweeping their patents are. Like their famous patent on "a browsers ability to navigate without a mouse" which Unix has had for decades. But open systems don't patent. At least copyright you really don't have to register it but simply prove you wrote it first.

Reply Score: 1