Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 10:32 UTC
Google And so the story regarding Android supposedly violating the GPL continues. Linus Torvalds has responded to the story in his usual straightforward manner - he thinks it's "totally bogus". In the meantime, Groklaw - not exactly my favourite place but alas, good points are good points - found out that the IP lawyer who started this story, Edward Naughton, used to be a lawyer for Microsoft in dozens of cases, a fact he tried to erase from his online resume.
Order by: Score:
v Six degrees
by vaette on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 11:10 UTC
RE: Six degrees
by segedunum on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 14:22 UTC in reply to "Six degrees"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Then why did the guy try and hide that he'd worked for Microsoft? It's there in black and white, and in the cache. You might want to believe it's all black helicopters but I'm afraid it isn't.

The penny might well have dropped within Microsoft circles that Android is now firmly entrenched as the complete world outside the iPhone, kept in place via it's installed app base that is now really accelerating. Nokia is going to do little, if anything, to change that state of affairs.

Someone doesn't seem to be keen on Android being used, but alas, it's going to take something more substantial than this pathetic attempt.

Reply Score: 7

v RE[2]: Six degrees
by vaette on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Six degrees"
RE[3]: Six degrees
by gerry on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Six degrees"
gerry Member since:
2010-07-09

Where do I start?

Firstly learn how decimal numbers work. Six is a bigger number than zero (or one if you were to be generous).

After that learn the definition for the phrase "degree of separation" as an employee for Microsoft doesn't really have a degree of separation from Microsoft as a company is made up of it's people.

Finally after that you might be able to tackle the difference between logical reasoning based on evidence and conspiracy theories. Although that's a big "might".

Look forward to hearing from you in a few years. Best of luck.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Six degrees
by vaette on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Six degrees"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

Hey, I don't have to call it a conspiracy theory if you prefer, as long as osnews is honest enough to actually say what they mean themselves rather than implying things. An equally valid interpretation is that Microsoft requested not to be listed in his CV since they didn't want to be associated with the current stupidity.

Overall I have very little interest in the actual news story personally, but as a long-time reader of osnews I do want to point it out when I see what I consider poor journalistic practice.

Other than that, six degrees of separation is a well known concept, and the guy has never been directly employed by Microsoft, he works at Brown Rudnick.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Six degrees
by olefiver on Wed 23rd Mar 2011 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Six degrees"
olefiver Member since:
2008-04-04

IANAL, but I fail to see how a firm could stipulate any form of work agreement that would require the employee or consultant or whatever to withhold prior work in his CV.

But the prior work situation regarding Edward Naughton seems to be between two firms.

Here's a quote from groklaw:

The lawyer who wrote about the header files, Edward Naughton, has a bio page at his law firm. Today it looks like this. But he recently changed it, stripping out the name Microsoft from his bio and replacing it with "a Fortune 50 software company".
YES, Edward Naughton was never directly employed by Microsoft, but he do seem to have represented MS through Brown Rudnick.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Six degrees
by allanregistos on Wed 23rd Mar 2011 01:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Six degrees"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

Hey, I don't have to call it a conspiracy theory if you prefer, as long as osnews is honest enough to actually say what they mean themselves rather than implying things. An equally valid interpretation is that Microsoft requested not to be listed in his CV since they didn't want to be associated with the current stupidity.

Your a double standard. You accuse the author of "implying things" while also suggesting "an equally valid interpretation" is also possible "WHERE" your "equally valid interpretation" falls into the same "implied things" in which you are the accuser. Which means you will do also what the author have done: "implying things" and your version is favorable to Microsoft.

Please prove me wrong. I mean, you are suggesting that the author must also do the exact opposite of his opinion by implying that it is possible for Microsoft to ask the lawyer to remove the name Microsoft on his bio. But alas, this is "his" bio, and he must be free enough to quote any company he associated with in the past. I think it is possible for MS to do that "request" but with the recent events, if you were right in your "equally valid interpretation" then it is close to a "conspiracy theory" to scare Android device manufacturers.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[6]: Six degrees
by vaette on Wed 23rd Mar 2011 08:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Six degrees"
RE[7]: Six degrees
by kuraegomon on Thu 24th Mar 2011 02:35 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Six degrees"
kuraegomon Member since:
2009-01-05

If you're going to claim that you're being even reasonably objective here, I suggest you avoid the use of loaded words like "cowardly". I'll direct you to Robert Thouless's excellent "Straight and Crooked Thinking" for a primer on how to debate in an objective fashion.

Reply Score: 2

Conclusive?
by arooaroo on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 11:28 UTC
arooaroo
Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't get me wrong, I can't imagine this infringement has any legs. However, to call Linus's quote as "conclusive" is a bit of a stretch. I suppose at best it concludes that if headers are used as he *expects* them to, all is good. But he hasn't seen the details, and he admits as much.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Conclusive?
by lemur2 on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 12:14 UTC in reply to "Conclusive?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Don't get me wrong, I can't imagine this infringement has any legs. However, to call Linus's quote as "conclusive" is a bit of a stretch. I suppose at best it concludes that if headers are used as he *expects* them to, all is good. But he hasn't seen the details, and he admits as much.


Linus wrote the original Linux kernel. Since 1993 he has included clear text about this very topic in the license for his code:

Way back in the early days of Linux, shortly after Linus Torvalds switched the kernel from his own "non-commercial" license to the GPL, he also added an important clarification to the kernel's license. In the COPYING file at the top of the kernel tree since mid-1993, there has been a clear statement that Torvalds, at least, does not consider user-space programs to be derived from the kernel, and thus are not subject to the kernel's license:

This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".


http://www.osnews.com/permalink?467331

This whole episode is about Android's Bionic, a glibc alternative. This work is *not* a kernel itself, it is merely a program that uses kernel services by normal system calls.

QED. Case closed. Move on people, nothing to see here.

Reply Score: 9

v Comment by flanque
by flanque on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 11:33 UTC
v Just because
by tuzor on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 14:02 UTC
RE: Just because
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 14:07 UTC in reply to "Just because"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

All this proves is that he has a clear motive but it doesn't make him wrong.


I didn't claim as such. I only said it makes his claims suspicious.

however your arguments are flawed as usual.


Nice.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Just because
by JAlexoid on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Just because"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I didn't claim as such. I only said it makes his claims suspicious.


His claims are suspicious because he decided to hide the fact that his clients included MS. Even if he's investigations were politically motivated, the results need not be.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Just because
by ichi on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 15:03 UTC in reply to "Just because"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

does it make his accusations any less credible because he has been involved with MS (and is probably trying to hide it)?


No, but since every piece of evidence seems to point to him being wrong, trying to hide his previous involvement with MS suddenly becomes interesting.

If you are into soap operas, that is.

Reply Score: 6

Lawyers
by Brendan on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 17:18 UTC
Brendan
Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

Edward Naughton, used to be a lawyer for Microsoft in dozens of cases, a fact he tried to erase from his online resume

Did he try to hide the fact that he's a lawyer, or try to hide the fact that he did some work for Microsoft?

Most sane people would try to do both... :-)


- Brendan

Reply Score: 5

Who didn't see this coming?
by bannor99 on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 23:20 UTC
bannor99
Member since:
2005-09-15

"I'm going to fucking kill Google"

Steve "Monkey Boy" Ballmer, 2005

Reply Score: 3

RE: Who didn't see this coming?
by Nth_Man on Wed 23rd Mar 2011 00:24 UTC in reply to "Who didn't see this coming?"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16
RE: Who didn't see this coming?
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Mar 2011 01:13 UTC in reply to "Who didn't see this coming?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I'm going to f--king kill Google" Steve "Monkey Boy" Ballmer, 2005


http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/microsoft-vs-android/8529?utm...

"This is just one more step in a patent war that’s going–to spread throughout the IT industry. It will be years before it reaches maximum intensity, and years more before the fire begins to die down. Most of this decade will be spent in the fight, which will reduce innovation, destroy tens of billions of dollars in value, and offer a field day to certain non-US competitors. We warned people years ago about this, and now the Free World will be hurt, as everyone will be hurt, by the patent wars resulting from the companies’ incautious embrace of state-issued monopolies on ideas."

There are a great many people totally comitted to stopping Microsoft from being able to collect rent from software which Microsoft didn't write.

The five patents at issue in Microsoft's latest attack against free software are weak enough to possibly make that particular case a reasonable point at which to make a stand. It depends if Barnes & Noble and the others are willing to stand up to Microsoft's ludicrous demands, or if Microsoft offer them a deal to just roll over as HTC did.

After all, Microsoft paid Nokia in order to get Nokia to use WP7. Microsoft probably also offered to help HTC make Apple go away. It is all about Microsoft trying to build a PR case that "free software isn't free". This is a difficult sell for Microsoft because such a stand obviously helps no-one, is very very bad for the economy, and is clearly anti-innovation, anti-competition and anti-trust.

Edited 2011-03-23 01:17 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

and offer a field day to certain non-US competitors.


As a non-US citizen I say "awesome".

We warned people years ago about this, and now the Free World will be hurt


The "Free World" is much larger than the U.S though and most of isn't all that affected by your in-fighting.

Also. quoting Steven Vaughan-Nichols? Uh....

Reply Score: 3