Submitted by The Linux community is splitting – right down the middle, at this point – over Microsoft’s controversial claims that the open-source operating system infringes on patents it holds. Last Tuesday, Mandriva became the third Linux vendor within five days to say it isn’t interested in signing a licensing deal with Microsoft to avoid possible infringement claims. A blog posting to that effect by Mandriva CEO Francois Bancilhon followed similar declarations by officials at Red Hat and Canonical.
I wouldn’t say right down the middle (cmon..Xandros and Linspire..?) but yea there is a slight division.
Those true to Linux, Open source, and it’s philosophies will dismiss all of this patent bs and continue on with their lives.
Those true to Linux, Open source, and it’s philosophies will dismiss all of this patent bs and continue on with their lives.
Those who value freedom are with us in our fight against terrorism.
“I wouldn’t say right down the middle (cmon..Xandros and Linspire..?)”
You forgot Novell, which is 2nd to Red Hat in terms of market penetration. Maybe not right down the middle, but probably around 60/40.
Perhaps in the Commercial Linux Camp….But definitely not the Linux Camp.
C’mon – Slack/Gentoo/Debian/RH/Mandriva/Ubuntu/PCLOS/MEPIS NO
Xandros/Linspire/Novell YES
With FOSS, “Commercial” is not all that matters, particularly to the community.
I’m full aware of Novell, I only cited Xandros and Linspire to leverage my point on how the community isn’t evenly divided.
I realize Novell was a substantial gain, and I fear than in the near future they will be paying the consequences of collaborating with Microsoft with such dangerous things.
I’m usually Pro Microsoft in most of my comments here, but I don’t trust Microsoft for one second in the business aspect of things.
You forgot Novell, which is 2nd to Red Hat in terms of market penetration. Maybe not right down the middle, but probably around 60/40.
I wouldn’t go that far. Despite Novell’s #2 spot they are far behind Redhat. It’s more like 80/20.
Whats happening here is we’re seeing a split between companies who have no respect for the free software ideals and those that do and will standby it.
Novell might have some contributions but they lost a lot of credibility in the community and now merely an interest to mixed buisnesses. I think this is partly why they will be allowed to participate in the GPLv3 transformation.
The others: Xandros, Linspire, etc. are nothing. Those companied provided virtually nothing to the community or the movement but were very eager shun both. Under the GPLv3, they will pay for using the movement like a dirty slut and will be forced to fork into irrelevency.
That is all.
Edited 2007-06-27 01:30
This isn’t a significant split or even really a split at all.
The really significant split, that of GPL code into two incompatible streams, GPL2 and GPL3, is yet to come and an infinitely more serious split it will be.
Microsoft have succeeded in provoking the FSF into this, despite the fact that “Tivoisation” and nebulous “promise-not-to-sue” agreements over unspecified patent claims are minor evasions that do not significantly threaten FOSS.
This so-called “split” is in fact Microsoft’s stalking-horse for their real aim, dividing the GNU/Linux codebase.
And with the FSF’s cooperation, it looks like they will succeed.
🙁
Edited 2007-06-27 19:07
From what I’ve read, all the companies, like Linspire/Xandors/LGE/Samsung/Fuji who signed deals after March 28 have to do to include GPLv3 code is modify the MS deal so it either applies to everyone; or change it so it isn’t exclusionary and doesn’t apply to only their customers; plus there’s the threat of the SuSE coupons interacting with GPLv3 in the future. I don’t think MS is really afraid of losing their 90% marketshare or getting involved in a product that can change terms at anytime, as others have said, it’s probably more about getting companies to license their WSPP things to show the European Commission that their royalties are acceptable somehow.
And Laura Didio is always good for a laugh.
Edited 2007-06-26 21:26
Weak linux companies that dont stick by the ideals of Linux, open source and freedom. Microsoft should not be able to bully companies and blatantly flaunt it either and if you ever wondered why the E.U keep slapping Microsoft look no further.
I understand Linux companies want to make money, but not at the expense of Linux ideals, sorry you cannot have your cake and eat it.
We know your good at monopoly Microsoft but poker is a entirely different game.
Edited 2007-06-26 21:43
That’s a pretty awesome comment. I’ll have to use it one day.
pity “your” should be “you’re” and “a” should be “an”
makes it sound very unintelligent
Disclaimer: While I do like Microsoft products, I have little respect for their legal works
It seems that Microsoft/Novell deal will be able to continue even after GPL3 is out: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/22/1229213 (since it will allow previous deals to continue).
Well the whole idea seems to contradict the common sense (I mean why should you even why bother? If I’m big enough to be a target, I’m also big enough to make my own deal). Yet maybe the aim was seeing a divided community like we’re now.
You may be onto something there. Divide and conquer I suspect may be their mission objective.
Really, only Novell is a surprise. By their very nature, you would expect Linspire and Xandros on this list. Does anyone remember the early days of “Lindows” and being compatable with most software for Windows (Wine on steroids)? It didn’t work out, but the bias at Lin(dows)spire has always been with a proprietary bent. Same with Xandros, and their “magical” file manager from Corel.
However, Novell could have been a different story. Unfortunately, this shows how much of a Novellish and less of a Suseish (I like making up words!) company they are. Novell discovered “OSS” religion late in the game, and it shows.
Makes me wonder if a closed-source *nix could make it in this day and age. There’s nothing special about Linux that can’t be implemented rather quickly by any modestly-sized company, especially because the lack of defining features/unique qualities is an explicit Linux goal.
Every pundit who says ‘show me the proof’ is just another person who has yet to read Google Patents*. Every pundit who claims ‘freedom’ as a main goal of Linux that is being ‘violated’ by companies that *gasp* do business with other companies is just a philosopher in an ivory tower. No news here.
* http://www.google.com/patents?q=microsoft
OS X.
I fail to see your point (in addition that this is not a very accurate representation of reality – at around 6 million lines of code, doing something like the Linux kernel is not a simple undertaking…)
It is? Where is this stated?
That’s not proof, that’s just a list of patents.
Since you seem to claim there is proof, then would you care to show us *which* patents Linux infringes upon?
This would be like saying that this link proves MS infringes on IBM patents:
http://www.google.com/patents?q=ibm
I hope you realize how weak that argument is…
…and that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call a strawman argument.
Even die-hard GPL advocates are *not* against companies doing business with other companies. To claim that they do is being disingenuous.
The problem is with MS doing its version of the old protection racket to spread some old-fashioned FUD around.
So? What does this have to do with the fact that the world has yet to see any legal proof that Linux (or any of the OSS projects that run on it) infringes on anything?
Microsoft has almost 7000 patents to choose from and yet, surprisingly, there has been no patent-related lawsuit against Linux or any other OSS projects filed by the company. How come?
Linux’s source code is 101% open for anyone to inspect for any possible infringements, IP violations, etc. It seems rather strange that Microsoft with its army of lawyers and its ability to hire more of them as needed, hasn’t resorted to legal means yet. What are they waiting for?
“Innocent until proven otherwise”, which means that your repeated insinuations about Linux’s infringements are legally unfounded. Like you said, no news here.
They are not suing because they don’t want IBM to counter sue, not because linux doesn’t infringe on anything they own. As you said, they have over 7000 ideas, many of which are fundamental ideas and technologies which shouldn’t have been patentable, but are. The only reason they do not sue is because IBM is one of the few companies in the world with a larger portfolio then MS, and IBM has placed itself squarely in Linux’s camp.
Software developers infringe on patents every day, because of the amount of what is owned by big business. Indemnification means that if MS ever does start off a massive chain reaction of patent suits, Novell, Xandros, and Linspires clients are safe. At any rate, indemenifiction was only a side issue in all three deals that got blown way out of proportion by the tech media, these deals were about interoperability, the very thing people have been bashing MS about for years now.
“these deals were about interoperability, the very thing people have been bashing MS about for years now.”
Interoperability means supporting open standards, not making sleazy deals with a ghastly monopolist.
http://dict.die.net/interoperability/
Having eDirectory and Active Directory work transparently with one another is interoperability.
“Having eDirectory and Active Directory work transparently with one another is interoperability.”
It is interoperability only for those that pay extortion money to MS. Open standards need to be supported to prevent vendor lock-in and give people a choice. Those that support closed standards don’t really care about interoperability.
Those that use only closed standards don’t care about interoperability.
Those who have to exchange data with those people, DO care about interoperability.
“Those who have to exchange data with those people, DO care about interoperability.”
Open source developers have done an excellent job of allowing interoperability with closed standards, to aid people with their transition to superior open standards supporting software. Making deals with the MS software dictatorship is unnecessary and counterproductive, and shows an obvious lack of integrity by the offending Linux distros.
Rubbish.
If Microsoft really wanted interoperability with Linux, they would just release Microsoft Office for Linux and Microsoft Active directory for Linux and a few other similar products.
Presto! Instant interoperability, and a wider market to sell Microsoft products into, and no need at all to make any deals.
interoperability means working with others to create common interfaces between competing products, and that is exactly what they are doing.
it makes sense to do this, because it makes life easier for customers of both products in a mixed environment. what they used to do was use that problem with the weight of their monopoly to force people to run 100% microsoft shops, the fact that they are not doing that is a Good Thing.
It would make no sense for them to port office, just like it makes no sense for adobe to port the creative suite, or for game developers to port games. There isnt enough of a market to justify the significant cost of supporting another platform.
That’s highly debatable. Office and Photoshop CS are available on Mac, and Linux has a comparable market share, so I don’t think it’s that simple.
How much would you think it would cost to port office? Without that basic data, you can’t make such an assertion. It becomes pure speculation on your part…
Photoshop and MS Office started on the Mac. Windows to Mac ports aren’t quite as memorable.
Good point. Still, the “it costs too much for too little” argument is based on a *lot* of assumptions, and as such I have a hard time taking it seriously. I’m quite convinced the reasons we don’t have MS Office on Linux are purely political/strategic.
of course photoshop exists for mac, the whole design industry uses macs
The gaming industry, which uses Photoshop a lot (from designers to texture artists) almost exclusively uses PS on Windows.
The point was that market share alone doesn’t determine whether or not software is available for Linux.
More to the point, they won’t do that because there’s no need to- their software is in such a unique position people have to come to THEM and accomodate THEM.
For instance (and this example is quite probably inaccurate, but take it as an illustration of a trend) I keep hearing people say “Well, I’d switch to Linux if Adobe made Photoshop for Linux”.
Well, I’m not really sure if Adobe cares, because if they MADE a Linux version, and people switched to Linux, they’d have… the same Photoshop users they already have on Windows.
Or, if they do nothing, they’ll have… the same Photoshop users they already have on Windows, because no one will leave since there’s no version for Linux.
Their program is important enough to some people to dictate them staying with a software platform they claim to loathe*; until and unless people get fed up enough to switch despite the consequence of losing Photoshop, Adobe doesn’t need to do anything.
*I somehow suspect many of them would come up with further reasons why they’re not switching. First it was “you have to compile everything yourself!”, then it was “you have to use the command line!”, then it was “there are no drivers!”, now it’s “there are no applications!”; my next bet would be “there are no games!”, or possibly “the menus are all different!”.
My personal current reasons are: Powerpoint. I can’t get projectors to work quite right with Linux, and OpenOffice Impress is still neither capable of loading complicated Powerpoint animations, nor creating and displaying its own.
Edited 2007-06-27 06:19
OK, fair enough … Microsoft don’t have to write software for Linux if they don’t want to.
However, for as long as they have no product to offer for Linux, they cannot charge people using Linux any money.
If Microsoft want to charge Linux users some money, then Microsoft need to make it so that those Linux users are using some Microsoft code. Microsoft won’t ever get any money whatsoever from users who are not running any Microsoft code.
Once again, utter rubbish.
Microsoft are not “providing interoperability for Linux” at all. What they are doing is “trying to charge people money when Linux makes an effort to be interoperable with Microsoft”.
Microsoft have written zero code for Linux, and it would appear that they fully intend to continue with that … yet they want to charge people for Linux? Get real!
When Microsoft actually makes something for Linux (ie, something like MS Office for Linux, or a driver for Linux, or a full .docx plugin for OpenOffice on Linux, or somesuch interoperability software), then Microsoft can talk about charging money for it. Not before then.
No-one is going to pay Microsoft for running software which Microsoft did not write. Microsoft can forget that idea right away.
Edited 2007-06-27 06:40
Wouldn’t be the first time…
Microsoft has no interest in suing, because very likely
a) a lot of the patents would not hold up in court as they are trivial or prior art,
b) as already mentioned, it would loose a patent law, which Microsoft would not be able to win (likely that IBM and others hold for Microsoft very important patents)
c) as it would mean Microsoft would need to sue some of its own customers or potential customers, not a great business strategy
Therefore, what Microsoft does and has always been doing, spread FUD about a competitor – and the very nature of FUD means to keep it all unclear, mirky and nebulous, after all if they were to show their cards the competition could do sth. about it, which is the last thing Microsoft wants. This is far more effective and useful for them, make it harder for enterprises, small businesses to choose Linux, a kind of “Reverse Marketing”.
Makes me wonder if a closed-source *nix could make it in this day and age.
No. Solaris is OSS. MacOS is based on OSS. I don’t think there’s any proprietary-only UNIX-like OS for x86 left in the marketplace.
There’s nothing special about Linux that can’t be implemented rather quickly by any modestly-sized company,
Implementing a kernel comparable to Linux in a traditional proprietary development environment would cost over $1 billion and take over 8,000 man-years. Such an undertaking would be a bet-the-company move for even the largest corporations.
Corporate CIOs and their ilk are wussies to MS cash and trash. Seriously, all they care for is cash flow and they have no loyalties to open source.
Mod me down if you like but’s an honest opinion.
Edited 2007-06-26 21:54
MS cannot fight the world of OSS. This is just another attempt to scare the OSS world into caving.
MS cannot fight the world of OSS.
Really? They’re doing a pretty good job of making them fight each other.
Really? They’re doing a pretty good job of making them fight each other.
Umm, no they’re not actually. On the one hand, you have the likes of Xandros, Novell and Linspire, which were in trouble before these deals and may well emerge as being in more trouble once the full import of these deals has sunk in.
And on the other, you have the likes of RH, Canonical, Mandriva, and the thousands or millions of Linux users, who may disagree as to whether these MS deals are a bad thing, but are in no more danger of “splitting” than they are over KDE/GNOME.
This article is just more FUD.
Broward County Public Schools in Sunrise, Fla., uses Linux throughout its operations.
Color me surprised. I used to go to school down there; back then, they were very big on teaching kids right from wrong (don’t steal, specifially) as well as the “three Rs”. So much for Floridian education’s ‘Sunshine Standards’; I guess the Florida jokes are going to keep going.
Hey Almafeta, can you say “troll!”
Show the patents you have, MS. Then the infringment, if any, can be removed. Paying for continuing infringement is extortion.
Show the patents you have, MS.
http://www.google.com/patents?q=microsoft
You’re welcome.
Paying for continuing infringment is extortion.
Paying for continued use of others IP is called ‘licensing.’ I think that’s the word you’re looking for.
Out of the first twenty results only three are even Microsoft patents. Try a little harder.
“Out of the first twenty results only three are even Microsoft patents. Try a little harder.”
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p…
Here is the USPTO patents owned by Microsoft. There are 6922 patents in total. Just answering for the other poster that used Google as a source instead of where the patents are. Either way browsing through the list there are some that I see in use in Linux programs…no idea about the kernel itself, which is really “Linux”. My opinion is that it is time for software patents to be tested in court, as some of these are just ludicrous, such as “Most used programs list”. Basically if you list recently used programs, you violate a Microsoft patent. Insane.
Agreed, especially in light of the recent US supreme court decision on the obviousness of patents.
Patents should be like trademarks, if they’re not actively enforced, you lose them. Period. As it stands, with current law, you can bullshit all you want about patents, and “do a Microsoft” and have people pony up the money for you and get away with it.
Of course, if 95% of the population violated patents deliberately, they would break the system 🙂 (and keep breaking them) I doubt the US court system could cope with judging 95% of the population, and I doubt the jail system could handle it either, plus it’d leave no one to do the work, and no economy. Sometimes civil disobedience by the population is the only way.
Dave
So when will Microsoft pay for these?
http://www.patent-commons.org/
… or these:
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/
Of course, if there is any coverage here (as there doubtless will be for Linux):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Technical_Disclosure_Bulletin
… then Microsoft is out of luck with their vague claims of infringement.
For than matter, Linux is pretty much covered by the ideas documented amongst these references:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22UNIX+Internals%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=posix
http://www.google.com/search?q=BSD
… so it gets harder and harder to see where a VALID Microsoft patent could be infringed.
Claiming to own IP that is not yours, and attempting to charge others for use of that IP is called ‘fraud’. I think that is the word you are looking for.
Edited 2007-06-26 23:41
Certainly you’re not claiming that msft is saying that every patent msft has is being infringed?
I think that when the original poster asked msft to “Show the patents” he meant: show the patents that msft is claiming are being infringed. At least, that is the only interpretation that makes sense.
If msft truely believes that Linux is infringing msft patents – then why doesn’t msft list those patents?
Free software cannot surive in a patent royalty situation exists. Under this the right to free distribution is lost in favor of corporate say so.
Might as well use soley proprietary software if that is the case; it isn’t free software anymore.
Divide and conquer?
>Divide and conquer?
And offence is the best defence…
I would place money on Microsoft’s claims being legitimate. If the claims were false, the risk of being found out (eventually) is very real; this would damage MS more than any DOJ investigation. This is especially so with publicly traded companies.
Everyone knows what happened to SCO after it’s suit was proven a sham.
MS is a lot of things, but they are not stupid. The ambiguity of the claim forks the Linux community, which is genius on their part, really.
(I’m not condoning this tactic – just observing.)
Whether MS makes good on its implied threat is another question altogether. Their philosophy on patents seems to be the “mutually assured destruction” approach. MS stands to benefit more than most from a total revision of the patent system, so this is all likely moot one day.
>>I would place money on Microsoft’s claims being legitimate. If the claims were false, the risk of being found out (eventually) is very real; this would damage MS more than any DOJ investigation. This is especially so with publicly traded companies.<<
But msft is not specifically claiming anything. They never do, that’s not the way FUD works. It’s all about vague threats and innuendo.
>>Everyone knows what happened to SCO after it’s suit was proven a sham.<<
Scox made a ton of money, and their company became much more valuable due to the scam. Those are verifiable facts. Scox planned the scam in Dec 2002, then scox’s market cap was under $10MM, now it’s about $25MM. Scox execs, and lawyers, made a ton of cash from the msft money.
>>Whether MS makes good on its implied threat is another question altogether.<<
Of course msft wouldn’t dare. Msft’s mis-information campaigns are legendary: fake think-tanks, astroturf campains (letters from dead people was a good one), fake TCO studies, fake benchmark studies, fake analysts like Enderle (an admitted shill), outright lying to the US-DoJ and the EU. Then there is the sponsering of the obviously bogus scox lawsuit. And, of course, a long series of patents which are *clearly* based on prior art.
BTW: getting a patent is nothing, defending it is quite something else. And if msft gets caught trying to sue over a typical msft bogo-patent – it’s law suit city (again) for msft. And msft always loses (well, they always settle).
From everything I’ve read about this MS this, they had no intention of pesueing legal action with Linux or any distro. I am no means an expert in this but, I do believe that MS should list the patents that Linux infringes. As I see it, MS has nothing! They have nothing at all appart from a loads of overpad laywers and a but of patent and legal stuff that has nothing on Linux.
However, has anyone ever considered that the fact that distros signed deals with them may be used against Linux. If they managed to scare enough distros into the dal, they could say in court “If all th is major deals signed a deal with up, they must have believed/agreed that Linux does infringe on out IP”. They may have no ammunition but, if they get enough distros into it, they’ll have plenty. Either that or more leverage on distros that wouldn’t deal with them before hand. More $$$
Microsoft is stupid.
It is a matter of historical fact.
Microsoft can’t make good on its threat because the open source community is not a legal entity.
The SCO suit had nothing to do with patent deals.
It had everything to do with a corrupt legal system in the United States. Companies like SCO that hire people like McBride just because the guy had a run of good luck in suing companies for patent infringement also do not make products.
Not only that, SCO was a Microsoft patsy.
Your analogy with SCO is not even close.
Microsoft will never go to court on these claims because they do not exist.
Do you know how many people got involved in the SCO case to review existing patents on just about everything Linux does?
How many people do you think have reviewed the source code during that case?
TONS. The source code isn’t a secret you know.
If there was ONE IOTA of a chance to sue anyone, you would have heard about it by now.
Trust me. In the good ole USA we make the finest fast food burgers, do the finest heart bypass operations and sell the worlds most corrupt legal services money can buy.
Not a single lawsuit out of that case, not a one, what 6 years later?
Not even the crooks and cronies over here can figure out how to make a dime out of this, so I am telling you there is no infringement.
Microsoft is full of SH*T.
-Hack
Didn’t the Novell guy say he didn’t believe Linux actually infringed on any patents?
As I’ve said before, I’m just wondering if Microsoft is tacking “Patent Indemnity” on their agreements, and then stupid/shortsighted companies just go with them on it for the sake of the rest of the deal.
I mean, in the Linspire case there seems to have been somewhat legitimate reasons (for Linspire, anyway) for the deal: they want to offer their users legal fonts, font rendering technology, WMA playback, and stuff like that.
Now, we can debate whether or not those are good reasons, but that’s ALWAYS been my impression of how Linspire operates: They’ve already paid for fully licensed DVD playback, and paid for MP3 playback support. This doesn’t really strike me as any different except that this deal was with Microsoft, and included the patent indemnity clause.
Of course, this still COULD (and probably is) be part of a brilliant scheme to divide people, but I think the lines have been fairly well drawn now. We may see some more distributions going for it, but I doubt that many will.
And if Novell really doesn’t think that there’s anything wrong with Linux, should the shoe drop, they might still end up siding with Linux (they are a member of the Open Innovation Network, or whatever it’s called). Of course, you have to wonder what else was in that agreement that got ignored in this furor…
There are some issues with the article, first of all, the idea of the Linux community being represented by the distributions is not entirely correct. I cannot think of reading opinions of actual human members of the community in favor of these deals. Also, we must determine wether this is a harmful split or not. There are lots of splits in the so called Linux community Vim vs. EMACS, CLI vs. GUI, KDE vs. GNOME, etc. that do not hurt it and while the Microsoft plan might provide a meaningful split, it will only do so if Microsoft is ready to go out and start suing which will polarize the court of public opinion against it.
I doubt that they’ll sue, considering that Microsoft, in their history of interactions with other technology and software proprietors, has usually taken a no-courts-unless-necessary-or-useful approach, which has garnered praise from libertarians in the past.
http://www.lp.org/lpn/9805-Microsoft.html
However, Duncan Bayne at Kuro5hin bluntly criticized the libertarian support for Microsoft as contradictory, considering MS’ own usage and alleged infringement of other companies’ patents, which runs contrary to libertarian beliefs concerning property ownership (“good fences”).
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/8/20/11034/3908
http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/microsoft_monopoly.html
Me, I don’t care about patents, copyrights, or any type of “personal property rights” crap; on the Internet, no one really owns anything, not even their home addresses or their identities, since placing them on the Internet allows anyone – be it the nearest 4chan script kiddy, black-ops hacker-turned-agent, or (OMGz!) aboutUs.org bot to glean your “personal” information from your website or your oh-so-secure sockets layer and have a ball with it.
Every software license out there, whether its the GNU GPL or the most restrictive EULA, is at fault with the current Internet reality, as they assume that people and corporate bodies are going to respect trivial personal/corporate property rights, when they’re actually going to pirate and de-trademark the crap out of it (“Photoshopping”, or “manipulating an image using Adobe® Photoshop®”?).
Microsoft should know. Wasn’t it the president of Romania who gleefully told Bill Gates that it was through piracy of Windows that Romanian youths were able to build their IT industry?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2…
So let’s just get over this shit already, please Linux people? Microsoft pirates source code from someone’s DOS, Mr. no-name-l33t-basement-dropout pirates Office, Photoshop, and that Bittorrent-floating Windows 2000 source code.
Who cares?
Why is it that the Linux people are always the ones who exclaim that Microsoft violates patents and copyrights with usage of other folks’ code (or graphics, at least since people started “calling out” Microsoft over their usage of the Ubuntu logo for Windows Live Spaces last year or so)?
I thought Linux was all about freedom from monopoly, freedom for all, freedom ad infinitum? Why are they so mad at Microsoft?
Is it because the Desktop Linux advocates desire for their favorite FOSS or closed-source desktop vendor (Canonical, Mandriva, Apple, etc.) to replace Microsoft as the monopoly vendor?
And if that were the case, if your favorite Desktop Linux vendor was up at the top, would you stand for the company even if it takes measures to “protect” their own “intellectual property”?
Edited 2007-06-27 02:23
Most of this article is piffle. The Linux community is not being “split down the middle” or anything like it, so far anyway. Have half of Linux’s revenues now come under Microsoft’s hand? Or are half of open source developers now involved, through their distro, with a pact with the man? Not even close.
Yes, Microsoft has succeeded in prising away precisely three companies, but it can be argued that each one is very vulnerable financially and two are complete minnows. That leaves Novell-SuSE. Novell can be explained by the fact that its management don’t really seem to understand Linux and saw it as some kind of magic lifeline. The company does produce some excellent things in the SuSE family, but its ambitions for world domination are as far from being realized as we are from Alpha Centauri.
Novell faces a bleak financial future, with Linux sales failing by a huge margin to make up for the rundown in Netware sales. The danger, I suppose, is Microsoft taking advantage of this to bring Novell totally under its thumb as a de facto Microsoft Linux, a kind of non-choice choice when offering Redmond servers. Sadly, it’s the kind of thing the business types at Novell could easily fall for.
Storm in a teacup at the moment. Microsoft’s campaign seems to have ground to a halt, though they’ll probably pick off some more victims before they are through. But their grand strategy, if they had one, isn’t going to work – Red Hat and Debian/Ubuntu are the two hitters that matter and they are quite beyond Microsoft’s reach.
There may well be a division to come in the Linux world between free and heavily commercial, but it isn’t one Microsoft is likely to have a hand in. Changing technology and the market will have the decisive influence, surely.
First off, it isnt just patents they are talking about. Big, bad, evil Microsoft is working with these linux distros for mutual benefit
http://www.linspire.com/linspire_letter.php
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199…
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9843352777.html
If you would rather ignore what these deals actually were, and instead start some rabid zealous infighting and backstabbing instead then go for it, but you are not doing anyone a favor. Some companies will prefer to offer their users the best possible experience, rather then hold to unrealistic ideals of the FSF.
Secondly, it is no surprise that Linux violates Microsoft patents. Microsoft has one of the largest patent portfolios in the industry, and patent law in America is so retarded they will give patents for even the most fundamental technologies and ideas. It would be shocking if Linux did NOT violate some of microsofts patents. Just because they are not publicly disclosing them does not mean they do not exist, just as making liscencing deals doesn’t mean they will actually sue, all it means is that they are treating desktop Linux as more then a pipedream now.
I remember the shock and betrayal among apple zealots when Jobs made his famous deal with MS in 97. It pretty much gave him the resources he needed to take apple to the next level after the slow fall into obscurity that Gil Amelio had been spearheading for so long. It basically comes down to this; if you use an OS because it doesn’t belong to microsoft, there will alwas be plenty of distros which are way too small to warrant the attention of a company that big. If you actually use linux because it is a good operating system, and are glad to see it succeeding, you should be glad that MS is actually not ignoring it any more, and treating it like a real entity in the desktop space.
1. I, and many others do not consider the goals of the FSF as being “unrealistic”. If you are trying to infer that big business bribes politicians to make laws that give it its own way, then yes, you are correct. Corruption is not one of my ideals of a modern society, but freedom is most certainly one of them. If you think the FSF ideals are unrealistic, can you please throw out the United Nations Charter of Human Rights, and the Geneva convention as well. We might as well keep the Berne convention, since it primarily deals with keeping business happy.
2. Linux violates Microsoft patents? Can you please list exactly which patents are violated? Come on. I’m waiting! As to the rest of this 3rd paragraph, the recent US supreme court decision on the obviousness of patents will absolutely hammer Microsoft and others. We now have legal precedent for the court system to invalide software patents because they are OBVIOUS. Of course, the USPTO should have been doing this in the first place (as well as checking thoroughly for prior art I might add), but since the USPTO is a big money spinner for the US government, things won’t change, at least not unless we get rid of the corruption that is currently in place.
3. Your last paragraph made me laugh. Really. Jobs did a deal with the devil because it was either that, or go bust. He NEEDED funding to go ahead with the re-implementation of NEXTos as OS X.
Linux may violate some legitimate Microsoft patents, but I doubt that it’s many. And, it doesn’t give Microsoft the right to spread FUD and false claims against the community without either adequate proof, or the allowing the Linux community the ability to redress the issues and re-write the necessary infringing code/ideas.
In reality, software patents are bad, and should be abolished. They create nothing but problems, and they create vendor lock in (thus encouraging monopolies), they also stifle real competition imho.
Dave
I believe that there are some situations where not giving away all data is the only real way to do business. The FSF does not. The OSF does. This is why next to nothing was accomplished in the decade or so of FSF activities until linux arrived, which was done by people working with the open, not free methodologies. Open Source is practical, Free Software is religious.
My friend, I believe in freedom as much as you do, however I find it offensive to compare the Charter of Human Rights to The Five Freedoms of software code. Just because you call something a right doesnt mean it is, just like how democratic republics rarely are either.
I never said I had proof, I said that if you look at it logically, you should really be asking for proof that linux does NOT infringe on their patents. But anyways, how about these?
first, we have dragging icons onto a toolbar
http://www.google.com/patents?id=tBYfAAAAEBAJ&dq=microsoft+toolbar
next up, contextual menus
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5664133
last but not least, smooth scrolling
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5495566
This is five minutes work at google patents.
Now, what you said about the system being retarded is bang on, but I said that too.
Its the deal with the devil part that I was trying to illustrate. Microsoft is a corporation, like any other corporation, it exists without morals to make money. Assigning labels like good or evil to corporations is silly. If you were around long enough, IBM used to be one of the Great Satans. Now it is the messaiah of the corporate world. Apple used to the cool company of engineers out to change the world, nowadays they are acting more like bloodthirsty microsoft. And Microsoft, the evil empire itself, now is actually working with people it isnt ordered to by a court of law to get good interfaces going with their products.
I agree 100%. However, as I said in my origional comment, indemnification was only a small part of all three deals, and it is also the only part the tech media wants to talk about.
I am a big believer in copyright (the way it was intended to be anyways), but patenting software is like patenting literature, it just makes no sense. The situation is only made worse by the USPTO not doing their jobs. However, this is the world we live in, and just because it isnt right doesnt mean they dont exist.
There were really two points I was trying to make in my post. First, that MS is actually working with desktop distros, and that is a Good Thing, and secondly, even though they are stupid, they probably have at least as many patents being infringed as they say they do.
So?
Patent number: 5664133
Filing date: Apr 30, 1996
Issue date: Sep 2, 1997
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_menu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto
That was one minutes work on Wikipedia.
You are still missing my point.
I am not saying that their patents are good, and I am not saying patents in general are good, I am saying it is not smart to think that just because they arent providing a list at this date does not mean that the list does not exist, which is what is being said by most linux fans here.
Quote?
What one should glean from the fact that Microsoft refuses to specify the patents is not that those patents do not exist, but rather one can deduce that the patents do exist but they have no teeth. That is to say, the patents are either weak, easily worked around, are obvious, or have ample prior art. It is doubtful that any would stand up in court.
What is worse for Microsoft, if they attempt to assert their dubious patent claims, then not only would most of Microsoft’s patents at issue end up invalidated, but Microsoft would be exposed to a strong countersuit. This is the logical reason why Microsoft will not nominate the patents at issue.
Given that Microsoft will not “put up or shut up”, and Microsoft themselves have said as much, then there is no reason at all to deal with them. Microsoft offer no technology, the have no product offerings for Linux, they avoid open standards and shun interoperability (even while pretending to seek it) and they have no teeth in their threats.
Given all that, Microsoft will be ignored until such time as they do “put up”.
Meanwhile, the wider adoption of Linux seems to be gathering a small momentum:
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS6756576859.html
http://software.seekingalpha.com/article/39413
Very pleasing.
Edited 2007-06-27 16:02
Given that Microsoft will not “put up or shut up”, and Microsoft themselves have said as much, then there is no reason at all to deal with them.
Let’s move on stay united and don’t deal with MS.
Edited 2007-06-27 16:00
Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Linspire and Xandros are not a part of the community. Never has been – never will be.
Some of the companies utilizing the work of the community have decided not to use the property of the community in the future. That’s pretty much all there is to it.
It’s a very small minority of the companies that have left. They were irrelevant anyway.
MS won’t show the patents, they would rather scare people in a silly attempt to force them to use the abomination known as “Vista” or pay extortion money for using Linux. At least MS is making it easy for us to know the unscrupulous Linux distros to avoid.
@jayson.knight “You forgot Novell, which is 2nd to Red Hat in terms of market penetration. Maybe not right down the middle, but probably around 60/40.”
Everybody and I mean *everybody* is against the Novell deal…except the ones counting the pieces of silver. The only thing people are actually split over is the fact that Novell has done some fine work in the open source arena, which creates mixed feelings towards the company the only people who give credence are those who use Vista
@google_ninja “instead start some rabid zealous infighting and backstabbing” you have a problem, is waiting for SP1 or SP2 causing you inner rage that you feel you have to vent against others. Everybody is for cooperation, but I don’t see Microsoft releasing their closed format fires/protocols into the wild in fact you see them fighting tooth and nail against the EU.
@paul.michael.bauer ” would place money on Microsoft’s claims being legitimate.” Nobody is questioning whether they have patents…they have loads and loads, the questions is what are the infringing patents? do these patents have prior art? Is there *alternative* implementations? Is the patent obvious to a software engineer? but its a secret sssh.
@Almafeta “There’s nothing special about Linux that can’t be implemented rather quickly by any modestly-sized company” I am still struggling to respond to this, Linux the kernel is modestly priced in the 100’s of millions, thats ignoring the *time* it would take to do, and thats without the userland stuff. Literally we are in the Billions. You can try a cost analysis yourself download the kernel count the loc multiply it by the cost per line, by the average lines of code a programmer can complete a day and multiply that again by cost of programmer, bang in a multiplier for quality of code. repeat for GCC;X;Gnome etc etc.
Its funny how this thread seems to be split between Vista users who seem to think it alright for Microsoft to threaten Linux users, and Linux users who don’t like to be *personally* threatened by a Mega-corporation. The sick thing is patents used like this make Mega-corporations a rock solid monopoly, which is a *bad* *bad* thing, for *everybody* compertition just *dies*.
Its always funny how many Vista users post on these threads, and how easy they are to spot.
Everybody and I mean *everybody* is against the Novell deal..
I don’t, and I don’t get paid by Novell or MS, I just use my common and pragmatic sense.
“I don’t, and I don’t get paid by Novell or MS, I just use my common and pragmatic sense.”
Paying a monopolist extortion money is common and pragmatic sense?
“I don’t, and I don’t get paid by Novell or MS, I just use my common and pragmatic sense.”
*pragmatic* please please justify its relevance. I’d love you to. Does it give Novell a much needed cash injection. The possibility to gain market by creating a legal(sic) Linux etc etc. but whats it to do with pragmatic!? Linus used the pragmatic word and its got overused to justify things that aren’t.
BTW anyone can read your posts they are pretty much all pro-Vista/Patent FUD/DRM anti-FSF/Linux and anyone can check. I made it quite clear that Vista users i.e *you* seem very pro Microsoft threatening Linux users. when its you these deals will harm most, look at Vista.
Edited 2007-06-27 01:08
I wouldn’t go that far. I’m pretty neutral to the whole thing at this point. Novell’s PR bumbled the whole thing badly from an OSS community standpoint, but that’s the worst thing that has happened so far, unless you take the ranting of one CEO as gospel. Novell came out against the suggestion that Linux infringes against Microsoft Patents. They’re also very involved with a number of open source projects and continue to be.
The reality is it was a business decision, not a cultural decision because if it was, you probably would have seen a bit more thought when it comes to the community based PR from Novell. It very well might bite them in the ass down the road. I don’t think the deal has the ability to stall Linux development completely. Maybe a bump in the road…maybe.
Also, just thought I’d mention I don’t use Vista and don’t plan on it until I absolutely have to.
Edited 2007-06-27 01:10
@IanSVT I’m seriously shocked I have *never* seen comments like yours. I am happy for *everybody* to look at them. Seriously you *only* comment on *patents* and pretty much everything about Novell patents. I’m actually shocked.
Are you *paid* by Novell, or are you simply make money of their products. I actually have a sneaky suspicion that it must have been you that made the deal. I apologize greatly that I forgot to mention people who earn a living from Novell directly or indirectly.
It is definitely a business decision, does that make it a *good* *ethical* *honest* *justify* etc etc the decision. I actually think its a bad *business* decision by Novell. Novell made a self serving decision which is a problem when dealing with code done by open source developers who are also self serving so don’t benefit and free software developers who object because it doesn’t benefit everyone.
Edited 2007-06-27 01:30
Cyclops,
I might be a bit dense, but I’m not following you at all, so you’ll have to answer a few things for me if you don’t mind.
I rarely post anything about patents. Did you happen to read all my comments in the past 20 minutes? How much did I comment on about patents in the rest of my comments? I’ve stated a few times here that I think the patent rhetoric coming from MS is bull.
Do you really think I’m paid by Novell? Do you really think I’m paid by Novell AND I’m the one who, to use a hockey trade deadline phrase, “pulled the trigger” on the deal? I seriously hope that was sarcasm. Trust me, my only stake in Novell staying around as a company is that I won’t have to deal with Active Directory and Exchange in my current job. I’m partial to SOME of Novell’s offerings mostly because I admin them every day. It’s my personal and professional preference. If you want me to start ripping some of Novell’s products, just ask, I’ve got plenty of gripes. You probably wouldn’t get a Novell employee to do that.
And just to point out, despite you assuming I think it was a good deal, I never said it was. I said I’ll wait and see.
Edited 2007-06-27 01:46
@IanSVT
“I’m pretty neutral to the whole thing at this point.”
I’ll put it simpler. That statement is an outright lie. Of the 176 comments you have made the *vast* majority of them have been purely on Novell. In fact you have only made 15 posts on something else and 6 of those were your first posts thats less than 10%, and if you actually read those posts you still mention Novell.
Seriously after having a look your posts in detail they are *purely* about a *company* not about an *OS*. What is your relationship with Novell?
Edited 2007-06-27 02:01
How can I respond to this in a way you will comprehend? If you actually had read my last comment and read my bio while you were no doubt pouring over my previous comments in great detail, you’d read that I claim to be an admin who admins Novell products. I have posted a fraction of what you have here in almost twice the time registered here. Most have been about Novell because I feel like I can bring some constructive comments to the table. I also post on Novell’s support forums under the same name. I’m sure systyrant above could vouch for that will a small amount of internet spelunking. Why the hell would I be posting on a Novell support forum asking for support if I worked for them?
I have posted comments about Novell the company more than the OS because it’s very rare that anyone here posts about operating systems in technical depth. Arguing about which module is the best for setting your screen resolution in Linux isn’t something that interests me very much, hence why I don’t post in a topic about that. I’m not trying to cut anyone who did, it’s just not my bag, simply put. But hey, thanks for ignoring the content of my posts and only looking at the topic headings.
I have no relationship with Novell other than my organization sends them a licensing/support check every year and I admin Novell software. For you to make the assumption and even accuse me otherwise is insulting.
Edited 2007-06-27 02:31
If you actually had read my last comment and read my bio while you were no doubt pouring over my previous comments in great detail, you’d read that I claim to be an admin who admins Novell products.
…
But hey, thanks for ignoring the content of my posts and only looking at the topic headings.
IanSVT, thanks for posting that response. Some people need to get a life.
As a Novell admin I have to agree with you on the Novell/Microsoft deal. I’m kind of waiting to see what happens.
As for Novell the company. Their PR department (if they even have one) sucks big time. However, as for server software I love my Netware server because it’s so easy to administer and iPrint is a godsend. My only hope is the OES2 is far better than OES was because OES sucked big time.
***
As for the split. I don’t consider market share to determine the community size per say. You have three linux distributors who have inked deals with Microsoft and hundreds more who haven’t. Novell is being overtaken by IBM execs and they have very little loyalty to small business and my guess is no loyalty to open source. They are in it for the money pure and simple. BUT as long as Novell produces a quality product that I can use I won’t run from them just yet. However, in all honesty if some other Linux distro had a good edirectory and iprint replacement I would probably leave without a second thought. As for the other two linux distros. Linspire is run by a guy in it for the money and the glory and the other I don’t know much about other than I think they are also in it for the money.
With that said I have no real understanding of why three linux distros inked deals with Microsoft. I can only speculate and I’m sure somebodies already speculated my ideas a few hundred times already.
I agree. I personally believe OES2 will make or break Novell as we know it. I won’t go near OES Linux in its current form. People are running it, but I’m not bowled over by the reviews. There’s a guy out in Washington state who did NCP performance testing with OES Linux and OES NetWare and OES Linux sort of stumbled on the disk IO due to increased reliance on the CPU on the Linux side. That’s supposed to be “fixed”. I also hope there are some proper migration tools with OES2.
And maybe eventually we’ll get a real admin tool that will replace the nwadmin/c1/imanager trio we get to deal with now. But that’s probably dreaming!
Edited 2007-06-27 02:39
I’ll chalk OES’s failures up to rushing things in an effort to get Netware functionality to Linux, but if OES2 isn’t rocking then I’d agree it’s going to hurt Novell a little bit. I’m one of the few (or many) who won’t be switching from Netware to Linux unless Novell gets it right.
As for management tools. Console One SUCKS. NWADMIN still works fine for me in most cases, but it’s so very dated and not cross platform. iManager is OK, but it could use some of improvements as well. And yes I think you might be dreaming if you think Novell is coming out with anything to replace iManager (as iManager is a replacement for C1 and C1 was a replacement for NWADMIN).
My biggest fear with Novell is that they are on a fast track to being bought by IBM and probably dismantled. With the flood of IBM execs into the Novell and the demise of any really good SBS offerings and the liquidation of some assets many people I’ve talked to are thinking Novell is building up to a merger with IBM (or more likely a takeover). My guess is once this crap with SCO is done and over Novell will become another subsidiary of IBM.
Thats why i dont like software patents.
Even if linux infridged 600 software patents it did so before software patents were enforced by the corporate world so that polititians can get fancy new jobs after their political career. And because of that no legal action can be taken since what they did then was legal.
http://www.google.com/patents?num=100&as_pasgnee=Microsoft
1) No such thing as ‘ideals’ – everything companies do, they do in the name of the ‘almight dollar’; whether they give money to starving orphanages or sticking to the ‘ideals of linux’.
At the end of the day, these companies who made an arrangement with Microsoft obviously did it with the same motives as to why Red Hat and Connical haven’t – absolutely nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with their perception of a good business decision.
2) The issue at hand, which people forget is this; both sides (those who have signed up, and those who haven’t) don’t agree with Microsofts assessments that linux violates Microsoft patents, thats not what is at dispute.
What is at dispute is whether by signing up to an arrangement with Microsoft is an implicit agreement that Linux is violating patents – hence the reason why Red Hat and Connical aren’t willing to sign up to it. The otherside of the equation, those companies who have signed up belive that it doesn’t mean an approval of Microsofts accusations but instead more of a collaborative arrangement.
3) What Microsoft says and do can be two completely different things. Microsofts ‘claim’ on Linux is based off a third party ‘rectum pluck’ – it wasn’t an investigation done by them. I think it was here who actually linked back to obscure person with a blog with a questionable past making questionable claims.
I think that the *one* issue which this has actually bought into the forefront is the role of patents and their crippling of innovation. Take ELOS over the plugin patent – is that *really* innovation or someone just dreaming up some broad reaching concept then patenting it? if you can patent broad ranging concepts, then what is the whole point of patents? to allow an exortion industry based on ‘who has the biggest dream and biggest legal team’?
What the industry needs is for *all* players to pull their head in, and sign a ‘grand unified agreement’ which means when smarmy little extortion groups ELOS go about suing, it’ll be ‘an attack on one is an attack on all’ – which will hopefully neutralise the negative affects of patents on innovation.
1) There is no such thing as “no morality”. When you make a statement like “this isn’t about morality, it’s about business”, what you are really saying is, “I don’t care what moral rules I have to violate in order to get rich”. That may be acceptable (depending on whom you ask), but it’s not the same as being able to cause the nonexistence of morality by refusing to recognize it, anymore than one can cause the nonexistence of Linux or Windows by refusing to recognise them.
What the industry needs is for *all* players to pull their head in, and sign a ‘grand unified agreement’ which means when smarmy little extortion groups ELOS go about suing, it’ll be ‘an attack on one is an attack on all’ – which will hopefully neutralise the negative affects of patents on innovation.
That would necessitate an *ahem* moral stance. And anyway, by their actions Redhat et al. have shown that they need sign no such agreement, whilst Xandros et al. have shown that they would not sign any such agreement.
Has nothign to do with Morality and everythign to do with making sure that companies don’t frivilously sue and use the system for extracting money out of companies. Nothing moral about that, any more than it being a moral issue as to buy out a competitor.
Au contraire, there is indeed a moral issue here. Microsoft does not own the concept of “personal computer”, it does not own the design of the Linux kernel or any FOSS applications, and it did not write any of the code. Therefore, Microsoft has no property interest in Linux via which it can charge Linux users any sort of fee, yet Microsoft is clearly making every effort to extract payment out of Linux users.
This type of threatening behavior, especially coming from a company in a near-monopoly position, is both extortionist and fraudulent.
There is no other way to describe it, really … “immoral” fits very well.
Based on what evidence? these patent and IP sharing agreements also cover the ability for Novell to create support for WMA/WMV/ASF and improved *.doc support. The simple fact, these companies choose NOT to do that. They choose NOT to take advantage of these arrangements to improve compatibility with Microsoft because its a whole lot cheaper and easier to sit around whining, screaming and complaining about the ‘evil Microsoft’ than allocating a dozen programmers to bring about improved support for Microsoft technologies.
Au contraire my ass; Microsoft want to make money, they know they’re the ‘big dog’, Linux vendors what improved compatibility with Microsoft products, so its going to cost them to bring about compatibility – I sure as hell don’t hold it against them that they might just use some gray matter rather than doing a Red Hat and simply throwing in the towel when it comes to competing in the desktop and actually allocating a decent amount of resources to turn it into a reality.
Again I say Au Contraire.
Microsoft is not interested in interoperability.
Interoperability is simple for Microsoft to achieve … all Microsoft needs to do is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W3C_Standard#Standards
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opendocument
(but support it as a full plugin, similar to the Sun plugin or the DaVinci plugin, and not a crippled Open XML translator which cannot be the default “save as” format).
In addition, it wouldn’t hurt if Microsoft just published their communication protocols so that equipment from different vendors can communicate (as happens in every other part of the industry), as the EU want them to do.
While they are at it, it would be good to ship a few more standard inter-operable formats & protocols into the default install of Windows clients, such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg_vorbis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vnc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opengl (not crippled)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javafx (use Sun’s product)
and all of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_format#Examples_of_open_formats
In fact, if Microsoft just stopped with the:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend_and_extinguish
behaviour and the incessant attempts at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in#Microsoft
then we could actually choose Microsoft products, but as long as Microsoft continue to try to control what software people use, the more people will resist and rebel.
Edited 2007-06-27 15:40
Incorrect – they’re interested in interoperability on their terms – primarily, you pay them, then they’ll ‘allow you’ to have access.
Firefox and Opera fail to conform 100% to those standads.
OpenOffice.org has not fully implemented ODF specification either, same goes for all those other suites which acclaim to support it.
I never said there was anything wrong with what the Eu were trying to do. I said that companies should not just sit around waiting for the Eu to do something, which quite frankly, is going to be an impossibility; Microsoft will simply tie up the courts and legal system until such time that they (legislative authorities) give up.
Oh, and btw, if you think that Microsoft creates proprietary formats to simply ‘screw the end users’ – you’re as out of touch as those modern day marxists who think that all rich people sit around sipping brandy whilst saying, “how can we screw the working class today!”.
When was the last time you heard of a company that actually implemented a Microsoft protocol successfully due to licensing deals?
If you actually knew something about that whereof you speak, you’d realize that Linux companies have been striving to make software compatible with MS from day one, and what do MS do? They make sure the next version implements gratuitous changes.
To believe that they won’t do this to Novell (et al.) just because they have taken the opportunity to get some money off them and (by-the-way) throw around some FUD about nonexistent patents (which, if they actually existed, they’d have no difficulty pointing to, since the details of patents are public by definition in the first place) is naive – in the extreme.
Those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to trust Microsoft. Maybe you should only call us when you actually have something to say. Something substantive, relevant, and within a billion parsecs of reality, that is. But if that happens because Microsoft bite you on the ass, don’t say we didn’t warn you.
Linux companies who have no licencing agreements with Microsoft. So its Microsofts fault that these companies didn’t approach Microsoft and pay for assistance and specifications? had they done that, then they would have been able to take Microsoft to court over failure to abide by an established contracts. Scraping specs off an MSDN articles or reverse engineering should not be the basis of ‘compatibility’ with Windows.
Again, on what basis are you making those accusations – we don’t know the terms and conditions of it. Have you thought that maybe it could relate to Mono. Those patents are actually real, and if you, twenex, wish to challenge them, then go right ahead and do so, I’ll be eagerly waiting for the result.
Kinda like IBM who did very in the little in the way of understanding cosumers, instead telling them that “we’re the IT company, you’re just pathetic little consumers, we know whats best for you!”.
Sorry, IBM got screw by themselves, not Microsoft; how about learning one thing which people like you never got taught by your parents – personal responsibility. There is no one else to blame except yourself.
Nice rant, but no nearer the mark.
I think I see the source of your confusion.
The situation is not at all like the way you portray it above.
In the early days of Microsoft networking (think “Windows for Workgroups”) Microsoft were not the dominant player in networking by a long way (think “Netware”). IBM had invented a protocol called “Server Message Block”, and from the time of the Microsoft/IBM collaboration, Microsoft had adopted this protocol (although I think it then ran on top of “netbui” rather than TCP/IP). In those days, when they were the mniority player, Microsoft co-operated with Linux devs, and they shared the evolving specification of the protocol.
After a while, Microsoft became more dominant, and I think at this time Microsoft saw an opportunity to become a monopoly in PC software. Microsoft suddenly “pulled” their co-operation with Linux, and they went away and Microsoft deliberately obscured the protocol, so that other systems could not interoperate with Microsoft servers or serve Microsoft desktop client machines.
This act is a bit like Ford attempting to make it so that all roads in the country were suitable only for Ford cars. This is an anti-trust act … a deliberate attempt to make a monopoly.
Anyway, this act was the birth of the Samba project, and it has met with some measure of success in penetrating Microsofts deliberate obfuscation. Samba 4 promises to go even further still. There was an attempt in Vista to break compatibility with Samba servers, and there was quite a bit of angst generated for people who use Linux-based NAS devices, but Samba has got around that already I believe.
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3375748431.html
Anyway, the point is, why should Microsoft make licensing money out of a deliberate (and arguably illegal) obfuscation of what was previously an open netwrorking protocol invented by another company?
The other point is, reverse engineering is a perfectly legitimate way to get around trade secrets. Microsoft networking was not originated/invented by Microsoft, and Microsoft have no valid patent or “IP” here, Microsoft have only a trade secret of very questionable legal standing (due to anti-trust) … yet Microsoft want to charge everybody for access to the specifications? Get real!
Edited 2007-06-27 23:41
Isn’t this like the mafia in a way?
People paying MS for some mysterious threat is kind of similar to “protection money” the mafia used to charge people so they would leave them alone.
It’s all likely FUD. If not what’s MS waiting for? Why don’t they show the world the patents being infringed?
Microsoft don’t need to “show the world the patents being infringed”, because, like it or not, patents are legal (in USA at least) and are to respect.
2º Unix (not only linux) may think about it (lawyers), bacause the MS patents that Mr Gates claims are in X server, KDE, Gnome, projects shared in multiple unix OS (linux, Solaris, BSD).
3º There is a urgent need that big unix guys explain what
they think about it, or unix world will be a permanent suspect plataform (some big enterprise rely in this software to business).
Microsoft don’t need to “show the world the patents being infringed”, because, like it or not, patents are legal (in USA at least) and are to respect.
Isn’t there such thing as you are innocent until proven otherwise?
MS patents that Mr Gates claims are in X server, KDE, Gnome, projects shared in multiple unix OS (linux, Solaris, BSD).
Not particulary used a lot on servers so i wonder how the corporate will be affected unless they fear for any lawsuit they don’t have the financial stamina.
You don’t really believe that do you … are you really that naive?
1. There are also very likely patents infringed by Microsoft, one of the main reasons why they won’t sue … a patent war would show that most of the patents Microsoft holds would probably not hold in a court case, and it is never a good idea to sue some of your customers, which they would need to do.
Patents might be legal, but that does not mean that they will hold up in court … fact is it is impossible for any programmer today to not infringe on somebody’s patent … which shows that the whole patent system is utterly broken and has the reverse effect from what it was intended to do (which is protect smaller companies who come up with new ideas and implementations)
2. There is no urgency to do anything, it is business as usual – Microsoft making wild unsubstantiated claims and spreading FUD … c’mon Microsoft has always done this, it is part of their corporate identity. Anyways it is very clear all Linux Vendors say the same thing … no one believes that Linux infringes patens
They should be respected only in the US, and even then only if they are valid.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070513234519615
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070430121005424
If an idea is present in a lot of places, it is obvious, and trying to “monetise” it via a patent will fail due to the KSR decision (see Groklaw articles above). Most of Microsoft’s patents fail because either they are obvious, or because there is plentiful prior art.
Unix pre-dates both Windows and Microsoft.
Edited 2007-06-27 09:19
I’ve noticed that it’s only the semi-commercial distros that nobody uses that are signing with Microsoft, namely Xandros, SuSE and Linspire.
RedHat and Ubuntu, arguably the two most popular and free distros will never sign, and now Mandriva won’t either.
It is a bit over the top to say the linux camp is divided on this issue .. it sounds more like a FUD statement coming from MS winblows .. than being a realistic statement .. look at what the actions of Novell did to the popularity of opensuse … it is dropping hard .. even more a confirmation .. it was the wrong way to go .. for novell and suse … betraying the opensource movement .. which is how it is seen by lots of community members .. the same goes for Xandros, Linspire and LG .. and more to come .. i sincerely hope not .. but MS winblows is a strong bully ..
Looking at popularity and weight of the companies who are falling into the MS winblows trap .. they are no more than shitflies … if one looks at the big scale .. of things .. it doesnt mean a thing …
Take a look at http://www.distrowatch.com
3 – Opensuse … h.p.d. dropping hard like a shitfly .. … since their betrayal ..
22 – Freespire … freespire is more popular than its commercial counterpart linspire … shitfly
29 – Xandros … shitfly
52 – Linspire .. shitfly
53 – Novell SLE .. shitfly
Seriously the only one that put any weight into the scale was opensuse .. but opensuse has only been dying a slow death since the betrayal .. and will continue to do so is my estimate …
So it is very much exaggerated to say the linux community is divided on this issue .. looking at the statistics .. on the contrary it is more fair to say the community is speaking out against .. the distros who are betraying the community .. for this you only need to look at how opensuse is dying a slow death .. the other distros are only small waterdrops in a ocean full of water ..
Just my 10 cents on this issue …
Cheers,
Johnbon
OpenSuSe did not make any deal with Microsoft. Even so, it is dropping like a stone through “guilt by association”.
http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity
OpenSuse has already dropped from a “comfortable 2nd” to a “becoming insignificant” 4th, and Fedora has comfortably overtaken it.
The surprise contender to Ubuntu’s lead is actually PCLinuxOS.
Xandros and Linspire are both “down in the noise” and dropping further out of sight.
Even Sabayon, which is a derivative of the “difficult” Gentoo, threatens to overtake OpenSuse in the not-too-distant future.
Another reason Opensuse is dropping is because of performance issues.It boots too damn slow by default and is still sluggish to operate.
Plus the awful 10.1 release helped put the nail in the coffin.They are many other KDE-centric distros which are putting Opensuse to shame.For example, Vector Linux SOHO.
Microsoft keeps claiming Linux violates their patents but refuses to list them. Linux vendors say they don’t violate MS patents.
This FUD benefits no one except Microsoft.
IANAL but couldn’t some group (be it RedHat, the EFF, whatever) sue MS for libel/slander regarding their patent claims? MS would be forced to either concede they had lied or enumerate the violated patents (and allow Linux developers to work around them).
Either way Linux wins. Am I missing something? I feel I must be because if someone called MS out this whole patent issue would go away no? Can someone enlighten me?
Edited 2007-06-27 10:47
“right down the middle, at this point – over Microsoft’s controversial claims that the open-source operating system infringes on patents it holds”
That is not so. Novell did not acknowledge any infringement by entering the deal. And so the splitt really is about whether you should talk to MS in the first place, i.e. have any sort of business relationship.
As a consumer, and potential Linux user, I am interested in deals. Microsoft will not go away, no matter what the followers of certain ideas claim. As a consumer I am interested in interoperability and features, not in philosophy.
Note that Microsoft signed different deal with different vendors, which shows that they are flexible and pragmatic. The deal is something that is negotiable, which is a good thing.
If I start using Linux again, it can only be from vendor that signed a deal with Microsoft, because it offers a perspective of more interoperability.
First off, I don’t agree with threats of legal action. I think that’s usually a sign that you realize your technology cannot stand on its own. Ironically this is sort of reminiscent of an announcement made by Steve Jobs during the 1997 Macworld keynote. He mentioned settling certain patent issues with Microsoft. Then Bill’s head appeared on the screen at which point he laughed and said, “All your base are belong to us”. But the video encoding was being done Bill’s Windows 95 box and it crashed before the “All your base” statement could be transmitted.
Now a bit more serious.
However, has anybody thought about what this might mean in the terms of interoperability? For those of us that have to live and work in both worlds, this may not be such a bad thing (in the long run). I’m one of those fellows that believes neither fully commercial or fully open source is the answer. Rather I think that each has its benefits and draw backs and each should be used where it’s strengths are amplified.
All of us are living and working in both worlds. The untold secret is that it is only one world.
Apart from our desktops, we interact with number of server machines that run whatever OS their owners see fit. We must have interoperability, all of us. The more interoperability, the better.
Only the pure hobbyists can afford themselves to be exclusive and to restrict theselves for the sake of philosophy.
True that’s why open standards are important but as we know some are reluctant to adhere to them.
I don’t know if we are referring to the same ones, but those are forced by low to adhere to open standards, or to make their own standards open.
Thanks to that fact, I am no longer afraid of those ones. They are just another company now.
Yeah, it’s splitting, but not down the middle. It’s splitting between the companies that are successful and the ones that aren’t and can be bought by MS.
I think it’s pretty clear what MS is doing to anyone with half a clue. It’s remarkably similar to when the SCO saga began and they were trumpeting all the companies who signed up for SCO Source.
Additionally, it’s not the “community” that’s divided, it’s the companies that make money selling Linux. Even though there may be community members working for those companies there’s a big difference.