Microsoft has succeeded in fracturing the Linux and open-source community with the patent indemnity agreements it has entered into with several prominent vendors, Ubuntu leader and Canonical CEO Mark Shuttleworth told eWEEK. The strategy behind that was to drive a wedge into the open-source community and unsettle the marketplace, Shuttleworth said. He also took issue with the software maker for not disclosing the 235 of its patents it claims are being violated by Linux and other open-source software.
I think the Mark has made a pretty good summary of the current situation. I think it is important that he points out that the business of the Linux companies that signed up with Microsoft is being damaged as a result of their actions.
Only with the much smaller and niche Linux community. MS admins are much happier to install MS Linux (Suse) nowadays.
Do you even know the bare basics and history of these agreements? I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve never heard of non-prank “MS Linux” product.
Then again Bill has typically been rather cold when it comes to business so perhaps he has bred a flock of penguins.
He does overstate the “damage” done to Novell. Linspire and Xandros could die tomorrow and nobody could honestly say that the Microsoft deal was the primary cause. They face more serious challenges.
But Novell seems to be doing well since the deal. They have OEM arrangements with Dell and Lenovo that didn’t exist before the deal. They lost a few prominent developers, but there was no domino effect. The openSUSE community doesn’t seem to be particularly bothered either, even though they got cut out of the deal.
Everybody that sees these deals for what they are is waiting for some sort of outrage. We’re waiting for more developers to leave. We’ve waiting for the openSUSE community to take a stand. We’re waiting for Novell to challenge Microsoft on Clone Products.
But it isn’t happening. People don’t get outraged over anything. It’s as if some government agency is slipping Wellbutrin into the water supply. We’re content to go with the flow. Let the corporations play their games, and maybe we won’t get screwed in the end.
In America, 70% of high school students think that the government should censor the news. As if big media wasn’t doing a good enough job. We’re not outraged. We know that our opinion doesn’t matter, and we don’t care. We know that our freedoms are under attack, and we’ve gone through all the phases.
We’ve reached acceptance.
I dunno, I think sometimes that the more vocal segments of the linux community (ie, the ones who post in places like this), only use linux because of deep, vitriolic hatred of microsoft. They don’t use linux because they like it, they use it to “stick it to the man”. They don’t really care if Linux succedes in any way, more that Microsoft fails. This is in stark contrast to most of the people actually doing the work, who simply don’t care about microsoft, and don’t have any intention of overthrowing evil empires, but are motivated instead by the desire to write good software.
Since when is indemnification a bad thing? In the commercial software world, the big players have been cross-liscencing for years now. The only reason that it hadnt happened in linux years ago is because the user base was too small to register on the radar. The fact that MS is actually treating linux distros in the way that any major software house would treat competition is a Good Thing, and the fact that they have given up trying to sink the whole thing through shady power plays and disinformation campeigns is also a Good Thing (anyone who thinks the whole patent thing is just that, go over to google patents and just look at some of the ideas MS owns. it is more then probable that they have the patents to back up their claims.)
The reality of the situation is that Windows is the monopoly, it is used everywhere, and if you want your product to be taken seriously, you have to be able to interoperate with what is out there. That is exactly what the Novell and Linspire deals were about, the whole indemnification thing was a side issue. If you look at it with even remotely objective frame of mind, you will realize that integration with Active Directory is downright a necessity for many businesses, and interoperability with the latest office formats isn’t exactly a bad thing.
Of course, if you use linux because you are a “revolutionary”, you wont care about such things in the slightest, and all that is outweighed by the taint that deals with microsoft brings. Thankfully, such peoples opinions don’t mean much outside of forums like this one. The people who do matter (ie IBM, Dell, HP, etc) say stuff like this:
> Since when is indemnification a bad thing?
Microsoft isn’t offering indemnification. It’s saying “You’re guilty, I’m not telling you the charges or how serious the violation is, or even allow you to remove the offending code or challenge me, but I’ll forget about coming down hard on you or your customers. So anyone who doesn’t pay me should live in fear.”
That isn’t legitimate business, this is extortion.
What’s more, it’s trying to get people to pay Microsoft for code they neither developed nor played any part in. If I went into your back yard and told you “pay me for the privilege of using your property *or else*”, you’d more than likely be a little P.O.ed.
How is that different from this? http://members.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html
the whole patent business is far from legitimate. the way that ms is acting is the way that all the major software houses act. linux is now just being treated as an equal instead of ignored.
linux is now just being treated as an equal instead of ignored.
No it isnt. This started years ago when MS used SCO as a proxy to sue IBM. Fortunately SCO has been getting owned in the legal sense, so MS is being forced to try a different attack.
Edited 2007-08-07 23:00
It’s pretty obvious to me that SCO had no business model left other than to sue IBM. Microsoft was not really involved as an organization (there was some guy who supposedly reneged on the offer or something to BayStar Financial…). The only way Microsoft aided the case was by purchasing a Unix license from SCO (which perhaps some other companies did as well). That’s more of a “helping the enemy of your enemy” kind of move rather than an instigating act.
I wouldn’t call it particularly dirty to purchase a Unix license… especially since it was all publicly-known and aboveboard.
Microsoft isn’t offering indemnification. It’s saying “You’re guilty,
Nope, MS didn’t say anything it is you who wants to interpretate it in a twisted way.
Edited 2007-08-07 19:53
On the contrary, I’m compelled to believe you have an agenda, a poor memory or no reading comprehension. Little else could explain your myopic view of these arrangements. Microsoft clearly stated that the purpose of the “patent indemnification” agreements was… indemnification for patents they claim are infringed upon!
And then, in case it wasn’t painfully clear what their motives were, they came right out in May and said that FOSS infringed on “at least 235” patents of theirs. That’s an accusation. Without Microsoft’s presumption of FOSS’s guilt, there’s no point to an indemnification agreement.
This is pretty basic. Even Microsoft supporters accept this as fact.
The really interesting thing is that Microsoft want to tie in the soundbites of “Linux infringes patents” and “interoperability” together with one another. Microsoft want to extract royalty payments from Linux even though Microsoft wrote absolutely none of the code in Linux.
There are not one but two “elephants in the room” on this subject.
(1) Microsoft have no patents that relate to interoperability issues. This is because in order to have a patent on something, you have to disclose on the patent itself how your invention actually works. All of the interoperability issues between Microsoft and Linux arise because Microsoft deliberately obscured protocols and formats that are needed for interoperability … hence no patents can apply. These are trade secrets at best.
(2) If Microsoft really wanted their customers to be able to have a mixed Linux/Windows environment, and to be able to interoperate, then all that is required is for Microsoft to adhere to open standards. Full ODF compatibility for Office (allow ODF as default format) would be a good start, full W3c compliance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web_Consortium#Standards would really enable viable interoperability and standards such as Open LDAP http://www.openldap.org/ would be a good place to move further.
Edited 2007-08-08 02:12
You really should get those OOo folks working on their ODF compatibility… last I heard, they’re not fully compliant.
Nevertheless, it’s a matter of product cycles. Office takes about 3 years to produce for one release. Office 12 was a massive release, so it took 4 years. ODF didn’t exist near the beginning of the planning cycle for Office 12, so it’s not like MSFT could have baked it into their product. Unlike FOSS, Microsoft and other commercial vendors put serious effort into massively testing their code in a lot of ways. There is also a very concrete product schedule, so random features and ideas cannot be added in toward the end because they might destabilize the impending release.
The whole point of this explaination is that supporting ODF was not an option for the current release of Office, and frankly ODF was not a usable standard on its own until after having to compete with OOXML and gaining some features. Microsoft is a large company and it cannot and will not turn on a dime. It is also in the business of making money, so coming up to the head of the team and saying, “You should take this risky change which will allow customers to easily move away from your product to cheaper or free alternatives!” will not get you far. Until it becomes a government requirement, it’s simply not worth the business cost to implement ODF.
The point is: you’re not a customer of Microsoft, and your concerns don’t help you solve a business or personal problem using Microsoft products. If you want to solve problems with other products, go to the manufacturer of those products and get them to support your needs. Implementing OOXML in your word-processor would be one way, if you care about exchanging documents. Think about it: when WordPerfect ruled the roost, Microsoft implemented the WordPerfect format and then competed on features. Why can’t FOSS do the same?
“The whole point of this explaination (sic) is that supporting ODF was not an option for the current release of Office, and frankly ODF was not a usable standard on its own until after having to compete with OOXML and gaining some features.”
You know MS were members of the OASIS group that came up with the ODF spec right? Here’s the list in case you joined us late…
Representatives of Active Endpoints, AmberPoint, BEA Systems, BMC Software, CA, Forum Systems, HP, IBM, IONA, Novell, Microsoft, Progress Software, Red Hat, SOA Software, TIBCO, VeriSign, webMethods, and others make up the OASIS WS-Federation Technical Committee.
It’s absolutely not a case of they couldn’t play along…but that they wouldn’t play along. Simple as that.
Because it is backwards to do it that way.
ODF is the interoperable standard, not OOXML.
ODF is the format implemented in many vendor’s products, not OOXML.
ODF is the format implemented on many platforms, not OOXML (and yes, it does work for interoperability).
OOXML is the standard that calls up all types of “enabling technologies” which are Windows-only, Microsoft-proprietary, single-vendor, single-platform, patent-encumbered and unspecified sub-formats and protocols, such as ActiveX, VBA, BMP, WMF, WMA, WMV and so on. Microsoft explicitly states that its “Covenant not to sue” over OOXML itself does NOT extend to the “enabling technologies”.
ODF is the standard that calls up sub-formats and protocols which are open standards themselves, such as SVG, SMIL, OGG etc, etc.
ODF is designed from the ground up as a vendor-neutral, freely-implementable, cross-platform interoperability format.
OOXML is designed from the ground up to perpetuate lock-in.
OOXML was never “open” at all until some potential large customers began to show interest in ODF.
ODF and FOSS can be open-standard, patent-unencumbered, vendor-neutral, cross-platform, no proprietary dependencies, fully disclosed and future-proof and fully interoperable, why can’t OOXML do the same?
Not at all. The patent thing is the whole issue.
If Microsoft wanted other vendors and other platforms to be able to “plug into various microsoft technologies” then why not just specify the protocols and formats (as the EU requires, for example) and permit it?
There are myriad open formats and protocols that could be used, and which would work absolutely fine. Microsoft cannot argue that Microsoft spent a fortune developing their protocols and formats when there exist perfectly functional open ones that everyone (even Microsoft) can use for free. Microsoft even sat in on the design committee … and said not one word the whole time.
Edited 2007-08-08 15:52
Correction of fact:
“Unlike FOSS, Microsoft and other commercial vendors put serious effort into massively testing their code in a lot of ways.”
I won’t deny that commercial vendors usually put serious effort into testing their code, but so does FOSS software which already reached a certain amount of maturity (1.5.x or 2.x versions). It is just a different approach, FOSS lets the users test before release, commercial software usually does not do that (with MS Vista being one of the few exceptions).
Frankly, you sound like you never used OpenOffice or any other mature piece of the FOSS realm (Gimp, KDE, Gnome, Audacity), because then you would not think of FOSS in general as somehow lower quality/less tested.
I don’t think that anybody here is against interoperability. But that’s not what these deals are about. If they were, then Microsoft would sit down with Red Hat and Ubuntu to talk interoperability. For Microsoft, the patent covenant is the piece de resistance of the Linux agreements. Without it, Microsoft doesn’t stand to profit from interoperability.
I’ve previously described these deals as Microsoft’s way of welcoming commercial Linux vendors to the smoke-filled room where IT vendors drink brandy and carve out their respective slice of the pie. This is how the big guys play. They elbow and posture their competitors off their turf and top it off with a dominant handshake.
I’ve previously described these deals as Microsoft’s way of hazing the new guy. Why is does the IT industry work like a college fraternity? Should I think that Novell is cooler now that they’ve been made to screw a goat while Ballmer watched? What’s so “revolutionary” about letting the market decide?
I don’t want to stick it to the man, and I don’t need to either. In the end, it’s “the man” that’s on the receiving end of the stick. For most non-American businesses, IT is the single biggest expense. America, of course, has a healthcare crisis. The cost of doing business dwarfs the cost of innovation, quality assurance, and customer service. This leads to bankruptcy, consolidation, and inflation.
Interoperability is great. But delivering value is more important. As long as the IT industry is an exclusive club with a velvet rope and a bouncer named Tiny Ballmer, we’re all being ripped off for our basic computing needs. Including the man.
I don’t quite agree. I see the novell deal as the same thing as Office for Mac. It is one of the few instances of MS actually being a “joiner”
I actually wasn’t specifically talking about you there. In general, I have found your comments well reasoned, even when I don’t agree with them. I was talking about the kind of person who spells microsoft with an $, and who has been the most shocked and outraged over this whole thing.
I have said a million times before, that IMHO the perfect world would be where Linux rules the servers, MS rules the business, and OSX rules the home desktops. This kind of environment would not only play to each OS relative strengths and not force them to be everything to everyone, would mean that one worm could not bring down 80% of the worlds computers, and that there would be incentives for interoperability and standards for everyone.
“I don’t quite agree. ”
That’s because you don’t know what your talking about at all.
“I see the novell deal as the same thing as Office for Mac.”
You mean a patent treat full of unknown detail and variant with different detail for each distribution , each with a different offer , language and offer is the same as :
Microsoft , funding , manning , selling , supporting , developing , making sure it’s compatible and work product for Apple and Mac OS X on there hardware and OS ?
I need to ask are you retarded , or you think we are really that dumb and stupid and that we where born yesterday ?
” It is one of the few instances of MS actually being a “joiner” ” ”
The thing is nobody want Microsoft to join they end up breaking everyone else stuff making everyone life miserable and being blamed for Microsoft incompetence.
“I was talking about the kind of person who spells microsoft with an $”
Spelling , since you don’t know is done verbally … we write here …
“and who has been the most shocked and outraged over this whole thing.”
Like I said it’s not Microsoft action that make me really sad , It’s how the people who I trusted to be legal happen to have lied to me as it turns out. More directly my client are looking at this and are saying that I , personally lied to them , when I said everything was legal and ok with GNU/Linux.
“I have said a million times before”
You would need 10 000 years to say it a million time before , it take 2 min for each time and your sleeping each days … So your lying.
“that IMHO ”
That’s not your opinion and there is nothing honest about it.
“the perfect world would be where Linux rules the servers, MS rules the business, and OSX rules the home desktops. ”
I thought the perfect world was the one where the best tool for the job for the one doing the work and paying for it get to do it.
“This kind of … them to be everything to everyone”
No offense , but I don’t want Microsoft on-board the destroyer , in charge of flight control or even doing the payroll or as E-mail sever , etc , Microsoft real strengths is PC game only , also due to there monopoly and high investment I might add.
“would mean that one worm could not bring down 80% of the worlds computers”
The Only OS who as real worm problem , affecting 99% of it, is Microsoft and that’s on all it’s OS. Beside if all business run Microsoft like in your example , it would only be ALL business affected by worm , luckily most business company have mixed environment to prevent just such a thing.
“there would be incentives for interoperability and standards for everyone.”
There is today , they are called customer and user’s , only problem is Microsoft and Apple ain’t sharing are not portable and are not on all platform.
GNU/Linux commercial company and community distribution are paid , contributed and used by there client and user’s with the promise that they act in our best interest , not in the name of profit alone or in the interest of Microsoft alone.
If Microsoft was really interested in full compatibility and interoperability they would offer documentation and there lab and research to GNU/Linux and join OIN and offer all there patent and innovation to the pool.
Microsoft is not interest in making GNU/Linux fully compatible and fully integrated , otherwise they would do one deal and one deal only with the entire GNU/Linux community.
Just like GNU/Linux currently does. Contrary to your bullshit , only Microsoft win in this case there are hundred of format and protocols and thousand of patent that are not covered by those deals and that Microsoft is not going to discuss opening up or making them compatible.
235 – 5000 = We Win !!!
235 – 5000 = On Gagne !!!
No, I mean working with novell so they can plug into various microsoft technologies that are used by every major business in the world. The patent thing is a side issue.
Neither. I am just trying to get past the whole “OMFG MS PATENTS!!!” mentality, and pointing out that
1) That kind of patent shakedown happens ALL THE TIME in the rest of the software industry. The fact that it is happening to linux distros shows that linux is simply not being ignored anymore.
2) The fact that Novell got a hell of alot out of that deal shows that MS is not just screwing around, but is actually willing to work with other people it doesnt have to.
Isn’t the big problem with MS that they leverage their monopoly status to gain an unfair advantage? When have they broke everyone elses stuff and made everyones life miserable? This is the kind of vitriolic hatred I am talking about.
Maybe you simply don’t know this, but nowadays it is virtually impossible to write software and NOT violate someones patents in the process. IBM is the biggest culprit, but MS is right up there in owning most of the fundamental ideas in software design. This is why big companies offer indemnification to their clients, so if law suits start comming down, the company takes the full damage, and the client is safe. It is also a good reason for big corporations to use commercial linux distros like RedHat or Novell, because if they didnt, they would become targets too.
How pedantic of you.
How is this not my opinion?
It is. MS puts out the best platforms out there for businesses, bar none. OSX requires far less learning and configuring to use then anything else out there, and Linux is the cost-effective server OS out there.
Is that a business?
Is that a business?
You obviously do not work in the technology industry. The reason that MS got to where it was was because it was so good to businesses, and it spread from there. Do you really think OO.o is better then word for the workplace? Do you really believe C++ is a better platform for enterprise applications then .net? MS has been bending over backwards for the business sector since it began. Games is a side issue for MS, and it always has been.
If Linux was in the server room, the only way for an MS worm to get in would be from an outside laptop or someone installing in from the inside. And the mixed environment most businesses have is NT4, 2000, and XP. Again, you are showing your lack of background in the industry.
First off, both MS and Apple are very portable, and have shown to be so by being able to rapidly port their respective operating systems to new platforms. Secondly, apple is very good at interoperability, and if you are a user of microsoft products, you don’t need to worry about that anyways, all you have to worry about is backwards compatibility. When 80%+ of the world uses the same thing as you, interoperability is not a big issue.
Where is that promise? Developers work for their own best interests, the users of their software is just a way of keeping score. Commercial companies, by definition, also work in their own best interests.
Maybe it is source code you are talking about, even though Apple, and to a smaller extent MS, have both released source code into the wild.
MS offers documentation, msdn is an incredible resource that is unmatched when it comes to api documentation in the open source world. They have made some gestures at interoperability with Novell, but how would developing for a product they don’t use make any sense? As for throwing away intellectual property for no reason, that makes even less sense. IBM builds their business model around Linux, it is the fair thing to do to say we wont sue if linux developers violate our patents. Why would MS do this?
Again, that would make no sense. What would they gain from it? Novell is helping MS with hypervisors, and MS is helping Novell with Active Directory, it is a two way street. Why in the world would MS give something for nothing?
You cannot compare the two. Linux is done by a community of developers mostly for free, Windows is done by paying people to work. Linux is at 2-5% of the market (depending on who you talk to), Windows is at 80%+. Linux is under a liscence that makes it illegal NOT to open all protocols and enforce patents, Windows is not.
Comparing one to the other is apples and oranges.
“working with novell so they … every major business in the world. ”
Microsoft does not let other’s plug into there technologies , not everyone use Microsoft either.
” I am just trying to get past the whole “OMFG MS PATENTS!!!” mentality”
No , your trying to paint this on GNU/Linux advocate and as a the blocking issue , the problem , it’s just one of the many point that get raised.
“1) That kind of … ignored anymore. ”
No it don’t happen all the time , it’s usually a biigger player praying on the weak that does that. Even Microsoft is into settling this days du to the extremely high cost of litigation.
The why is not that they stopped ignoring Linux , they never did , it’s that GNU/Linux commercial have more **legal** patent then Microsoft do and particulary since you fixate only on Novell , you must have missed that SCO don’t own UNIX it’s Novell that do.
“2) The fact that … doesnt have to. ”
Like I said Novell own UNIX.
“Isn’t the big … an unfair advantage?”
No because Microsoft can’t leverage it’s usual size and fortune to block GNU/Linux.
“When have they …talking about.”
http://www.google.ca/search?q=microsoft+settle&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq…
It’s fun to watch how clueless you are about the IT world. JAVA , HTML , Browsers , Offices , ETC.
“Maybe you simply … in the process.”
GNU/Linux does , it’s all new technologies or donated technologies from those who have the patent.
“MS is right up there in owning most of the fundamental ideas in software design. ”
Microsoft is a very good innovator , but not a creator at all.
“This is why big companies offer indemnification to their clients”
No , it’s because people sue for everything.
“It is also a good … become targets too.”
There is more Red Hat based and Debian based then Red Hat and novell deployment.
“How pedantic of you.”
It’s you who wrote you said it a million time before … Just proving that your lying.
“How is this not my opinion?”
Your copy pasting Microsoft and Novell Opinion. Word for word.
“MS puts out the best platforms out there for businesses, bar none.”
Most business don’t use Microsoft products. Microsoft as a high percentage on the PC Desktop only.
“OSX requires far … out there,”
That’s why they use it in Appliance , toys , phone and Tivo , wait no they don’t , that’s GNU/Linux.
“and Linux is the cost-effective server OS out there”
http://osnews.com/story.php/18418/Motorola-Ships-US-Linux-Mobile-Ph…
“Is that a business?”
Yes , it’s called weapon industry …
“Is that a business?”
Yes , travel by air industry …
That’s the real problem here , you don’t know what your talking about at all and consider Microsoft to be the do all be all software , witch mean that your entire comment don’t make sense at all , I wont entertain your contradicting turn around after this point disputing your own offer that Microsoft cooperate and want to make it work better , since all they care about is themself and there own profit, and my point that they break other’s stuff in order to be considered the only possible choice.
Like I said and repeat here , If Microsoft was interest in compatibility and cooperation It would have made one deal for all of GNU/Linux. Anyone who know what they are talking about kno wthis.
Also the problem is not Microsoft , it’s the GNU/Linux distribution. But then again in your feeble mind Microsoft did a generous offer to GNU/Linux.
I dunno, I think sometimes that the more vocal segments of the linux community (ie, the ones who post in places like this), only use linux because of deep, vitriolic hatred of microsoft. They don’t use linux because they like it, they use it to “stick it to the man”. They don’t really care if Linux succedes in any way, more that Microsoft fails. This is in stark contrast to most of the people actually doing the work, who simply don’t care about microsoft, and don’t have any intention of overthrowing evil empires, but are motivated instead by the desire to write good software.
Unlikely. There would be no reason for these hypothetical Microsoft-and-Linux-haters to jump on the Linux bandwagon, or at least not all of them. They would be jumping on other bandwagons (SyllableOS, SkyOS, Haiku, etc.) too.
Linux might be big enough to “soak up the Microsoft haters” NOW, but without a sufficient number of people who actually liked it in the first place, it would never have gotten where it is now anyway – and the Microsoft haters probably jumped ship from MS long ago.
I must admit I have a deep distrust of Microsoft and I do use it in part to “stick it to the man”. However, I care a great deal if Linux succeeds or not and I am one who hopes Microsoft fails. Also I am motivated by the will to write good software, not everyone fits in a nice little box like that.
I also have a deep distrust of Microsoft, simply because Microsoft did not show a single trustworthy action for as long as I know computers (20 years). It was always only about shoving others out of the market, never anything else.
When Microsoft was small this did not have the big negative impact it had for the last decade, but now Microsoft is so big, that even unpolite behaviour (like saying something negative about a company) will damage startups severely.
IBM was in the same situation, and they managed to change their behavior, I am hoping Microsoft will change too. But maybe there has to be an event which clearly shows that the past bullying tactics will not help the company any more, before that happens. Like loosing market share to competing products by the same amount as happened with IE and Firefox.
I apologize to all other GNU/Linux user’s for blocking Microsoft interoperability for decades since 1991 it’s all my fault , you see Microsoft is afraid of me and listen to me when I say something. (I was cynical here)
http://www.novell.com/news/press/microsoft_and_novell_announce_broa…
Copy pasting Novell own press release , I am sure that the views and comments expressed in it where actually genuine and with no string attached … (Cynical here.)
It’s always with warm feeling that I receive the news that I don’t mater or that I am ( insert favorite insult here ) , you see the fact that you come here and make your view heard here , seem to be in direct conflict with the real importance of this forum , I am always amused to see people who are indirectly insulting the moderator and people who comment here , and naming this site in there insult directly BTW :
HI to the LKML list and LT , Distrowatch , the BSD’s leadership , GNOME and KDE and other DM dev, Microsoft internal and external FUD and research and developer’s and all the other who say that the people here don’t mater but that you seem to pounder to much on what they say … In your own forum and mailing list.
Frankly Microsoft opinion on GNU/Linux don’t mater much , I know they wont become the most honest and biggest code contributor to GPL code overnight , now it’s no surprise either to see the weak distribution who are *** Open Source *** bend to Microsoft will.
No , who I am currently angry at is the current state of mind of the GNU/Linux community , the one that say :
We need Microsoft permission and approval to do anything. We need Microsoft ! We need Microsoft help to achieve something ! That’s not the GNU/Linux community I know. that’s actually quite sad.
I guess the answer of :
F*U*C*K Y*O*U WITH YOUR 235 Illegal Patent Lets discard and reject all 5000 + of your patent by showing prior art to all of them is just my answer and not the one the GNU/Linux community share.
I guess :
235 – 5000 = We Win !!!
235 – 5000 = We Win !!!
235 – 5000 = We Win !!!
235 – 5000 = We Win !!!
235 – 5000 = We Win !!!
235 – 5000 = We Win !!!
235 – 5000 = We Win !!!
I Guess it’s not a good Slogan that resonate to anyone else but me.
235 – 5000 = We Win !!!
235 – 5000 = On Gagne !!!
1 vocal GNU/Linux user , who showed up.
In America, 70% of high school students think that the government should censor the news.
Do you have a real source for that? I’ve taught high school and I know real teenagers, and their attitude is quite the opposite.
Ask them this: Should newspapers have their news articles verified by the government for accuracy?
High school students are against censorship, but they’re not so good at identifying it. Think about how the government might justify taking away our civil liberties, and then think about your high school students. They’ll go along with it, won’t they?
Congress just approved warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. The Dems were threatend with the possibility of a terrorist attack during the August recess.
Now think about your high school students again. They’ll go along with it, won’t they?
Congress just approved warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.
No, it didn’t. It approved warrantless wiretapping of foreign suspects whose transmissions pass through American soil.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070805/ap_on_go_co/terrorism_surveilla…
Now think about your high school students again. They’ll go along with it, won’t they?
I don’t think they will, and I’m still waiting for an actual source of your 70% number, as opposed to baseless claims.
He does overstate the “damage” done to Novell. Linspire and Xandros could die tomorrow and nobody could honestly say that the Microsoft deal was the primary cause. They face more serious challenges.
He appears to be referring to the study carried out by Alfresco:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2161500,00.asp
which stated:
deployments of Red Hat Linux have grown twice as fast as those for Novell SUSE Linux since Novell signed its controversial patent and interoperability agreement with Microsoft in November 2006.
I would say that could indicate significant damage to Novell from this deal.
Edited 2007-08-07 22:07
It could indicate any number of different things, none of which are statistically relevant without a contextually relevant sample base. Frankly, any sample base where deployments of Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora and *other* exceeds RHEL and Suse is not truly indicative of the markets that RH and Novell target with their enterprise offerings, so the results should be taken with a grain of salt and in the context under which the poll was taken.
It provides some interesting talking points in much the same way Distrowatch does, but neither can be considered actually authoritative or conclusive in any substantative way.
These recent actions could well be a way for Microsoft to try to damage Linux on the corporate server side.
That’s really the place where money is made on Linux, providing corporate support.
It’s just really a shame to see Microsoft using offensive attack tactics and strategies to improve their hold and market share instead of spending all those resources creating a really kick ass well engineered fast, simple and lean product.
Trust in Microsoft really should be at an all time low across the board. I wonder how many deals Microsoft cooks up that actually ends up benefitting the other company long term. It always seems that getting Microsoft’s attention from the business side is generally considered not a good thing.
Fractured? Really? Like a wedge, you say?
Funny, I haven’t seen the Linux community divide into Ubuntu Red vs Suse Blue yet.
Shuttleworth gives Microsoft too much credit. They’re capable of making some grade-A blunders (Outlook, anyone?), but they’re not capable of this. If Linux is fracturing, it’s fracturing from forces within, not without.
EDIT: “He also took issue with the software maker for not disclosing the 235 of its patents it claims are being violated by Linux and other open-source software.” My standard rant on this issue goes here: Patents are in the public domain, the US government and probably most other governments let you look up patents online, even millionaires like Shuttleworth can use Google, etc.
Edited 2007-08-07 18:36 UTC
Wow, either you’re blind, or you’re underestimating the amount of pressure MicroSoft can exert.
Either way, what good are you?
“Either way, what good are you?”
That’s a bit rude, and doesn’t make a lot of sense either. That’s his opinion, and I happen to share it. MS hasn’t done anything, it’s all the noise that the community is making that is the problem, we’re playing right in to Microsoft’s hands.
In what way was Outlook a grade A blunder?
It’s probably just an attack on Outlook Express which did suffer from various problems for a while.
Yes that’s right. All you need to do is work through the tens of thousands of patents Microsoft hold and try to figure out which 235 of those are the ones that Open Source allegedly infringes. Why did nobody think of that before? You’re clearly a genius!
But you realize that Microsoft must have done the same to find out the infringing technologies for their patents.
Shuttleworth has lots of money, why not do what Microsoft did i.e. to find out which patents are infringed.
Yes, but Microsoft had a head-start and a home advantage. I’m sure with enough money Conanical could find 235 patents that it thinks may be infringed, but how would they know if they were same 235 Microsoft are talking about? They don’t. If Microsoft really cared about patents they’d be upfront and tell everyone which they are. The reason they wont’ do that is because it nullifies their “advantage”. Talking about 235 unspecified patents that Open Source may or may not infringe upon is the very definition of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Why do you think they’re doing it?
Um… because that shifts the burden to the accused, something that’s in direct conflict with some of the most basic premises of law in the United States. What you suggest is not unlike me accusing you of stealing my car, refusing to support my claims with evidence, then demanding that you prove you didn’t do what I accuse you of.
And, of course, you presume that Linux actually does infringe on Microsoft patents. What’s to say that Shuttleworth or the millions of FOSS users/hackers/supporters haven’t scoured Microsoft’s patent portfolio for infringements and found none (or a number not equal to 235)?
We insist on placing the burden of proof on the accuser for a simple reason: any other system requires the accused to prove a negative, which is a logical impossibility in most cases. What Microsoft has done is little more than a twist on “Have you stopped beating your wife?”.
How do we know those patents are even valid. How do we know that MS isn’t infringing on patents granted to the OSS community by IBM, Sun, etc. MS doesn’t want to show their patents because they can most likely be dismissed by either prior art, or obviousness, not to mention that MS themselves are probably infringing on way more patents than Linux. The proof is in the pudding since they get sued almost weekly for infringing on some patent. IBM holds far more important patents than MS, do you think MS would try going against one of IBM’s main business strategies? I don’t think so. Don’t delude yourself, MS doesn’t tell us what the patents are because it won’t benefit them if they do, in-fact it might harm them.
“He also took issue with the software maker for not disclosing the 235 of its patents it claims are being violated by Linux and other open-source software.” My standard rant on this issue goes here: Patents are in the public domain, the US government and probably most other governments let you look up patents online, even millionaires like Shuttleworth can use Google, etc.
Microsoft has over 5000 patents. How do you propose searching for the relevant material allegedly infringed upon by the linux kernel, openoffice.org, etc.?
It isn’t practical. I suppose we should just guess what Microsoft means, instead of them being forthright about it.
There are two possible reasons to not clarify their claims.
1. They are groundless
-or-
2. If there is patent infringement, and the developers were made aware of the problems, the problems would be ‘coded around’. This would eliminate the issue.
Someone obviously doesn’t want that to happen.
Well, I would think that you could go through a finite list by starting at the beginning, continuing until you reach the end, and then stopping. (Also note that many of Microsoft’s patents have expired and gone into the public domain after 20 years — saves you some work.)
Maybe for you or me working alone, but Linux’s minders have billions of dollars and experienced legal teams. Heck, even if you only spent one hour on each of 5,000 patents, that’s only $50K, not out of reach of any Linux company (except maybe Linspire).
Heck, if you really wanted to do this on a shoestring, you could start up a wiki-based project and have 5,000 people each check out 1 possible violation each. Wouldn’t take that long; just post it to a few news sites and watch the patents get sorted into violated and clear in no time.
Heck, if you really wanted to do this on a shoestring, you could start up a wiki-based project and have 5,000 people each check out 1 possible violation each. Wouldn’t take that long; just post it to a few news sites and watch the patents get sorted into violated and clear in no time.
It would take even less time if the accusing party would just explain the alleged patent issues.
I think you’re missing the issue. It is important for Microsoft for the patents to _NOT_ be resolved, or else MS loses clout. Even if you figured out what you thought _might_ be the issues, it wouldn’t help. Microsoft could just say, no, that isn’t it. It is better for the issue to remain clouded. That way they can go around offering their “deal” to Linux companies like Novell, Linspire, etc. Removing infringing code (if there is any) is the last thing they want.
This “patent search” study has already been done for Linux.
The outcome of this study? = there are some 230 odd patents which you might possibly consider there is some arguement that Linux could violate. Only 23 of those belong to Microsoft.
None of the patents in question has been validated in a court case. All of them have ample prior art (Linux is, after all, based on POSIX and ideas from BSD and ancient Unix). Many of them are obvious.
It is extremely dubious that Linux would actually be found by a court to infringe a valid patent held by Microsoft.
2. If there is patent infringement, and the developers were made aware of the problems, the problems would be ‘coded around’. This would eliminate the issue.
Someone obviously doesn’t want that to happen.
Coding around it would only solve future liabilities.
Not current and past.
And while we’re at it, why don’t we bring up this old story:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5291403.html
That doesn’t sound like it’s even an exhaustive search for possible infringements.
Was that list ever released to the public?
If not, why hasn’t there been any campaigns to get the list released so devs can code around these possible infringements?
If it has been released, have it all been coded around?
Good question.
“Linux potentially infringes 283 patents…according to a group that sells insurance to protect those using or selling Linux against intellectual-property litigation.”
I can’t imagine.
You can find the MS patents here
http://www.google.com/patents?q=Microsoft+Patents
Many of the patents involve Human Computer Interaction.
I will not be surprise if Linux have infringed upon the patents. Since Linux developers want to make their GUI similiar to WIndows so that more users will use Linux.
Linux developer should do more original GUI and stop using WIndows or MAC OS as references.
I prefer File Manager, Turbo Navigator or Norton Commander over Windows 95 explorer.
Many of the patents involve Human Computer Interaction.
I will not be surprise if Linux have infringed upon the patents. Since Linux developers want to make their GUI similiar to WIndows so that more users will use Linux.
I would not be surprised if any MS patent that has the faintest possibility of being infringed by Linux and FOSS is invalid on the grounds of prior art or obviousness. The US courts have been getting tougher on spurious software patents recently, it doesn’t bode well for MS.
Any way MS is too scared to actually litigate against Linux because of the patent war it would generate. Linux and FOSS is not without its own patent defenses. Quite aside from the fear it will lose a chunk of its own patent base in court defeats.
Edited 2007-08-08 05:15
I prefer Nautilus over File Manager, Turbo Navigator or Norton Commander which are little better than Windows 95 explorer.
Now let’s all hang Mark!
Oh well, who cares if Linux dies and MS takes over the world. We’re all f–king around with our own little hobby os’s anyway, now, aren’t we?
count your fingers.
according to http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/press_release08_06_07.php
google has joined the growing list of companies that are leveraging the Open Invention Network to share Linux–based intellectual property.
What would microsoft say if someone important from Linux world (like Mark, Linus etc) said smth like “We checked all MS 5000 patents and sure that Linux does not infringe any of MS them” of course not giving any details how they checked that and against what. So Microsoft had 2 choices – point which patents and where were used in developing linux or shut up ;]
They wouldn’t care. All this trash talk holds no sway in the courts, so no-one’s forced to do anything. Microsoft are interested in scaring businesses away from Linux and why would those CEOs and CTOs listen to free-lovin’ hippies from the OSS crowd spouting unsubstatiated flamebiat? Now Microsoft spouting unsubstatiated flamebiat – that’s something to pay attention to.
what prevents a linux vendor from suing Microsoft for the info? I know that something-is-because-otherwise-it’d-be-done-already, so please don’t yell at me. I figure there must be some way to classify it as unfair business practices – and the promotion of business/ wealth is like half the American ideal anyway.
Right now Microsoft is doing nothing wrong, other than acting like an annoying spolied child. Their business tactics, such as suprious upcoming vaporware announcements to undermine competitors products, were addressed as part of the anti-trust suit and found to be, sadly, legal and legitimate if not blazenly unethical.
One thing that is often overlooked in this is that the linux developers and sponsors are simply better off in ignorance of the patent claims. It would be a very large mistake for them to start combing through patents etc. because the courts hold “knowing infringement” to be much more severe than ignorant infringement. As far as patents go, ignorance is bliss, which is why many companies actually prohibit patent searches before working on new products and simply hope for the best.
Microsoft is simply playing the system, they know they can never follow through on these threats. It has nothing to do with the reciprocal patent threats from IBM or HP, since MS already has cross-licensing agreements in place with virtually every tech company. The biggest problem is that any victory Microsoft achieves in a patent lawsuit against linux would increase their own liability exponentially to suprious patent claims. And every loss would erode the value of their existing patent portfolio and once again leave them exposed to possible patent reprisals from outside third parties. It would simply be reckless for Microsoft to proceed through with legal threats, they’ll just try to milk the FUD for as long as they can, despite the fact that few people are actually buying into it.
Is that even after these deals with Microsoft, Linux (meaning those distros making the deal) still doesn’t work any better with Microsoft, or vice versa.
Want to join your Linux workstation into Active Directory? Have fun updating your schema!
Samba authentication doesn’t work well either, so that’s not an answer.
Such awesome interoperability!
A couple of months ago it still looked as if people cared about the MS-Linux deals and patents. Now it appears as if they mostly don’t.
Mr. Shuttleworth is building up his distribution as being more free than SUSE and Red Hat (sounds like he’s the one doing the divisive stuff). At the same time, he’s pushing Ubuntu as the noob friendly distro. That means using closed source graphics drivers (coming this fall…) and the closed source Flash player. He’s said he’s not interested in licensing proprietary codecs, so noobs videos and songs won’t play on Ubuntu.
And that’s the problem. Linux is hard for newbies, because they need a lot of non-free support stuff. You can’t include that stuff without compromising your principles. Pragmatism vs. Principles – you have to choose. If Ubuntu takes the latter route, there’s no point handing it out the clueless majority, it just won’t work for them. They have a lot of MP3s that they’ll have to wait three years to play.
Nonsense, since when has Windows been easy to install codecs, install quicktime, install divxplayer, in linux we dont need all the bloat that comes with it.
The fact of the matter is Linux is easier in many respects then Windows, Ubuntu has done a great job at doing this. So please go get a noob on windows to install codecs and get them to say it’s easy, fact is it’s not.
Well it is easy, in that you don’t need to install any. Windows comes out of the box ready to play what you want. DVDs too (with the bundled DVD player that comes with it). All those other useless formats aren’t need by normal people in the same way they don’t need windows XP to open rar files, they don’t need WMP to play DIVx movies. These are things geeks use, the kind of people who, if they need a special codec, can just go to FileForum and download a codec pack. Even that’s easy, just double click the setup programme and away it goes.
Only if they are lucky enough to pick a codec pack that doesn’t screw half of the codecs in your system, such as klite (and let’s assume it won’t be installing crapware along with them).
… to do almost nothing. No Office suite. No email. No graphics editor of any kind. Next-to-useless.
… to require you to put in four or five extra driver CDs and reboot five times before the install is finished.
… to refuse to work with any hardware older than a year or two, or even hardware still on the shelves but now out of production.
… to refuse to load drivers that aren’t “blessed by” (read paid-up-to) Microsoft.
… to catch viruses and other malware in a few minutes after you connect to the web, before you can add the required bolt-on-afterthought-security necessities.
… to restrict what you may play.
… to spy on you.
… to shut itself down because it doesn’t trust that you have paid through the nose enough for this copy.
… to make you jump through hoops trying to prove yourself worthy of its running … on your own machine!
Edited 2007-08-08 16:09
… to do almost nothing. No Office suite. No email. No graphics editor of any kind. Next-to-useless.
— Word pad does most things people need, plus it does have MS office or works with it. To most people this constitutes out of the box since it’s comes in the PC’s box. No Email? Ever heard of outlook express? Or web mail? I think Windows comes with a web browser or two. Most people don’t edit graphics, Paint fulfils all their needs.
—
… to require you to put in four or five extra driver CDs and reboot five times before the install is finished.
—
Never heard or seen of this. You sure your not talking about Linux? You do seem a bit confused
—
… to refuse to work with any hardware older than a year or two, or even hardware still on the shelves but now out of production.
… to refuse to load drivers that aren’t “blessed by” (read paid-up-to) Microsoft.
—
Again, the two above comments are not true, windows xp runs quite well on my 6 year old laptop, even running photoshop, flash and illustrator at the same time (with only 386mb ram)
—
… to catch viruses and other malware in a few minutes after you connect to the web, before you can add the required bolt-on-afterthought-security necessities.
—
This is a lie. I don’t have any viruses, nor spyware. I use windows firewall and a free av. Even when I used paid-for alternatives I never got anything. You think your OS is so much better? You may think you’re the elite of your computing world, your not. Your os could be affected by someone more skilled then you. I think you have an inferiority complex. Probably because your socially the equivalent of a spectrum 48k.
—
—
… to restrict what you may play.
… to spy on you.
… to shut itself down because it doesn’t trust that you have paid through the nose enough for this copy.
… to make you jump through hoops trying to prove yourself worthy of its running … on your own machine!
—
The last time I did any jumping through hoops was when I made the mistake of trying Linux after some idiot wrote an article claiming that this was the year of Linux.
He/she has many points
“to require you to put in four or five extra driver CDs and reboot five times before the install is finished.”
Vista does this about that yes and XP even more once you install all the chipset drivers, SP ect..
“to catch viruses and other malware in a few minutes after you connect to the web, before you can add the required bolt-on-afterthought-security necessities.”
People catch virus’s all the time, it’s a fact and the user maybe part of the problem but the platform is the ones with the holes there already.
“to restrict what you may play.”
This is true for Vista, the drivers what come with Vista(nvidia) dont support OpenGL, truely typically horrid tactics by Microsoft.
“The last time I did any jumping through hoops was when I made the mistake of trying Linux after some idiot wrote an article claiming that this was the year of Linux.”
Then dont jump on the bandwagon just because someone claims it, Use Linux to use it not because someone claims “this was the year of Linux”.
How come this smells like SCO vs open source/IBM all over again? Was it also found that Microsoft was the biggie behind SCO and their pathetic litigation to bump up stock and their otherwise sinking ship? How is this situation any different? What patents are actually in violation? Again another SCO tactic. So threaten ligitation and sign people to a protection scheme without showing the reason. Is this not what the RIAA also favor with their spamming of litigation without proof suits?
I think gangsters also call this protection insurance too right? *sigh*
When will the courts protect citizens and businesses from these corporations and special interest groups from wasting the time of the courts and businesses and individuals?
Also what happened to the burden of proof being placed on the accuser? There are so many things wrong with this that it makes me sick…
Edited 2007-08-08 03:14
In my case at least servers that were doing DHCP or file sharing I just installed SUSE and kept some Windows Server Lic to use elsewhere in other areas.
I believe that after the deal was made I gained a newer respect for linux in the fact I didn’t feel like I was cheating on Microsoft for using Linux lol
“Microsoft has said it does disclose which patents are being violated, but only in one-on-one conversations with vendors.”
i guess whatever novell,redhat,linspire,etc saw was enough to sign an agreement with Micrsoft.
“But, someday, perhaps Microsoft will realize the approach that they have taken around media, which they have been banging on since 1997, is not working. Microsoft has not established itself as a media content channel at all. So, perhaps, they will be willing to look at alternative approaches,
really?
more accurate:
But, someday, perhaps the open source community will realize the approach that they have taken around linux,which they have been banging on since early 90’s,is not working. Linux has not established itself as a desktop content channel at all. So, perhaps, they will be willing to look at alternative approaches.
they are, they are looking at Microsoft.
Edited 2007-08-08 07:53
“i guess whatever novell,redhat,linspire,etc saw was enough to sign an agreement with Micrsoft.”
Hardly, since RedHat has signed no agreement whatsoever.
And you realize those who did were paid in return, don’t you?
Edited 2007-08-08 14:25
Just to clarify, you’re claiming that Microsoft licenses it’s IP to linux distributions by paying them to use it?
None of the companies involved is receiving money from Microsoft in exchange for the patent covenant. Quite the opposite, they are paying per-unit royalties.
Novell is receiving money in exchange for their own patent covenant since they hold patents that Microsoft potentially infringes up, and so Microsoft is paying a similar royalty to Novell. Since Windows sells more than linux, Microsoft pays more to Novell than Novell pays to Microsoft. They also have a business agreement for Microsoft to resell Suse.
But those were separate elements of a far more complex business agreement than exists with either Linspire or Xandros. For those organizations, they’re the ones sending money to Microsoft since they really have nothing in return that Microsoft needs, it’s not the other way around.
I’m amazed this guy ever got rich. He is blaming
MS for playing its cards close to the vest! That
is what you should do. They owe Linux nothing.
If MS did anything else I would be suspicious of them.
The fact they are taking the actions
they are taking tells us that Linux is a big
threat.
He’s doing something similar to what MS is doing, instead of addressing the concerns head on he is throwing out
sound bites. He is hurting the Linux community more than
Bill Gates.
“I’m amazed this guy ever got rich. He is blaming
MS for playing its cards close to the vest! That
is what you should do. They owe Linux nothing.
If MS did anything else I would be suspicious of them.”
Well, by using your own logic, you should not at all be surprised or amazed that this guy ever got rich. He is playing his “cards to the vest” too. He does not owe Microsoft anything and should be making comments like that because making such comments helps Linux generally speaking. Helping your product and pointing out the evil in your competitor brings customers to your door.
“He’s doing something similar to what MS is doing, instead of addressing the concerns head on he is throwing out sound bites. He is hurting the Linux community more than Bill Gates.”
Maybe but maybe not. One persons sound bites is another persons proof, it all depends on your perspective. However, judging by motivation, he is very interested in protecting Linux because he basically sells Linux. So when company A comes and tries to destroy your market, you will shout and let the world know of the moral bankrupcy of company A. Why? Because it will help you keep your marketshare and stay in business. Furthermore, if company B sells the same product you do, but partners with company A to destroy your market because they just aint doing so hot, you will also go public with that information. Why? Because it will help you keep your marketshare and stay in business.
I would actually be very surprised if Shuttleworth did anything other than letting this go. Fact is that Microsoft is playing dirty and trying to wedge you out of business. Why would you let that go? Fact is also that the number 2 “Enterprise” distribution has made a very poor choice that will help destroy your product and you want to not only protect your investment, but you also want to take that number 2 “Enterprise” distributions spot. Now why would you let that go?
What you label as being a “cry baby” I label as being a great business leader. Mark is not in the business of protecting Microsoft, SuSE or being a nice guy that lets everything go. He is in the business of growing his business, competing against SuSE, Microsoft, RedHat, and he is in the business of protecting his product so that he can continue making money off of it.
Edited 2007-08-08 23:24