Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Jun 2007 15:01 UTC, submitted by AdministratorX
Microsoft In its second such agreement this week, Microsoft has struck a deal under which it will extend amnesty to a company that's using what the software maker claims is patented Microsoft intellectual property embedded in the open source Linux computer operating system. Under a deal with LG Electronics, disclosed late Wednesday, Microsoft will forgo any Linux-related patent claims against the South Korean electronics manufacturer. In return, Microsoft will gain access to certain intellectual property produced by LG.
Thread beginning with comment 246456
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: hold water
by twenex on Fri 8th Jun 2007 23:36 UTC in reply to "hold water"
twenex
Member since:
2006-04-21

Xandros and Novell both compete in the same area as Microsoft, and both can benefit from interoperability with Microsoft products.

(Yet another) something that should make you hoot with laughter if you know anything about the history of Linux. Linux developers have paid attention to "interoperability with Microsoft" since day one - it's Microsoft that has historically gone to great lengths to make sure anyone - not just Linux users - who wants to interoperate with them has to continually pay catch-up.

Could it be that the patents actually hold any water?

Again, events in the wider world provide a clue. (A) The US is the only jurisdiction that matters that currently allows software patents, (B) The Supreme Court of the United States recently cast down on the validity of the vast majority of software patents. Therefore, until they are proven otherwise I would say that any claims made by anyone on any software patent granted in the US are suspect, until proven otherwise. And that's without factoring in the Microsoft (lack of) credibility factor.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: hold water
by PlatformAgnostic on Sat 9th Jun 2007 06:40 in reply to "RE: hold water"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I really don't understand where you get these "catch-up" ideas. Windows interoperates with old versions of itself. If the Samba folks (or the OOo or any other group that tries to interoperate with microsoft's stuff) made their software correctly, it would just behave as an old protocol version and do the right thing, just as Office and Windows does.

I think OSS users need to realize that OSS devs are frankly not that interested in becoming compatible with Microsoft. It's not fun and requires a high level of skill, so it's just one of those things that doesn't get done. Microsoft could do it when they needed to because money is an even better motivator than fun.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: hold water
by twenex on Sat 9th Jun 2007 09:05 in reply to "RE[2]: hold water"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I really don't understand where you get these "catch-up" ideas. Windows interoperates with old versions of itself. If the Samba folks (or the OOo or any other group that tries to interoperate with microsoft's stuff) made their software correctly, it would just behave as an old protocol version and do the right thing, just as Office and Windows does.

I really don't understand where you get these ideas. Windows and/or Microsoft's Windows programs often don't interoperate with old versions of themselves - Vista drivers, programs, and Word 97 anyone?

As Jeremy Allison stated in court, if Microsoft released the specs to it's "Common" "Internet" "Filesystem", or simply stopped continually changing it, Samba would just behave correctly and do the right thing, just as Office and Windows do.

I think you need to realise that OSS devs are frankly very interested in becoming compatible with Microsoft. It's not fun and requires a high-level of skill because Microsoft are always making gratuitous changes, so it's just one of those things that doesn't get done quickly. (Jeremy Allison himself said that Linux should be looking to create a directory service which uses a database instead of lists.) Microsoft could do it when they needed to because, er, our protocols are open, theirs and aren't and they are, er, theirs.

For a "Platform Agnostic" you seem ready to give Microsoft a helluva lot of credit they don't deserve. Maybe you should ditch platform-agnostic for platform-knowledgeable.

Reply Parent Score: 3