Groklaw reports that a company called IP Innovation, LLC, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Novell and Red Hat. Groklaw goes into black helicopter mode, trying to find a tie between this IP Innovation thing and Microsoft - and it finds it too. A few ex-Microsoft employees now work at IP Innovation. Do with it as you please.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: reasonable former employment
Member since:2005-10-02
Try again. And this time without grammatical errors that renders your post meaningless.
Mm, Am ?
Who is defending the Open Source world? The patent troll company? Or Red Hat or Acacia Research Corporation (owner of the patent troll company)? Who is making more damage to the free world than MS itself?
Your post in unclear.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-12-15
Member since:2006-01-12
Member since:2005-08-11
" Oh well, it'll be fun to see the microserfs in here going in defense mode instantly. Including OSN-staff. "
You may be right, but at this point, there is no evidence.
I worked at one university for 8 years doing tech support, now I work at another university doing tech support. Does that mean I am a spy? That I have taken secrets from my old employer and given them to my new one?
No it means I changed jobs. I need more evidence that what Groklaw is giving before I believe any of it.
Member since:2005-10-02
No, it doesn't mean you are a spy, because no "coincidences" have taken place.
However, if you had worked at University A for 8 years and switched to University B and it was found that University A suddenly knew a lot about what was going on internally in the tech department at University B - then we'd have a "coincidence" centered around you.
But since there is no coincidence, your former work place is completely irrelevant.
Member since:2006-06-21
There is such a thing as common sense, or Occam's Razor, or "if it walks and qualks like a duck..." and so on.
The fact that there are two ex-Microsoft employees working for IP Inovation is the least significant of the circumstances. People should read more than just the summary before they talk.
Microsoft has it in for open source and free software in general and Linux in particular. They are threats to its business and even more dangerous, its very business model, because they seek to empower the consumer and undermine all the techniques that are used to tie them in: vendor lock-in, software patents, monopoly tactics, obscuring formats and protocols, DRM, DMCA.
Microsoft has a long history of FUD attacks against anything having to do with FOSS.
Microsoft has tried to attack Linux under copyright pretexts by sponsoring SCO and making it do the dirty job for it.
The things are getting grim. GPLv3 is out and it limits anti-freedom business tactics even more than ever. Microsoft is having a hard time defending itself from monopoly suits, ODF is a menace on the entire business model of its Office suite, Vista's future is not clear, worldwide governments are asking for interoperability, open source and open formats.
Only days before, Ballmer goes on to state veiled threats against Red Hat. That after Microsoft has long now insisted that "Linux infringes on its patents".
And now the first patent lawsuit comes out, as expected, not from Microsoft itself, but from a patent troll. The target is Red Hat and Novell, which is very curious. Patent trolls act by buying patents and trying to extort money from companies with deep pockets. So why not Microsoft? Or IBM? Or Sun? They're much richer than Red Hat.
Why Microsoft isn't attacking directly is very clear. If this blows in their face, it helps if they can claim they had nothing to do with it (see SCO). And second, they can be counter-sued for patents, which would result in a stalemate; whereas IP Inovation are a patent troll and such trolls are careful not to infringe on anything, because they don't produce anything, they're just in it for the lawsuits.
The tendency is clear. Attack not the FOSS developers and groups, which are non-profit, but try to kill companies who make money from Linux. It will both get you money and will spread fear about using Linux comercially.
It's a duck, make no mistake.
Member since:2005-07-06
http://skepdic.com/posthoc.html
Member since:2005-10-02
The post hoc fallacy does not apply to this situation, since the assumption is not merely based on sequence, but on the context and the details of each event.
The post hoc fallacy ONLY applies IF assumptions are made SOLELY on the basis of the sequence of events. Your use of the fallacy here is a fallacy in it self.
And no, coincidences do not happen. Coincidences are merely a term for events we either do not understand or do not want to understand.
Member since:2007-09-17
dylansmrjones:
You seem to telling everything with so much confident as if you know exactly this happened. This is what I call guilty until proven innocent way of justice.
Sorry but I don't share your views. I don't believe that IP phone is suing Redhat because Microsoft funded it.
How do you even know that Microsoft's employee perceived this case and it was not one of the already working employees.
Edited 2007-10-12 16:56
Member since:2005-10-02
)
Member since:
2005-10-02
Naah.. there are no such things as coincidences.
July: A former Microsoft boss is hired.
Beginning of October: A former Microsoft boss is hired.
Beginning of October: Steve Ballmer, Microsoft, threatens to sue Red Hat over patents.
A week later in October. The company hiring two Microsoft bosses sues Red Hat over patents.
Oh well, it'll be fun to see the microserfs in here going in defense mode instantly. Including OSN-staff.
EDIT: Add to that the fact Microsoft sponsored SCO's suits against IBM, Red Hat and Novell. One can do whatever he wants to dismiss it as "coincidences" (though no such thing exists) - but there are an awful lot of these "coincidences" (again, coincidences do not exist - they are just a term for something that fits together too well and cannot be explained without having to accept an unpleasant truth).
Edited 2007-10-12 14:55 UTC