While Microsoft may cast the Nov. 2 patent cooperation agreement it pushed on new partner Novell Inc. as a way to protect corporate users of the SUSE Linux operating system from potential lawsuits, CIOs today said they weren’t worried in the first place.
Are they worried now? Or do they think this is all just FUD?
“Or do they think this is all just FUD?”
It *is* FUD. Users don’t need any protection because they can’t be sued for patent infringement. This “protection from lawsuit” thing is an awesome publicity stunt. It’s protection from a non-existant threat.
Using a product that infringes on some patent is *not* patent infringement, creating and selling a product that infringes on patents is.
You don’t have to be Einstein to understand this. Just imagine if every consumer everywhere had to research every aspect of any product they buy to make sure it does not infringe on some patent somewhere? That would be “great” for the economy and by great i mean disastrous.
Retarded stuff like this only flies in IT. Heck, not even used-car salesmen would stoop this low.
Edited 2006-11-23 03:20
That’s because the IT and music/film industry tries to give new meanings to things that used to be clear, and by “new meanings” I mean stuff like “black is white”.
Whenever you buy something, like a used car, once the deal is over, that’s it. The car is yours to do as you please with it. The seller can’t come after you and make you agree to more crap after that, can’t take it back, can’t cripple it, can’t force you to ditch it and buy another one from him.
But not with a software kit or a music CD or a movie, oh no. Here, they try to tell you what you can and can’t do with the CD or DVD you bought, and the software will go dead on you or revoke your usage rights at the producer’s whim. They try to keep all competition from innovating or improving or producing anything new, so they can sell basically the same things over and over, for more and more money. You have to be really stupid or ignorant to take something like this.
But not with a software kit or a music CD or a movie, oh no. Here, they try to tell you what you can and can’t do with the CD or DVD you bought, and the software will go dead on you or revoke your usage rights at the producer’s whim. They try to keep all competition from innovating or improving or producing anything new, so they can sell basically the same things over and over, for more and more money. You have to be really stupid or ignorant to take something like this.
This is specific to the US. In any other country I know EULAs are actually not legal. Eg: they hold no legal value. For all I care I can install windows here and piss on their EULA. Technically I could sue them to force me to accept something which law doesn’t allow (even if I accept the EULA it’s not binding because only license terms which are binding are those you accept at the transaction, not sometime you open the box).
I think US should cut the crap and get the balls to drop patents and EULAs.
Edited 2006-11-23 09:28
What a shame I can’t mod you up, because you’re already at 5!
Microsoft – either ***PUT UP*** or ***SHUT UP***!
I don’t believe a word you’ve said about this “IP infringement” nonsense, so if you want to show that I’m wrong …..
************ PROVE IT!!!!!! ************
If you think about it, Linux and most other operating systems (FreeBSD, Solaris, and even Zeta) have some support for reading and/or writing to FAT32 and NTFS partitions. These are Microsoft patents that could be legally enforced.
Vertical and horizontal scroll bars on program windows are Microsoft patents. The task bar, start button, and system tray are patented as well. These exist in KDE, Gnome, Xfce, so on.
There are probably several other things that GNU/Linux *AND* other OS’s infringe upon. If removed usability would be effectively crippled.
Edited 2006-11-23 01:25
Several of these elements existed years before MS patented them. The patents would most likely not hold in court. MS has patented them in order to protect itself against other patent holders. It would backfire anyway. The only result would be FLOSS-projects moving from USA to european countries, Japan and other civilised areas.
Several of these elements existed years before MS patented them. The patents would most likely not hold in court. MS has patented them in order to protect itself against other patent holders. It would backfire anyway.
Tell that to RIM.
The only result would be FLOSS-projects moving from USA to european countries, Japan and other civilised areas.
Civilised? Please. The justice system in Japan and several inquisitional type European countries would not rate as civilized.
Besides, those projects would die like most GPL projects do without access to the US market.
You’re generally right, except for the Japan bit. Japanese companies are pretty much just as patent-crazy as the US companies (hell, big corporations everywhere are), and their current legislation is in favor of software patents. So Europe is pretty much the only place left holding the fort.
http://swpat.ffii.org/gasnu/jp/index.en.html
The patents would most likely not hold in court.
How many FLOSS-developers do you know that has the $5Million necessary to find out? A patent doesn’t have to “hold up in court” it just has to exist.
The only result would be FLOSS-projects moving from USA to european countries, Japan and other civilised areas.
As things stand right now it won’t be long before software patents is forced upon the rest of the world.
“How many FLOSS-developers do you know that has the $5Million necessary to find out?”
Just about every free software developer would just have to post the lawsuit motions on Groklaw to get all the support he could possibly need, if Microsoft would really try to sue him.
I think it would turn into a full-blown multi-front patent-public opinion-politic-legal war between the free software community and Microsoft.
I guess there would be several projects in USA set up to swamp the USPTO with bogus patent applications AND patent revocation requests, just to hog up USPTO resources.
At the same time prior art would be found to get rid of the Microsoft patents, while again others will be nagging their Senators and Congressmen to get rid of software and business method patents.
I think Microsoft might get some short time FUD value out of such a lawsuit, but would loose big time in the long run.
The SCO story has told Microsoft one thing: Do not threaten a seemingly loose and in-fighting community which knows how to self-organize, because the combined knowledge, power and effeciveness once they agree on working towards a common goal is hard to match by corporate structures.
Update: It looks like software patents won’t happen in european countries.
It’s more likely that USA will keep losing steam in the IT-sector, in case USA sticks with software patents. The new leader will be India, with Europa ahead of USA.
Interesting, do you have a link to something confirming that good news?
Well, it happened 1½ year ago, so it is hardly news. At the moment there is no debate in EU in regard to software patents. At July 6th, 2005 software patents was finally rejected by EU-parliament with 648 of 680 votes. And at the moment nothing happens except for some minor talks. It’ll take something like 5-10 years before the question will pop up again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4655955.stm
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39207478,00.htm
The last one containts this paragraph: “The future of the directive is currently unclear. It is possible that a revised version could be debated in the future, but back in March Charlie McCreevy, commissioner for the Internal Market, said the Commission would not resubmit a new directive if the Parliament chose to reject the current version.”
This one –> http://news.com.com/2100-1012-6118063.html
does however show that the war isn’t over. US companies and the US government is still actively trying to circumenvent international conventions and the constitutions in european countries.
>Vertical and horizontal scroll bars on program windows are Microsoft patents. The task bar, start button, and system tray are patented as well. These exist in KDE, Gnome, Xfce, so on.
That just sounds too crazy to be true. What are the patent numbers? I gotta see these…
“What are the patent numbers? I gotta see these…”
Taskbar with Start menu:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5757371.html
Couldnt find anything on the scrollbars or systray though.
The taskbar with start menu was patented in 1995-Dec-14 so it expires in 2015-Dec-14. 9 years from now.
I could seen the free GUIs being reworks for that long
to avoid it.
Those are not valid outside United States, darling
——————————————————
“If you think about it, Linux and most other operating systems (FreeBSD, Solaris, and even Zeta) have some support for reading and/or writing to FAT32 and NTFS partitions. These are Microsoft patents that could be legally enforced.
Vertical and horizontal scroll bars on program windows are Microsoft patents. The task bar, start button, and system tray are patented as well. These exist in KDE, Gnome, Xfce, so on.
There are probably several other things that GNU/Linux *AND* other OS’s infringe upon. If removed usability would be effectively crippled.”
——————————————————
And what about Mac OS X, will Microsoft sue them and every other OS too?
It’s pure FUD.
I read somewhere – sorry, I’ve forgotten where – that MS claimed that they have only ever sued ONCE over patents.
The patent thing is just a smokescreen. What they REALLY want to do, as most people so far seem to have said here, is to destroy Linux through FUD.
We have a responsibility to make sure that the people who don’t see this, get an eye-opener.
Microsoft – either ***PUT UP*** or ***SHUT UP***!
I don’t believe a word you’ve said about this “IP infringement” nonsense, so if you want to show that I’m wrong …..
************ PROVE IT!!!!!! ************
Bruce Perens admitted it:
“Let’s be truthful about software patents: there can be no non-trivial computer program, either proprietary or Free, that does not use methods that are claimed in software patents currently in force and unlicensed for use in that program.”
http://techp.org/petition/show/1
Bruce Perens admitted it:
“Let’s be truthful about software patents: there can be no non-trivial computer program, either proprietary or Free, that does not use methods that are claimed in software patents currently in force and unlicensed for use in that program.”
You trumpet that as if it only applies to OSS. If a patent war starts, MS is in the crapper too, which is not something about which you can honestly claim to be ignorant. It’s MAD (that stands for something. You should know what it is).
You trumpet that as if it only applies to OSS.
The rest of the cultists trumpet the opposite and insist there are no patent infringements in Linux and scream and call Microsoft and Novell names.
Grow up.
The rest of the cultists trumpet the opposite and insist there are no patent infringements in Linux and scream and call Microsoft and Novell names.
I’m kind of tired of reading all this “cultist” crap. If I’m a cultist just by defending my ideals and freedom, so be it.
And please, before posting crap, RTFA and RTFC. If you read most of our comments you’ll see that almost no one is claiming that there are no patents infrigements in Linux. What people want to see is where and how is Linux infringing those patents. The sources are there, just point to the code and we’ll see.
Edited 2006-11-23 11:30
I’m kind of tired of reading all this “cultist” crap. If I’m a cultist just by defending my ideals and freedom, so be it.
Agreed. You are a cultist.
And please, before posting crap, RTFA and RTFC. If you read most of our comments you’ll see that almost no one is claiming that there are no patents infrigements in Linux.
Almost no one? Every other message from the cult insists that Microsoft is lying. Ok, 9 out of 10.
What people want to see is where and how is Linux infringing those patents. The sources are there, just point to the code and we’ll see.
When lawsuits occur, surprise is helpful. Microsft doesn’t have to show you the cards on your schedule.
McSoft IS lying, HAS lied, and WILL lie!!! Why is this so unbelievable to you? Do I need to remind you of their lies?
Ballmer prays that there is indeed A patent infringement in Linux and that community can’t find it just so that he can continue to spread FUD.
//When lawsuits occur, surprise is helpful. Microsft doesn’t have to show you the cards on your schedule.//
According to this article:
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/osb/index.php/2006/11/22/if-lin…
… you are probably incorrect.
According to the comments:
“The thing that really makes this suspicious is that notice is a significant component of damages in a patent infringement action. That’s why you see patent numbers on products and packages.
If Microsoft thinks it’s sufficient to say that Linux has somehow infringed something, they are wrong. Anybody can say that about anything. It has no weight. If Microsoft actually cares about a patent recovery, not only should they provide specifics, they need to.”
… and …
“I’m not a lawyer, but I think that, if a patent holder is aware that someone is using the patent without their permission, and if they then fail to issue a “cease and desist” order, then they have waived any enforcement of the patent.”
… you are entirely incorrect.
Didn’t you notice the following bits in that blog?
“We’re not experts”
“I’m not a lawyer”
//Didn’t you notice the following bits in that blog?
“We’re not experts”
“I’m not a lawyer”//
Yes. That probably puts them only a dozen lightyears ahead of you as far as qualifications go.
Given that they qualify their statements and do not try to misrepresent themselves, they are obviously thousands upon thousands of lightyears ahead of you as far as honesty & reliability go.
OH, BTW, this person:
http://lamlaw.com/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=30
http://lamlaw.com/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=31
http://lamlaw.com/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=23
… IS a lwayer.
Edited 2006-11-24 03:20
Given that they qualify their statements and do not try to misrepresent themselves, they are obviously thousands upon thousands of lightyears ahead of you as far as honesty & reliability go.
Which doesn’t change the fact that they’re wrong. Patents are not trademarks, you do not lose them by choosing to selectively or not enforce them. This was pointed out in another unqualified post directly underneath the one you referenced. MS is under no legal obligation to disclose exactly where they feel the offending code is until they choose to file suit.
That’s the whole reason patent trolling is such an issue. People sit on patents, waiting until another company becomes successful, and then sue them.
If patents did expire due to apathetic monitoring, software patents would not be nearly the issue that they are now.
Ballmer is spewing FUD, he knows it, the press knows it, even the people he thinks he’s fooling know it. But he’s under no obligation to admit it.
OH, BTW, this person:
… IS a lwayer.
Er, yeah. And if you google for Mr. Lewis A. Mettler, Esq you’ll see he has a colorful history with an anti-Microsoft bias that would make PJ at Groklaw blush. It’s a little strange for a lawyer to assert that the deal violates the GPL when he hasn’t even seen the confidential documents describing the mechanics of what is covered and what isn’t. I’d question his objectivity. Even Moglen stated his opinion but admitted he would have to reserve judgement until he saw the agreement (which he was eventually given access to under NDA).
But aside from that, he makes no assertion that MS is legally obligated to divulge their IP beliefs.
Like I said, Ballmer’s spewing FUD. But nothing in the legal system, even Mr. Mettler’s anti-trust assertions, can force him to admit it. FUD is unfortunately legal when it’s intentionally vague and ambiguous exactly the way Microsoft’s lawyers are telling Ballmer to position it. He still hasn’t used the phrase “patent infringement” in direct reference to linux, he simply implies it with the phrase “intellectual property infringement”, which in itself is empty and devoid of legal meaning.
In fact, IBM is far more likely to scare Ballmer into moving along than the court system will. Now that IBM has thrown their two cents in, they’ve drawn an invisible line in the sand that I don’t think Ballmer will have the cajones to cross.
//But aside from that, he makes no assertion that MS is legally obligated to divulge their IP beliefs.//
Neither, you will notice, did I make any such assertion.
I would, however, suggest that from a number of other (and different, non-legal) points of view: ie “morally obligated” and “PR”, and “credibility”, Microsoft should either put up or shut up here.
//Like I said, Ballmer’s spewing FUD.//
Yep. Everyone can see this is so.
//But nothing in the legal system, even Mr. Mettler’s anti-trust assertions, can force him to admit it. FUD is unfortunately legal when it’s intentionally vague and ambiguous exactly the way Microsoft’s lawyers are telling Ballmer to position it. He still hasn’t used the phrase “patent infringement” in direct reference to linux, he simply implies it with the phrase “intellectual property infringement”, which in itself is empty and devoid of legal meaning.//
Precisely. Personally, I’d speculate Ballmer would opt for an excuse along the lines of “I said ‘IP infringement’. I meant that Linux infringes our trade secret IP”. Of course, he will omit to mention that one cannot “infringe” trade secrets by reverse engineering them, one has to steal them directly (as in spying or hacking) to be in the wrong.
//I don’t think Ballmer will have the cajones to cross.//
At some point IMO it will backfire. Probably when there is a legal challenge made to Ballmer along the lines of “enough slander/FUD already, put up or shut up”. Maybe a Lanham act claim, or somesuch.
There will be something somewhere in the legal system that can be alleged against what Ballmer has been saying. From what I understand, the Lanham act is the best bet, but there could be other approaches, possibly via anti-trust.
In any event, your assertion “But nothing in the legal system, … , can force him to admit it.” is the one and only thing in your post I would challenge.
Edited 2006-11-24 05:55
Microsoft should either put up or shut up here.
Now that Bruce Perens has admitted Linux violates patents, why not make a deal like Novell?
“Now that Bruce Perens has admitted Linux violates patents”
That’s not what he said. He said that all software violates patents. Guess what? Microsoft makes software.
“why not make a deal like Novell?”
Exactly *who* would make the deal? Linus personally?
But why would he? It’s an empty threat, consumers/end-users don’t need protection from patent infringements since they don’t infringe on patents.
Can Toyota sue you if the Ford you own is found to infringe on Toyota patents? No, because *you* didn’t create/manufacture it. Same for software.
Hell, someone could have filed a patent for compilable source code, if they’d wanted to. It doesn’t mean that the patent would be upholdable in court tho.
“Now that Bruce Perens has admitted Linux violates patents”
That’s not what he said. He said that all software violates patents. Guess what? Microsoft makes software.
Sure. Ands that why many companies enter into cross-licensing agreements.
Perens admitted Linux violates patents. You will feel
better to admit it, andin turn it may help you understand why Novell made this deal.
Can Toyota sue you if the Ford you own is found to infringe on Toyota patents? No, because *you* didn’t create/manufacture it. Same for software.
But cars can be recalled. Software can be “recalled” as well. NTP tried to get RIM’s blackberry “recalled” during their patent lawsuit.
Many businesses had to make contingency plans for what would happen if their Blackberries stopped functioning.
Tivo, for example, might have to shut down if they violate some of Microsoft patents. That would affect Tivo’s customers because they would end up with a box without a program guide, for example.
Microsoft might prefer a decent royalty.
Business that rely on software want to know that the company selling the software is not violating patents that could up getting that software “recalled”.
Perens admitted Linux violates patents.
Practically every piece of software made in the world including Windows steps on somebody’s patents in the United States, as long as they allow them to patent things like “entering data in a tabulated form.”
Microsoft might prefer a decent royalty.
“Might?”
Microsoft would like to patent everything to do with free thinking, but something tells me they’d have trouble making it worthwhile.
Business that rely on software want to know that the company selling the software is not violating patents that could up getting that software “recalled”.
Seems you are unaware that Microsoft violates literally thousands of IBM’s patents. Nobody wants to start a patent war – everyone will lose.
“Now that Bruce Perens has admitted Linux violates patents”
That’s not what he said. He said that all software violates patents. Guess what? Microsoft makes software.
Sure. Ands that why many companies enter into cross-licensing agreements.
Perens admitted Linux violates patents. You will feel
better to admit it, andin turn it may help you understand why Novell made this deal.
Can Toyota sue you if the Ford you own is found to infringe on Toyota patents? No, because *you* didn’t create/manufacture it. Same for software.
But cars can be recalled. Software can be “recalled” as well. NTP tried to get RIM’s blackberry “recalled” during their patent lawsuit.
Many businesses had to make contingency plans for what would happen if their Blackberries stopped functioning.
Tivo, for example, might have to shut down if they violate some of Microsoft patents. That would affect Tivo’s customers because they would end up with a box without a program guide, for example.
Microsoft might prefer a decent royalty.
Business that rely on software want to know that the company selling the software is not violating patents that could up getting that software “recalled”.
(Isn’t it amazing? Modded down to -2 for the above! The Cult is sooooo thin skinned)
Edited 2006-11-26 01:36
“But cars can be recalled.”
Sure, but you, the customer, do not HAVE to return your car if you don’t want to.
This is completely different from being sued and liable for patent infringements.
And you are?
Better a cult of thousands than a cult of 1.
I bet even a lot of die-hard MS supporters would run a mile from this one.
Are you Steve Ballmer, by any chance?
You trumpet that as if it only applies to OSS.
The rest of the cultists trumpet the opposite and insist there are no patent infringements in Linux and scream and call Microsoft and Novell names.
Grow up.
Microsoft – either ***PUT UP*** or ***SHUT UP***!
I don’t believe a word you’ve said about this “IP infringement” nonsense, so if you want to show that I’m wrong …..
************ PROVE IT!!!!!! ************
Bruce Perens admitted it:
“Let’s be truthful about software patents: there can be no non-trivial computer program, either proprietary or Free, that does not use methods that are claimed in software patents currently in force and unlicensed for use in that program.”
http://techp.org/petition/show/1
(Out of curiousity, why did I get modded down for quoting Bruce Perens? … Is is it sacrilige in the cult for non-cultists to quote cult leaders?)
Edited 2006-11-23 17:22
Instead of continuing your pissfests about this, get the major Linux vendors and FSF to talk to MS to either get a list of infringements or get a blanket statement that MS won’t sue them over any possible infringement, if there is any.
Deny all you want that there are infringements, it’s highly unlikely that Linux distributions are free of any MS patents.
Now, if MS WANTED to sue, they would have done that long ago. I guess it’s hard for people to understand that they don’t WANT to do that.
Get an agreement or something and be done with it instead of continuing the pissfest.
Deny all you want that there are infringements, it’s highly unlikely that Linux distributions are free of any MS patents.
We could probably find one or two. But thing is, we could easily strip some or most of them out and live with it and let MS loose every possible grip they eventually might think they had, and on the other hand, we could probably also identify some parts in MS products that could be questionable. Probably nobody wants a patent war here, the tactic is probably to implant some amount of doubt and try to squeeze the rein a bit to show who’s the gang leader here, and eventually grab some money.
I’m all for continuing it.
Nothing says ‘we hate our customers’ like threatening to sue them like Ballmer repeatedly did in the last weeks.
Microsoft’s worst enemy is Microsoft’s hubris. We should keep suppling them with as much rope as they need to hang themselves.
Well, I know that such an agreement would have to look like: Redhat, IBM, OSDL, … agree they will not sue Microsoft or their customers for patent infringement.
In turn, Microsoft agrees to not sue any distributor or user of FOSS for distributing or using said FOSS.
The FSF and many others would definitely agree to such a contract, but Microsoft will not, because everyone else could still sue THEM.
Microsoft does not enter into contracts which leave them at a slight disadvantage. Microsoft also does not trust someone, they are a sad lot.
Well, there are no infringements in Denmark
Not only have we Free Speech – we have also Free Software
(However, we don’t have fireproof embassies).
I’m still at a loss on this point. What have Microsoft gain from this? There never gonna hear the end of this! Where living in an echo chamber that is the internet, and they’ve just shot yourself in the foot!
Hey, Microsoft give Ballmer the boot, and stop this nonsense!
It’s probably a long term strategy, and the finer points are only known to them. From what’s immediately apparent, they are attempting several things at once.
First, a sort of “divide and conquer” strategy: get some famous Linux vendors to side with you in order to scare and confuse competing open-source businesses and their clients. Hurt FLOSS where it counts: in the claim it can be a viable commercial model (not with actual facts, with FUD, but it can be effective). Most importantly, no matter the outcome, they’ve now gained a foothold in the business world of GNU/Linux.
Second, muddle the “open source” concept by appearing to play nice and accept it. They’re actively trying to make people forget the concept of “free software”, particulary the “free” part, and to get them, individuals and businesses alike, to percieve “open source” as a sort of curiosity, a nice thing but not serious in the long term. “Sure we like open source, little girl”, they say smiling patronizingly as they pat the head of the 5yr old wide eyed kid. That’s the sort of image they want open source to have.
Third, should the deal with Novell bomb after all, the ones who get it in the neck worst are Novell and SuSE Linux. And let’s admit it, SuSE has done some nice things for Linux. Regardless of their business decisions, it will be sad to see one of the big Linux distro destroyed, especially in this manner. But they’ve betrayed the free community (although it’s not too late to apologize and come back), and after the deal falls down they’ll be parias in the corporate world too (for purely business reasons, such as stock falling rock bottom). Nowhere left to turn at that point.
Fourth, and this is just speculation, they may attempt injecting their own technologies in well known FLOSS software packages, in their well known embrace and extend style. Prime candidates are the Open Office and Mono projects. Open Office because the developers are keen on incorporating stuff that will make OO more compatible with MS Office (such as better VBS support). Mono is easy, because Novell controls it at least partially. For now the Samba team has taken a proactive defensive stance and will probably be hard to get in there. I’m still waiting to see if Microsoft will have the nerve to offer drivers and DRM support to the kernel team, and if Linus will be so blind as to put functionality before the free software ideology and try to accept them.
Edited 2006-11-23 09:42
Yeah Ballmer is bad for MS but he isn’t that bad for anybody else. It’s good they have a guy like Ballmer there and I don’t believe anybody could kick him anyway, he is too far up in the food chain. The thing is that Ballmer has a huge ego and isn’t really a stratigic talker and mostly says what he thinks not like the empty “lawyer PR talk” his company usually gives away to public. It’s alyways a good clue to what ppl in MS really think. I mean just look at this guys ability to control himself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc“>
Edited 2006-11-23 13:29
I’d be suspect as to what’s going on here. Ultimately we do not know what Microsoft and/or Novell are planning or doing behind the scenes here.
Does that mean there’s something legally or financially to fear for Linux vendors? Perhaps, perhaps not. Microsoft wouldn’t have done this if not for a reason. You can be sure of that.
Frankly, the whole “OS Wars” has been going on for so long it’s lost its worth. There’s been so much FUD from both camps that I feel it’s lost its impact and I simply move onto the next article whenever I see something that is likely to incite it.
Edited 2006-11-23 00:46
The moment you stop caring is when you lose. It’s exactly what those who spread FUD want you to do: to step aside and let them do whatever they please.
Well there’s a strong difference between not caring about what somebody says on a message board or in an online article, verses caring through looking objectively at the data you have and making as best as possible an informed decision about what you implement.
Dear Steve Ballmer, please do your best to keep threatening to sue your own customers unless those customers run SUSE Linux in their hybrid environments. You’re doing great.
Threatening one’s own customers worked perfectly as a revenue model for SCO’s Darl McBride, after all, so … knock yourselves out, guys.
Edited 2006-11-23 02:29
I would like to see a listing of all the code MS claims infringes on their IP. Does it exist anywhere? If you are going to make a claim you need to have documented proof.
Edited 2006-11-23 02:37
First a little historical refresher…
In 2003 Steve Ballmer wrote a memo identifying Linux as a threat, and how companies such as IBM turning to Linux as part of their business strategy was lending credence to the platform. http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-1013124.html Around this time frame Novell acquired Ximian, and thus SUSE Linux. Microsoft has had a hate-hate relationship with Novell since the days of “Operation Visine”, and with this acquisition ‘Big Red’, gained a new lease on life. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1728103,00.asp
After(?) this acquisition Microsoft launched the ‘Get the Facts’ campaign and made a bid for Novell users (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1733353,00.asp and http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1728103,00.asp). Neither of these bids met with extraordinary success and we fast-forward to this year.
I’ll cite two articles from this year, from OSNews, http://www.osnews.com/story.php/15029/First-Look-Novells-SLED-10 and http://www.osnews.com/story.php/15412/SLED-10-Is-a-Linux-Distro-Win… , and so we have a serious contender for the workstation. The difficulty with competing with any Linux distribution is that you’re not really dealing with a single business entity, but rather a business distribution channel for the work of thousands of individual contributors, that you simply can’t get to, but which is the life blood of OSS. Cut blood flow to the the brain and an organism dies. Novell has not exactly been swimming in positive publicity for their recent deal. If developers become leary of contributing code, or users who wanted to break away from dealing with Microsoft feel betrayed, then Microsoft has successfully weakened a resurging competitor and opened the way for better adoption of their late offering, Vista.
This is way of MS using patents/litigation, without actually resorting to image damaging litigation, and it spreads the FUD.
Edited 2006-11-23 03:25
“weakened a resurging competitor”
Novell? Resurgant? Have you been looking at their revenue statements?
No one buys into what Novell is selling because, imo, no one really knows… they are an open source company, but they have a whole suite of applications that are proprietary… they’re a proprietary company, but they’re leveraging open source….
They made Netware look bad by pushing another operating system on customers…. and even if its not, most decision makers wont’ care about that so much…
Novell just seems to be jumping on any band wagon that looks like it could make them a buck.
Novell will never be successful again until they commit to ONE strategie, and “mixed source’ doesn’t count as comitting.
Netware didn’t need any help looking bad, it did that all it’s own, by having inconsistant toolsets, a half-assed LDAP implementation and reliant on obsolete filesystems
“several inquisitional type European countries would not rate as civilized. ”
do you really prefer the US system where the richer wins ? do you call that civilized ?
Only lawyers are enjoying this system/Tax, you cannot do anything without them and it is a terrible waste of money, energy for the society at whole.
Remember when SCO started the lawsuit on UNIX? Aside that we knew from the first moment that something stunk and heavily, at the moment non many noticed a curios side effect of that lawsuit.
In fact in that time the licence contract on NT was expiring and companies had to decide what to do with their IT dept. Surprise surprise? After that lawsuit company bought Server 2003 as their OS.
What happens now You Ask? Easy, Vista is coming out in January and they have to make SURE that even if companies wait for the first service pack, they do NOT do something that HORRIBLE as waiting for the XP contract to end ( somwhere between Juni and end of this year if I’m not mistaken) and pass to Kubuntu ( God I so would love that, but it will probably be SUSE or Mandriva in France).
I so Do love Ballmer, he is such charming Gentleman.
Not quite.
SCO claims where outright lies to gain some temporary benifit. They tried to pull legal scheme, mudding waters and creating some kinda “legal precedent”.
This is not the same with Microsoft this time – software patents are real and there is possibility that Linux and systems build around it violates several of them. HOWEVER, what is not said, that patents and ligititation about them doesn’t work that way – first, you should proove that developer of code who violates patents did it knowingly, t.i. he is AWARE about CONCRETE patent (not about some posibility). And you should inform developer. And only if he doesn’t remove code, then you can go to court.
Yes, Microsoft overblows posibility of real loss of Linux user in court (which is really not that possible), but in some way, it has some shreds of truth. What we MUST address instead of Novell bashing and calling Microsoft a evil empire, that patents doesn’t work that way that you can troll about it everyone, going around and requiring money. Yes, it worked in the past, but only because lawyers told CEOs to just pay, ignoring that you can sway away patent troll easily with just complying with request removing patented code.
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Send_Steve_Balmer_Monopoly_Money_to_Pay_…
Everybody but one company and a half understand, that operating systems are converging, becoming commodity and need to be seen as a precious social platform for the next generation. Free software is putting an end to unhealthy business practices in IT and the customers will only benefit.
Microsoft will try to prolong this battle, but their next big operating system will probably be some kind of BSD with custom GUI and DotNET platform, and they’ll try to capitalize on that. Sound familiar, but do they have a chance?
It’t tough for a big, fat, odd shark in a sea of small companions, when it starts bleeding.
Anyone who knows me knows I follow the teachings of Satyagraha. It’s Gandhi’s socially active `Truth Force` for those who don’t know.
The worst thing to do to a tyrant, yes I said a tyrant, is to completely ignore them. Do not to do as they order or demand.
Tyrants, political or corporate, always fall.
In the case of McSoft (avoiding a trademark here) and its corporate idiot (mentioning no names) the best we can do is to simply refuse to comply with any of McSoft’s orders and demands.
I have no fear of McSoft, its imperial tyrant, or any of it corporate idiots! McSoft contributes `zero` to my world and I can function completely without it.
In fact, I make an excellent living without it – hint.
Edited 2006-11-23 16:24
Well, the whole thing is that Novell has a patent for Ribbon UIs, 🙂
PS. I’m just spreading FUD, but don’t blame me, MS started it first.
Edited 2006-11-23 16:39
Honestly.. does Novell have such a patent? O_o
In that case… Can I please have the patent for breathing? It’s sort of my invention you know
Several of these elements existed years before MS patented them. The patents would most likely not hold in court. MS has patented them in order to protect itself against other patent holders. It would backfire anyway.
Tell that to RIM.
The only result would be FLOSS-projects moving from USA to european countries, Japan and other civilised areas.
Civilised? Please. The justice system in Japan and several inquisitional type European countries would not rate as civilized.
Besides, those projects would die like most GPL projects do without access to the US market.
What I think he meant was, “you owe us for being such a big greed driven evil monopoly that it drove you to elevate a hobbyist os clear into the main stream and kick our ass”, and if so he’s right. If you had managed and maintained windows properly there wouldn’t even be any room for such a thing. Thanks.
What I think he meant was, “you owe us for being such a big greed driven evil monopoly that it drove you to elevate a hobbyist os clear into the main stream and kick our ass”, and if so he’s right. If you had managed and maintained windows properly there wouldn’t even be any room for such a thing.
In 2000, Unix had 53% of Server revenue and Windows had 30% and “Other” had 17% and Linux had .6%.
In 2006, it was Windows in the lead with 37%, Unix 2nd at 30%, “Other” at 23% and Linux at 11.8%.
The server market had also jumped from 5.7 billion to 13 billion.
Clearly the big loser was Unix. A lot of the lost Unix business went to Linux. Some of the lost Unix revenue went to Windows. Probably some to the Other category (Mainframes).
And people dispute my contention that Linux cherry picked the easy Unix wins! Ha!
Edited 2006-11-23 21:30
You have to be carefull about the terms you use. When you mention revenue, do you really mean that? because Linux is free, unless you buy support (a small fraction of the market) then most linux installs will not be registered in revenue counts.
You have to be carefull about the terms you use. When you mention revenue, do you really mean that? because Linux is free, unless you buy support (a small fraction of the market) then most linux installs will not be registered in revenue counts.
IDC measures factory server revenue:
“IDC presents data in factory revenue to determine market-share position. Factory revenue represents those dollars recognized by multi-user system and server vendors for ISS and upgrade units sold through direct and indirect channels and includes the following embedded server components: Frame or cabinet and all cables, processors, memory, communications boards, operating system software, other bundled software and initial internal and external disk shipments.”
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp;jsessionid=LD4Y3LKO15YEWCQJAFDCFEYKBE…
Gartner uses a slightly different approach, but the numbers are close.
“Rather than count factory revenue, Gartner estimates the actual amount of revenue that end users spend on servers, including the portion of sales that go to the channel.”
So those numbers don’t actually reflect anything to do with user share.
NotParker, thats really enough… First IDC, then Gartner…
And we have already pointed out that revenue counts aren’t at all useful. I can’t think of anything to say about Gartner, esp since we know its revenue sources…
Anyway, please do stop it. I’m actually going to be surprised to see your comments above 0 rating. Please.
And if you are going to post off-topic, here or elsewhere, the majority of the OSNews community will continue to mod you down (though you aren’t off-topic this time)
NotParker, thats really enough… First IDC, then Gartner…
And we have already pointed out that revenue counts aren’t at all useful. I can’t think of anything to say about Gartner, esp since we know its revenue sources…
You can fantasize all you like. But business people pay large sums to IDC and Gartnet for their studies and have fait in the methodology.
Anyway, please do stop it. I’m actually going to be surprised to see your comments above 0 rating. Please.
All my comments get modded down because the cult is thin skinned. They REALLY HATE the well referenced ones. It drives them bonkers!
And if you are going to post off-topic, here or elsewhere, the majority of the OSNews community will continue to mod you down (though you aren’t off-topic this time)
And I’ll repost. Because the cultists in the “community” hate anything that causes them to think. They prefer regurgitation of the cult leaders sayings. Kind of like Maoists.
Edited 2006-11-26 01:36