Microsoft Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates said the intellectual property battle between SCO and IBM is hurting the business of Linux. Gates said the SCO controversy has exposed a fundamental weakness of Linux–that the General Public License (GPL) makes it difficult for companies to engage in the cross-licensing deals that have become standard in the software industry. That’s a big Achilles heel, Gates said.
Gates on Linux, IPs, GPL, SCO and More
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
From the text:
However, Gates said intellectual property from SCO and other companies–including Microsoft–has found its way into the code.
“There’s no question that in cloning activities, IP from many, many companies, including Microsoft, is being used in open-source software,” Gates said. “When people clone things, that often becomes unavoidable.”
That statement makes the whole article much more interesting to read, I believe…
Hmm.. When I think of people I would trust in there thoughts of the GPL, Billy is just not one of them.. Why would you ask that guy what he thinks of open source.. That would be like asking the Taliban what they think of the US.
No matter how you think of Gates, he is a very knowledgable person. He didn’t make it where he is today by being an idiot or by being a lazy bum. His opinion counts, as much as anyone’s elses and with his experience in the industry, he can often offer valuable insight.
Bill gats hates Linux, his insight is buying is products and making him more rich. Who CARES!
I don’t believe that his insight on the matter on that article was like that at all. I believe he was truthful to his beliefs about the issues at hand. I suggest you actually read the article and think hard.
If Bill Gates is making allegations that code from Windows is in OSS projects like Linux, then such statements could serve to inflate the stock price of Microsoft. If he is flat-out lying, then there should be severe penalties for doing so. Just look at Martha Stewart.
For those not following the Martha Stewart case, she had made statements to the effect that she was innocent, thus keeping the price of her company afloat…and she got into major trouble for making those statements.
If the head of a company that has a fiduciary responsibility to his stockholders is going to accuse the competition of IP theft, then he has an ethical responsibility to prove it or to shut up.
Give me a break Rude Turnip. What Gates was implying was that when you copy commercial apps, you end up infringing on patents. As he said, it is unavoidable most of the time. And I agree. And I didn’t need Gates to tell me that. It is a true fact. It happens very often, but companies most of the time choose to not sue open source projects, for various reasons (mostly having to do with their good company name ending up being the ridicoulous of every forum on the web and be the center of hatred).
ELQ, I would recomend that you see the movie “Pirates of Silicon Valley”.
Bill Gates made it where he is today based on lies and dirty tricks. He has copied and stealed other peoples IP himself so his FUD stinks. When you read what he says you are not reading his opinion you are reading PR-Talk. Thats a big difference.
The biggest threat to Microsoft is its bad reputation. There are many companies who would choose to make business with another software company if they had a choise.
Everyone knows that Microsoft screws you if the have a chance since they know that you can’t flee to someone else.
No matter how you think of Gates, he is a very knowledgable person.
However, he is not a trustworthy person. If you ask him about his competition, you can expect an answer full of FUD.
that Linux is an IP violator because of actual stolen code, or because of having work-alike programs/code? The latter to me is just ridiculous. Patents, etc. on a generic behavior are retarded – it’s stupid to reward and allow monopolizing of obvious behaviors. Of course, the US patent office hasn’t figured that out yet.
Nothing more then PR hype and marketing tactics/FUD. Hey if you hate Linux and you think that it sucks then I guess this article is for you.
how could any OSS project steal windows code when they never seen it? simular function does not equal exact same code. now how can we prove that MS isn’t stealing code.
“What Gates was implying was that when you copy commercial apps, you end up infringing on patents. As he said, it is unavoidable most of the time.”
My position still stands then…he is accusing people of IP infringement (patent infringement specifically) and not providing any backing to his statement.
>how could any OSS project steal windows code when they never seen it
Nobody saying anything about stealing code. We are talking about patents here, not code.
The author of the article wrote, “Under the GPL, all tweaks and applications developed for the operating system must be released to the community.” That’s obviously not true, but it’s certainly the sort of thing that would scare people away.
Gates is quoted as saying, “Linux is a form of Unix, like FreeBSD was, and the open-source approach is valuable for certain types of development.” Like FreeBSD *was*? I’m sure that’s news to the team.
“Give me a break Rude Turnip. What Gates was implying was that when you copy commercial apps, you end up infringing on patents. ”
Like if I make a word processor to allow certain functions that you might have in wordpad ? So are you saying that having a similar application that behaves in the same manner is infringing on IP patents ?
Or are you talking about actual code stolen line by line ? YOu need to clearer on this. Are you saying that Linux itself has actual stolen windows code in it or that some of the applications that run on it might have some stole code in it ? Please clear this up in further detail then Gates has done.
P.S. How do we know that windows has no stolen code of it’s own from Linux or any other *NIX ?
Actually, it’s not “obviously true.” There is a lot of debate as to the difference between Unix, UNIX, unix, and who can claim to be what. Perhaps you don’t have the fine understanding of the issue to be able to comment, let alone claim that someone who has been in the industry longer than you have lived (assuming you’re a college student for argument’s sake) has no idea what he is talking about.
Since all these companies are going crazy we may as well invest in an Apple computer (with OSX) once they get the remainder of their act together.
>Like if I make a word processor to allow certain functions that you might have in wordpad ? So are you saying that having a similar application that behaves in the same manner is infringing on IP patents ?
If these behaviors are patented, then yes, it is infrigment.
>Or are you talking about actual code stolen line by line ? YOu need to clearer on this.
You need to read better. I clearly said in my previous comments that I DO NOT speak of code, I speak of patents.
> Are you saying that Linux itself has actual stolen windows code in it or that some of the applications that run on it might have some stole code in it ?
Why are you putting words to my mouth that I never said that I was clear enough that I am speaking of patents and not of code? Please read all my previous comments and think hard.
Start here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u…
It’s interesting that he makes that claim about open source software, but doesn’t make that claim about closed source software. Indeed, isn’t it safe to say that you’re just as likely (if not more so) to find IP violations in closed source software than you are in open source software? Or has Microsoft *never* attempted to clone an aplication before?
Adam
He covers that. He says that closed source companies can cross-license patents. You can’t really do that with GPL software.
Of course a company like MS thousands of patents whereas a small company might not so it isn’t always a fair fight.
>> how could any OSS project steal windows code when they never seen it
> Nobody saying anything about stealing code. We are talking about patents here, not code.
Agreed, Intellectual Property does not necessarily equate to code. Think about all those XP icons that everyone seems to include with KDE/Gnome/various distros. Look at Lycoris as a good example. That is an enforcable example of intellectual property. You don’t have to look any further than the way Apple attacks folks who distribute ports of their OS X design.
-fp
Here are some of the FUD that permeate throughout Gates speech.
“(GPL) makes it difficult for companies to engage in the cross-licensing deals that have become standard in the software industry”.
What about United Linux (without taking SCO into consideration, of course) ? Aren’t the members involved in cross-licensing deals ?
“the intellectual property and GPL issues will eventually create enough inertia to hurt Linux’s acceptance in commercial settings”
What commercial settings is Gates talking about ? Are these the software vendors or instead companies that simply use Linux ?
“One thing about the GPL is that you can’t just license IBM Linux, or Red Hat Linux,” Gates said. “The way the GPL works, if you license any Linux, you have to license all Linux.”
What does he want to license Linux for ? Why not do as everybody : take a piece of code and modify it the way you wish to, according to the GPL terms ?
“Here you have a product without R&D controls, and it’s not part of a cross-license,” he said. “Given the high level of functionality, you’d think it would have patents.
Maybe somebody should tell Gates that there are project leaders and maintainers for most products associated with Linux. As for patents, these aren’t an obligation. Bruce Schneier, for example, wrote the Blowfish algorithm, describing it as a patent-free product. It doesn’t prevent people from using that algorithm.
Gates comments stress out two things :
a) He’s confused about Linux : he still thinks it’s some kind of proprietary software developed by a competitor who doesn’t play by the rules.
b) Despite his wealth, he can’t speak freely. He still has to rehash the nonsense that his corporate friends repeat about Open Source. Contrast that to the freedom with which people like R. M. Stallman or Bruce Perens express their opinion.
All in all, considering that Microsoft is always being sued for breach of contract or piracy all over the world, I find Gates dishonesty appalling.
There are a couple of issues here:
Firstly, if there are IP violations in the GNU/Linux or *BSD kernels, then let’s see the IP right holders take issue with them. If Microsoft/SCO or other right holders are concerned, then I’m sure we’ll see something happen. Otherwise, these right holders are at risk of losing the validity of their IPR because of the implicit allowance for that IP to continue to exist in the open source OSs. As we see with Linux groups in Australia, these claims of infringing IPR made by the likes of SCO and others need to be substantiated – otherwise what we are seeing are a form of scare tactics and bullying designed to spread FUD.
Secondly, there’s nothing stopping Linux vendors from cross-licensing. Let me explain: the core GNU/Linux base is open source under GPL. However, a lot of momementum that drives GNU/Linux and *BSD are the commercial vendors who leverage the open source base and provide support/enhancements/etc. There’s nothing stopping Red Hat from developing IPR that it supplies along with GNU/Linux, yet isn’t under the GPL (e.g. LKM’s, user land applications, installers, etc). However, core GNU/Linux work must be GPL’d. Vendors could cross-license on additional parts of the distribution.
The other issue is that part of the problem is that it’s just a different ball game. Cross-licensing is the game you play with the existing closed IPR / proprietary / “play it safe” approach. This is not the game with GPL’d approach to open source. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. I don’t think there’s a problem for GNU/Linux / *BSD / open source here, but I think there’s a issue here for how companies have to adapt to the new playing field.
It almost sounds convincing coming from “goody-two-shoes” Gates, but I prefer Steve Ballmer’s take on Microsoft’s honest business practices:
“It was obviously a good year,” Ballmer said. “We were able to resolve more actions than (were) started up.”
Full source of interview:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-5054161.html
At the end of the day, you can either afford to successfully pursue companies who threaten you by allegedly infringing your IP, or you can’t and you go under for having a really good idea which you refuse to sell to a larger company which they then steal.
So which companies has Microsoft shafted over the past 2 decades by IP infringement? Answers in (very) small writing on a (very) large postcard to …
If people think he doesn’t like *NIX is a fool.
His company tried unix (MS XENIX) but he abandoned it for his own OS.
Now why would he do that since he loved this OS? Because he had/has business sense. Why compete with all the UNIX companies when you could create your own OS for small business and the home market. In this much smaller market he only needed to compete with Apple, to my knowledge.
He build an empire from this niche market. When the company became strong enough to play in others, they then joined the server market. In this market they tried and failed continuously. But have you noticed how their products have gotten better
NOTE: I did not say the best.
So in conclusion, he was smart not to attack a market he could not win in *NIX, although he loves this OS. His business would not have been able to sustain itself until today. So MS did the right thing.
NOTE2: I did not agree with their illegal business practises.
What Gates misses is Free Software people have an enormous fund of code they can use. This is the analogue of cross-licensing; if you put your code under a GPL-compatible license, you can use GPLed code.
What are you talking about – there are no MS icons used in Linux (BTW, who needs this .ico crap, anyway).
If you speak about Connectiva Crystal, the icons Stardock uses, these are in fact done by – surprise – Connectiva, a Linux distro…
Under the GPL, all tweaks and applications developed for the operating system must be released to the community. That restriction does not hold true on commercial versions.
I think that sums up alot really. That is patently false, and pun intended.
IBM makes commercial apps available on Linux. Oracle runs on Linux. These are closed source apps.
Anyway, I think the problem is more that software patents themselves are a bit off. Seriously, if someone can attempt to patent hyperlinks, Its not like there is a lot of thought going into developing some of these things. Or effort. If I make a wordprocessor for Linux, I shall probably make something that looks and feels a bit like other wordprocessing programs out there. Including MS Office. But that is the paradigm we use, its like a car with a gearbox. Imagine if car makers started asking for patents on the placement of the gearbox, sun roof, or if someone had patented rear view mirrors. Or someone patented seat belts. Or headlamps. Or the paint colors. Or maybe even patented having door handles.
The point is the interface paradigm currently imposes some of these choices on the interface designer. I mean, what other industry has people absolutely not considering what their competitors are doing. Besides, the software industry has too many peculiarities of its own, and its not helping that we exagerrate an already big problem by adding software patents to the mix.
Technologies should be patented. Like maybe a new Programming language. At the end of the day, the user is completely abstracted from that technology, so it will not matter. And if the language enables you to develop five times faster than anyone else, then that becomes your competitive advantage. Not the kind of frivolous patents we see here.
And I personally think Gates might have been referring to Mono anyway.
Gates makes some valid comments hidden among the obvious Windows plugging.
The cross-licensing issue is a real one. Given the state of patents in the US (and abroad), it seems like it is pretty much impossible to release a fully functional OS without infringing on something. Many commercial companies survive this through cross-licensing deals. This isn’t a knock against open-source, but an unfortunate reality of a broken system. Areas such as 3D graphics and multimedia codecs are particularly prone to these types of issues (mainly due to heavy R&D in these fields). I am a fairly satisfied Linux user, but I hate that you have to scour the web for “illegal” libraries to be able to play various videos on the web and play DVDs that YOU own. These types of issues may keep Linux out of the mainstream for a while if they are not addressed at some point.
who have been saying that Microsoft is behind the SCO attack on Linux and IBM. If Billy-boy thinks that Microsoft IP in present in Linux, then he should damn well step up and give DETAILS.
I don’t care of how successful or knowledgeable he may be, he’s spreading FUD. Doesn’t he have enough codemonkeys who can check the kernel source for M$ code?
It has been pointed out that many software patents are either frivolous or been granted by people who don’t really appreciate the lifecycle of code. Hence the push for reform to
said patents worldwide.
“Firstly, if there are IP violations in the GNU/Linux or *BSD kernels, then let’s see the IP right holders take issue with them. If Microsoft/SCO or other right holders are concerned, then I’m sure we’ll see something happen. Otherwise, these right holders are at risk of losing the validity of their IPR because of the implicit allowance for that IP to continue to exist in the open source OSs. As we see with Linux groups in Australia, these claims of infringing IPR made by the likes of SCO and others need to be substantiated – otherwise what we are seeing are a form of scare tactics and bullying designed to spread FUD.”
He didn’t say anything about kernels or even code. I’m thinking samba, patented algorithms etc. Dave Cutler alone owns over 20 patents on his own.
“Secondly, there’s nothing stopping Linux vendors from cross-licensing. Let me explain: the core GNU/Linux base is open source under GPL. However, a lot of momementum that drives GNU/Linux and *BSD are the commercial vendors who leverage the open source base and provide support/enhancements/etc. There’s nothing stopping Red Hat from developing IPR that it supplies along with GNU/Linux, yet isn’t under the GPL (e.g. LKM’s, user land applications, installers, etc). However, core GNU/Linux work must be GPL’d. Vendors could cross-license on additional parts of the distribution.”
What about stuff like proprietary drivers? Or anythink that has to link against GPLed (not LGPL) parts? I think Bill has a point there.
> What Gates misses …
Gates does not miss anything. Just look at the successful company and his bank account. He certainly is more informed than all of you. Just take this approach and then “think hard”. Your youthful and childish approach, Linux enthusiasts, does not help a bit.
That is what RMS was talking about for a very long time and even did not have time to code for years doing this work regarding legalities and so on. Linus, on the other hand, carefully avoided those issues and was consciously (suspiciously) apolitical in order not to anger anybody and create money, reputation, and carrer for himself.
career, sorry
> What are you talking about – there are no MS icons used in Linux (BTW, who needs this .ico crap, anyway).
> If you speak about Connectiva Crystal, the icons Stardock uses, these are in fact done by – surprise – Connectiva, a Linux distro…
You obviously didn’t spend much time reading what I had to say. I gave Lycoris as a good example of the type of possible IP infringement that MS could go after. Projects/distro’s/etc don’t have to steal the .ico file and convert it to a Linux compatible format. Simply copying the “feel” of the icons/theme is sufficient to claim infringement. Again, I’ll also refer to the way Apple attacks the OSS ports of their OS X theme.
In fact, I’ll go one further and use this as a perfect example:
http://www.lycoris.com/images/controlcenterdetail.gif
-fp
Copying is blatant and widely tolerated by the vehicle industry.
During the 70s Nissan used engines which were almost exact copies of Ford V8s and Mercedes inline 6s (many parts were directly interchangeable). No action was taken by either Ford or Mercedes
The software industry, on the other hand goes berserk when 100 <similar> lines of code are possibly incorporated in to 10 million lines of an another OS.
Time to grow up.
Software is an IP joke.
BG made his money by licensing QDOS to IBM.
QDOS was basically a copy of CP/M.
NT was based largely on VMS design.
>>
What about stuff like proprietary drivers? Or anythink that has to link against GPLed (not LGPL) parts? I think Bill has a point there.
>>
Nvidia? They distribute non GPL’d drivers for a GPL kernel. its completly possible. You dont HAVE TO GPL something just because it interacts with it.
Firstly, has anyone here actually read the article? secondly, have you ever heard of the idea of agreeing to disagree?
I don’t follow all what Gates says, however, one has to remember is is the spokes person for Microsoft and for obvious reasons, the GPL isn’t in their best interest.
Microsoft is a company based around the proprietary software model and whether you like it or not, GPL is seen by them as a threat. This threat isn’t because they “can’t steal code” as some conspiracy theorists would like to make out but the fact that in terms of operating system development, we have really hit the peak of development and as such, Linux catching up to Windows will be a whole lot easier.
Now, Microsofts “weapon” against this is “innovation” via such creations as .NET, DirectX and some new bits ‘n pieces that will be found in Windows Longhorn.
However, many of these “ideas” are nothing original. A DirectX driven interface? how is that any different to Linux implementing it via OpenGL? .NET, well, there is already Java and Mono available.
Gradually, bit by bit, unless Microsoft comes up with something COMPLETELY radical they will find themselves in a very difficult situation.
I love all this fear, uncertainty and doubt. It is truly a test of time. Now even Microsoft claims Linux has stolen IP from it. This gets interesting.
Regards,
Mystilleef
“If these behaviors are patented, then yes, it is infrigment.”
Can you please give me an example of a MS product/applications with patented behaviors that OSS gang have infringed upon ? What sort of behaviors would you be able to patent ?
“If these behaviors are patented, then yes, it is infrigment.”
You are not serious on this one, or are you?
YOU CAN NOT PATENT BEHAVIOURS !!!!! Otherwise Apple would have won the case against MS in the early nineties…..
And yes, Bill Gates is his on enemy. He is not stupid, no, but he is a big deceiver and walks over dead bodies to get more money and power. He certainly is not trustworthy
Nvidia? They distribute non GPL’d drivers for a GPL kernel. its completly possible. You dont HAVE TO GPL something just because it interacts with it.
Yes, and don’t they use some sort of kernel module just so they can link the driver against the kernel? Is it worth the added development cost and time just to go around the gpl? for hardware giants like nvidia maybe, but for smaller companies who knows.
“Now even Microsoft claims Linux has stolen IP from it. This gets interesting.”
Why do you think MS linenced code from SCO? Now they panick because SCO is going nowhere with their stupid claims and allegations. MS went to bed w/- SCO hoping they can destroy OSS without getting bad publicity themselves. There is no other reason why MS licensed SCO code before all of this mess started.
BTW, I reckon the IT industry has gone bananas anyway. Now they want to patent behaviours …. give me a break! Fortunatly people in other (much more important) industries show more common sense, otherwise we’d still live in caves….
>>”What Gates was implying was that when you copy commercial apps, you end up infringing on patents. As he said, it is unavoidable most of the time.”
>>
And what exactly do you mean by “copying”? Do you mean, copying code, or copying functionality, the same way MS copies functionality from Netscape, Aple, Xerox, and one million others? This whole thing is simply ridiculous, and in any case, Bill Gates is the last person who would have any credibility on this issue. Microsoft hasn’t just copied functionality, they have intentionally stolen other people’s code one million times over.
The shoe is on the other foot now, M$ haters.
M$ has done their time, been the defender in court. Now it’s Linux’s turn.
And being a US Company, M$ will get some favors in US Courtrooms vs. foreigners like Torvalds.
You may laugh or ignore, but watch out, it’s obvious Linux will soon be facing even more lawsuits. Have fun defending them.
Gates does not miss anything. Just look at the successful company and his bank account. He certainly is more informed than all of you.
I probed your entire post, and all you talk about are personalities. “Gates, RMS, Linus” — think for yourself. Until then, get the hell off this board. Character analysis is boring.
Oh, and turn off that TV as well until you stop letting others think for you.
In research, and developement?
Anyone else think that buying SCO could cost that much? I mean they are going into court soon against IBM, and not many people like them, but they could be about to end Linux… unlikely, but Microsoft seems to like there chances…
Maybe I’m just high, but this just leaped at me, like, umm, since when did Microsoft do research and developement that didn’t include buying someone?
I am gonna stop rambling…
No I’m not…
I mean, System V and intellectual property related prolly could be estimated at that much. To buy, given the current events SCO getting them selves into… They might actually be pretty smart.
If they are purchased for $6.8 Billion, then Microsoft owns Unix, and could use it in marketing against Linux. That would definatly hurt. And if Microsoft ports Unix to Windows, I know most of the current breed of Linux noob’s would go back to Windows in this scenario in a heart beat. But then, who really cares? Well, in the current state of Linux, and the scources for code atm, thats alot of people! Most seem to care about user base only. That makes sense though. They will bring there product to whatever market seems like it could make them money. Thats why Microsoft has the most programs, cus thats where most of the people are…
This IMO would be perfectly OK for most GNU people, but the general population wouldn’t be too impressed. I think most would agree oss has the tools, but would they get much better with no users? I dunno, I forgot my point, I think I am really done now
“example of the type of possible IP infringement that MS could go after. Projects/distro’s/etc don’t have to steal the .ico file and convert it to a Linux compatible format. Simply copying the “feel” of the icons/theme is sufficient to claim infringement.”
And this is why Microsoft lost when Apple sued them for violating the look and feel of Mac OS. Oh wait, they won that, thus establishing that merely copying look and feel does not infringe.
MS cannot argue both sides of the coin, although they try. On the one hand, it is okay for them to copy others, but on the other it is infringing on their IP if someone copies them.
< And this is why Microsoft lost when Apple sued them for violating the look and feel of Mac OS. Oh wait, they won that, thus establishing that merely copying look and feel does not infringe.
MS cannot argue both sides of the coin, although they try. On the one hand, it is okay for them to copy others, but on the other it is infringing on their IP if someone copies them. >
When Gates and Apple went to court, the reason Apple lost was because they did in fact give MS, the right and authority to use some methods from the Mac OS, But yes by using ICON designs and the Luna theme without MS permission is Patent Infringement. ELQ is correct tho in saying that IP is not neccessarily software code, there are manything that make up IP
Bill and Steve by any other name…”FUD!” These guys are the masters, and have been doing it for as long as they’ve been around. Linux may have its problems, but nobody spreads FUD like Microsoft!!!
“However, many of these “ideas” are nothing original. A DirectX driven interface? how is that any different to Linux implementing it via OpenGL? .NET, well, there is already Java and Mono available. ”
Actually, DirectX is very different than OpenGL. The Direct3D API might be similar to OpenGL, but DirectX is both different, and not yet matched. DirectX includes a common driver specification, think OpenGL + GLX. It also includes common Audio drivers and API, no real counterpart in Linux. Maybe something like OpenAL, which hasn’t really taken off. It also includes common networking, input device support (joysticks, gamepads, direct keyboard input, etc). Also, there are APIs for playing video files and audio files. Most of all, all these pieces are under a single framework. No real competitor to DirectX really exists. There may be bits and pieces that are comparable like OpenGL, but many pieces are missing, and there is no common framework.
Again, .NET is very differnt than Java. It has similar aspects, C# + managed code, but also includes many other advancements as I’ve posted about many times before. Mono is an implementation of .NET!!! Clearly Microsoft DID come up with something very new and different. Fortunatly for the computer industry they made it a standard too, which is why Mono is able to exist.
Plus, with Longhorn, MS will bring a whole new set of advancements, many similar to recent advances in OS X. This will once again cause the GNU movement to be horribly behind again. For instance, reengineering X will be no easy task, nor will it be fast either.
The GNU movement may be catching up, but don’t underestimate a company like Microsoft. If you don’t think that they have many many really talented researchers working there than you are kidding yourself. No offence, but money usually buys better coders and researchers. It’s an unfortunate fact of life.
“But yes by using ICON designs and the Luna theme without MS permission is Patent Infringement. ELQ is correct tho in saying that IP is not neccessarily software code, there are manything that make up IP”
Ok, but what does it take to change it just a little bit?
Who is to say that MS doesn’t copy anything?
For goodness sake, look at how the car industry is copying from each other without suing one another to death.
MS and all IT companies would better be spending their energy in improving their product instead of suing each other.
It’s a joke …. All they do is consulting lawyers on how to destroy their opposition in court ….. what a bunch of loosers …
When I first read the article, I forgot about cross-licensing of patents and was just thinking of copyrighted code.
In the article it says that if you develop applications on a GPL system then you have to release your application on GPL. This is not true if you do not use any GPL’d code in your application.
With regards to cross-licensing code and not patents, you can cross-license GPL code. It’s very easy — in return for the privilege of using someone else’s GPL’d code you have to release <em>your</em> code under GPL. That is the cross-license.
I read awhile ago that if companies started enforcing their software patents, it would be like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand — everyone would be suing everyone else because of all of the patents out there. There is an unwritten agreement between technology companies that allows people to create interoperable systems. They pretty much only cross-license high profile intellectual property.
If someone copied and distributed Windows icons without permission, that would be copyright violation not a trademark or patent infringement.
Hmm.. When I think of people I would trust in there thoughts of the GPL, Billy is just not one of them.. Why would you ask that guy what he thinks of open source.. That would be like asking the Taliban what they think of the US.
No one really cares what Taliban thinks of. But everyone cares what US thinks of. Microsoft in pretty much in the place of USA in this crappy analogy. Besides, if you couldn’t care less what the richest man on earth and the most powerful figure in technology have to say, surf pass it. It is not like OSNews forces you to read it and later on comment about it.
“Give me a break Rude Turnip. What Gates was implying was that when you copy commercial apps, you end up infringing on patents. ”
Like if I make a word processor to allow certain functions that you might have in wordpad ? So are you saying that having a similar application that behaves in the same manner is infringing on IP patents ?
Or are you talking about actual code stolen line by line ? YOu need to clearer on this. Are you saying that Linux itself has actual stolen windows code in it or that some of the applications that run on it might have some stole code in it ? Please clear this up in further detail then Gates has done.
Here’s a rough defination of patents, for the complete ignorant:
Main Entry: 2pat·ent
Pronunciation: ‘pa-t&nt, British also ‘pA-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : an official document conferring a right or privilege : LETTERS PATENT
2 a : a writing securing to an inventor for a term of years the exclusive right to make, use, or sell an invention b : the monopoly or right so granted c : a patented invention
3 : PRIVILEGE, LICENSE
4 : an instrument making a conveyance of public lands; also : the land so conveyed
5 : PATENT LEATHER
Pretty much, it is far from being a copyright. It is an claim to an idea so no one else can copy it. For example, if I patent a 5-leg chair, though matter how different you process is from mine, you can’t make a 5-leg chair without infringing my patents.
And proving Microsoft have any code from Linux (it is a well known fact that they indeed have BSD code) would be extremely hard. Getting an injuction for Microsoft to release code for inspection would be as hard as getting the French to use English as their national language.
Ill tell you how Linux infringes on M$ IP.
Microsoft puts GPL Linux code in Windows.
Microsoft then sues Linux for “copying” code.
In fact, I’ll go one further and use this as a perfect example:
http://www.lycoris.com/images/controlcenterdetail.gif
Those are not XP’s Icons. XP Icons are here
http://www.modemhelp.net/screenshots/Windows_XP/Control_Panel/Class…
They are not the same, they just look similar.
You Can Patent That?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0001A3E4-764F-1ED9-8E1C8…
I’m sure we all need “Registered pedigree stuffed animals“! After a few millenia, hopefully they would mutate into U.S. Patent Office officials, U.S. congresscritters and Presidents, and Microsoft Software Architects.
Just for your information, that alone is proof that when Bill Gates starts talking about software patents, listen to the wind and watch paint dry instead. They’ve got something more substantial to say to you.
Actually, if you want some beef on that, google for “microsoft go corporation penpoint chinese wall”
Back in the early nineties, GO Corporation started up and developed one of the most elegant pen-based operating systems in existence. Microsoft declared they wanted to develop software for it and sent some people over – with the permission of GOCorp. – to investigate how things were done. Microsoft swore black and blue that it was sending over applications developers, not systems developers.
After they’d been and gone, GO Corp., suddenly discovers that they were systems developers.
Industrial espionage, no such thing as cross-licensing, just plain theft. And you wonder why people don’t like Microsoft? Tablet XP waddles in 128 MB of RAM – PenpointOS ran sweetly in 4 MB, and would dance in 128 MB.
fuzzyping: Simply copying the “feel” of the icons/theme is sufficient to claim infringement.
…
In fact, I’ll go one further and use this as a perfect example:
http://www.modemhelp.net/screenshots/Windows_XP/Control_Panel/Class…..
They are not the same, they just look similar.
That was his point. That they look similar. fuzzyping believes that they are similar enough that MS can claim infringement.
I looked at them… Personally… I don’t think they’re similar enough.
And now we could see this patent stuff is a bad joke. If you patent adding a number to another, you could be rich. And if you patent anything, that doesn’t means you were the one who found out that process…
That’s why we shouldn’t allow such a stupid laws enter into Europe.
Yeah, and I don’t want ot be offtopic: Bill Gates is the last person who should speak about stoling IPs!!! This is awful! Just remember the zlib bug guys!!! Who is stoling from who?
If people think he doesn’t like *NIX is a fool… His company tried unix (MS XENIX) but he abandoned it for his own OS.
I don’t think that anyone thinks that Mr Gates hates *nix, he just hates competition. If allowed to continue his destructive path in the economy, the ultimate conclusion (according to Adam Smith) is one company ruling the world – which is communism 🙂
According to http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix we see that he lost interest in Xenix to OS/2, not his own OS. We also see that Microsoft owned 25% of SCO. To verify if the ownership is true, take a look at this: http://holdings.nasdaq.com/asp/Form144History.asp?FormType=Form144H…
The current status is that Microsoft does in fact own more that 10% of a class of a company’s equity security!!!!
BTW, take a look at http://www.sco.com/company/history.html and you will see it has been cleansed of any information relating back to Microsoft…
” is one company ruling the world – which is communism 🙂 ”
This is tyranny, not communism.
I don’t want to start another holy war, but the GPL is much closer to communism (it’s actually socialism).
And finally, you are implying tht communism is somehow evil I think. This is largly a misconception that people from the west have due to national brainwashing. Communism was actually supposed to benifit the people, not be some terrible thing. Unfortunately the implmentations in places such as Russia went wrong.
…I’ve read enough Bill Gates to make me sick.
“I don’t believe that his insight on the matter on that article was like that at all. I believe he was truthful to his beliefs about the issues at hand. I suggest you actually read the article and think hard”
I. for one, won’t waste my time. That man has proven, time and again, the old addage:
This land is your land
This land is my land
And so is that land
And also your land….
…to the point where I can no longer stand to read what he has to say.
If you don’t believe me, then read the earlier post, in another thread, from a character called “sherbert.”
It looks like he let slip that SCO is getting ready to go after Apache.
Now, since Apache and Linux are the one-two punch that is affecting Microsoft’s bottom line, then what conclusion should I come to?
Some of you may not want to believe this, but this is a very old Earth. Bill Gates has only been on it for some 50 years. He and his heirs aren’t going to own it for long.
But they sure as Hell are trying to own it now.
Wake up, people! High-rollers like Bill Gates, Scott McNealy, and Darl McBride would trade your wives among themselves, if they could get away with it. You should respect what they have to say, but please have the sense to read what they DON’T say as well.
“If the head of a company that has a fiduciary responsibility to his stockholders is going to accuse the competition of IP theft, then he has an ethical responsibility to prove it or to shut up.”
Why should he? Somebody like that could buy the Senate, or the courts!
“My position still stands then…he is accusing people of IP infringement (patent infringement specifically) and not providing any backing to his statement.”
There have been a number of cases where Microsoft has warned OSS developers to stop violating their patent rights. In some cases they complied, and in others, they did not comply because they didn’t believe they were doing wrong.
In the case of Samba, for example, the team was warned that Microsoft had a patent on something, but the Samba team made a public statement denying infringement.
Besides, isn’t Microsoft involved in some serious patent-infringement claims against them?
“Unfortunately the implmentations [of Communism] in places such as Russia went wrong.
Just as the implementation of democracy has been deteriorating, bit-by-bit, here in the US.
– Not much left of the 4th amendment
– We don’t actually have an elected President now
– Record companies that *believe* you are viloating their copyrights can go into your computer at will (or soon will be allowed to)
– Simple phrases in the Constitution, like “limited time” have been perverted to mean pretty-much forever
Americans, ask yourselves this:
How easy would it be for our Constitution to be suspended completely, because of some “emergency?”
Besides, isn’t Microsoft involved in some serious patent-infringement claims against them?
Yes. By intertrust. Actually Sony and Philips (Old friends) are trying to or have already bought Intertrust.
Something like if MS loses, the damages are into billions. something to do with nearly everything they make. Like it includes the XBOX, and all the big MS products.
links here
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,400412,0…
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6856
A few a pre trial hearing recently, like weeks ago. The ruling was on 3 July.
“Gates does not miss anything. Just look at the successful company and his bank account.”
The size of a bank account is not the measure of success.
Who will be seen by history as more successful, Bill Gates or Vincent van Gogh?
Together, Billy & me are going to put down that Commie Linux stuff and all those god forsaken geeks.
I hear geeks are trying to avoid sitting down on their couches and being Americans — watching 10 hours of TV programming per day. That’s the only kind of programming that any American ought to be involved in. Got to teach them geeks about how all families are dysfunctional and how ethics, morals, and justice have no place in the modern world.
That’s why Billy and the rest of the gang are offshoring all those geek jobs just as fast as they can. We don’t want any idealistic egotistic “smartie” Americans causing trouble.
Of course there are WMD’s.
Of course there is Microsoft code in Linux. What do you think Osama de Icaza has been doing other than buying Microsoft code on the black market, running some evil scripture on it to change the names and calling it “MONO”.
Now all you real Americans go out and buy a copy of Windows and get that Commie stuff of your PC. It will be illegal soon, you know. And my budget has plenty of room in the new terrorist camps. Don’t be a dummie.
Vote Bush 2004 and I won’t throw you in prison.
… you are implying tht communism is somehow evil I think. This is largly a misconception that people from the west have due to national brainwashing. Communism was actually supposed to benifit the people, not be some terrible thing. Unfortunately the implmentations in places such as Russia went wrong.
I was just kidding about the communism. Both Russia and China had not lived up to the communist philosophy – rather they have created dictatorships. While Capitolist-style democracy is defined as “one person – one vote”, Communist-style democracy is defined as “the will of the people”. Different means to get to the same end – representing the people.
I was just drawing on the imagery associated with communism, which is a ruthless dictatorship. It appears that many people already are feeling that Mr Gates has already achieved this status in the software industry. There appears to be many Linux users portray themselves as an underground resistance to this domination and that Linux is the weapon that may overthrow the Lord of the Evil Empire. Mr Gates attacks against the Linux community will only strengthen their resolve.
Bill is just sitting back watching, & hoping linus will go down.
Linux will go down
No, the problem is that software patents are haphazardly granted, and except for things that are truly revolutionary, like entirely new AI methods, software patents shouldn’t exist at all. You wouldn’t patent a mathematical algorithm, would you?
Well?
Can you?
Bill Gates is the cleverest man in the world, he has made sure that he has always been in the right place at the right time.
IF IBM had turned down the original contract for the OS and said they owned all the code then things would be so diferent today. You’d all be going ‘Bill Who?’
Face up to it people, Windows whether we hate it or like is here to stay, only a major disaster to Bill’s empire will ensure Windows downfall. Sure some of you use Linux, but nobody gives a damn about you, I can walk into any computer store and pick up a game or app and it will be WIndows, it won’t be Linux, it won’t be Amiga, or even MAC :-),it will be Windows.
Face up to the truth, Linux will survive because of the net, if it wasn’t for that you’d all be using Windows anyway.
You are lucky you have choice, but boy, what a sacrifice for the lack of software around for your Linux machines.
The world of computing is not limited to what you can buy at Future Shop or Fry’s (CompuSmart here in Canada).
Games? I play them on my PS2 or Xbox – or I play Counter-Strike on Linux. I’m happy.
Productivity app? Well, pretty much all I need is available native on Linux. If not (i.e. Quicken, Photoshop for CMYK stuff, complex MS Office files), there’s always WINE, which – as they say – keeps getting better with age.
Sure some of you use Linux, but nobody gives a damn about you
No need to be so condescending. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’d notice that plenty of people give a damn about Linux: IBM, Compaq/HP, Dell, Sony, Matsushita, Toshiba, Phillips, ILM, Weta Digital, Dreamworks, Henson (yeah, the muppets!), the City of Munich, some regions in Spain, other foreign governments and corporations, etc.
Linux still has a small market share on the desktop, but it’s killing MS in the server room. Next will come the corporate desktop, then only the home desktop. You’re looking at the whole situation from the wrong angle – I suggest you learn a little more about it before making such inflammatory statements.
only a major disaster to Bill’s empire will ensure Windows downfall
You mean, like losing that patent infingement suit to InterTrust? 🙂
they are perfecting the technique used by microsoft.
microsoft is a reverse engineering, embracing and extending, app cloning, company killing machine.
it’s what the ms empire is built on.
IIRC, Xenix (Ms version of Unix for X86) was sold/transferred to SCO and became OpenServer.
I don’t think Gates is talking about cloning windows code here.
I run xp, freebsd, and redhat on the x86 platform.
tell me what software do i need?
I have the luxury of flipping on an XP system any time I need to.
and I manage a few of AD/2k domains for clients.
i have the luxury of knowning what i’m not missing on my freebsd/rh9 boxes.
do you?
I have just found out that the InterTrust V Microsoft patent infringement suit may well be MICROSOFT’S SCO!!!!
You can read the full tetails of it here and see that IT AFFECTS MICROSOFT’S ENTIRE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY PRODUCT LINE even including their last Win9x system Windows ME.
You can get the full details here.
http://www.intertrust.com/main/ip/litigation.html
“Ill tell you how Linux infringes on M$ IP.
Microsoft puts GPL Linux code in Windows.
Microsoft then sues Linux for “copying” code.”
You are a very clever girl, indeed
“640K ought to be enough for anybody.”
Anonymous (IP: —.client.attbi.com):
[.. The author of the article wrote, “Under the GPL, all tweaks and applications developed for the operating system must be released to the community.” That’s obviously not true ..]
Actually, it’s not “obviously true.”
Actually, it IS “obviously not true”. Tweaks/apps written under the GPL don’t have to be released to the community. However, IF they ARE released, the source code must be released as well.
There is a lot of debate as to the difference between Unix, UNIX, unix, and who can claim to be what.
I claim to be a persimmon. (aka. What the hell are you talking about? Stay focused: GPL)
Perhaps you don’t have the fine understanding of the issue to be able to comment, blah blah blah.
You know, before I proceeded to insult someone in a haughty tone, I’d make sure I’m right and I sound intelligent in my post. Check your facts.
top speed:
And being a US Company, M$ will get some favors in US Courtrooms vs. foreigners like Torvalds.
Well then I guess it’s a shame that M$ hasn’t sued Linus Torvalds then isn’t it?
Nicholas James:
Bill is just sitting back watching, & hoping linus will go down.
I DON’T want to know
Good Grief
How did an article about Cross Licensing turn into a discussion about infringement? Billy G makes a really good point. Linux can’t get in on the cross licensing market and make use of high quality closed source code. Linux fanatics are blinded by emotion, IMO they should be backing GPLed applications not OS’s. Grrr.