By now you have all undoubtedly heard about SCO’s lawsuit against IBM and the threat that it reflects on the Linux community. The news sites and web forums have been alive with speculation about how this case will pan out, articles either show many shortcomings of Open Source development or how wrong SCO is and how bad they are going to lose.
Note to readers: I am not a native English speaker so please excuse any grammar errors. This editorial expresses my opinions and should not be considered the opinion of OSNews or any of their respective partners.
Let’s push aside all the analysts as well as McBride, Eric Raymond, Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds and get to the meat of it. Does Linux contain Unix IP? Undoubtedly it does. Bill Gates in a recent meeting with financial analysts claimed that Open Source software contains Microsoft Intellectual Property. Does Open Source software contain Microsoft IP? Most certainly it does. Now before I get crucified and hung from my toenails and disemboweled, let me explain.
WHAT IS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY?
Here is the definition of Intellectual Property:
Intellectual Property is the “property of the mind.” The term includes both industrial property and copyright.
Industrial property: patents, trademarks, registered designs, plant breeder’s rights, confidential information, trade secrets and know-how, trade names, indications of source and names of origin, and circuit layout rights.
Copyright: The protection of artistic and literary works such as books, computer programs and engineering drawings. It is designed to prevent the use, by other people, of an original piece of work in which an idea or information has been expressed by the creator.
Many people in the SCO vs IBM case associate Intellectual Property with software code. There are many things that make up Intellectual Property. In the case of Computer programs, trade secrets, look and feel, file formats, methods of engineering as well as software code all make up intellectual property. In the case of SCO there are many gray areas. Owning Intellectual Property is part of the big picture
actively enforcing those rights is the rest of the picture.
DOES OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE CONTAIN MICROSOFT IP
Although many people say no, the answer is a resounding yes. I would not go as far as saying that Open Source software contains Microsoft code. But, look and feel as well as file formats play a part.
When people use those cool Windows XP themes for KDE and GNOME and when people use Icons and themes that Microsoft publishes, without express permission from Microsoft, it is infringement. Microsoft does not publish any part of Windows engineering in any kinds of manuals or books, so trade secrecy of Windows engineering is well protected. When consultants and developers participate in Microsofts Shared Source Program, they must sign a stringent and very enforceable NDA and they are expressly forbidden to disclose any details of Microsoft Windows code, but some programs even though they are not using all of Windows engineering, just the mere inclusion of some files violates Microsofts IP rights. WINE for example, allows users to run Microsoft applications without Windows. When you tell wine to set up a fake Windows partitions it copies some common DLL files into that partition so you can execute setup programs and install dependencies are satisfied. Should Microsoft sue Open Source developers for this? No, because it is so trivial that any judge would probably laugh it out of court. It would be like a smoker throwing a cigarette butt on the ground. Is he littering? Yes he is. Would a cop write him a citation for littering? Probably not. Another thing is Microsoft’s Word, Excel, and Powerpoint formats. Microsoft has never published any details on these formats, so in my opinion, yes, some inside information was needed. But that information has been passed down through the years and since Microsoft has never complained or issued a cease and desist order, they have basically given Implied permission to use this information. We will discuss implied and expressed permission later in this editorial. So, yes, Microsoft IP does exist in Open Source software, but in my opinion as a software developer and as a consultant, Linux and Microsoft share no common code. I believe Bill and Steve were just throwing around more FUD by including code. What I expect from Microsoft in the SCO case is a friend of the court filing where some of what I said will appear. But how far a friend of the court filing will go where the filer is a convicted monopolist is beyond me.
DOES LINUX CONTAIN SCO IP?
In the case of SCO and Linux, the issue of Intellectual Property becomes so much more clouded and SCO is walking on a much thinner line than Microsoft . First, SCO has inherited a big problem. AT&T as well as Novell have written so many books and manuals about the methods of UNIX engineering for so many years that trade secrecy is shot. During my research I have yet to find a manual or book on UNIX that contains anything that says that a developer cannot use these methods or that the reader has to protect the integrity of UNIX source code. But if you find a book on Linux, all of them contain the GPL and expressly state the terms of the GPL. Also, you run into a situation like mine. I was shown the UNIX source code years ago and was not required to agree to any licensing terms, sign an NDA or anything of the such and the code was shown to my class by a USL engineer. Also, Ransom Love, the old CEO of Caldera, stated many times that he wanted to include UNIX code into Linux and many of their engineers were allowed to work on UNIX and Linux at the same time. No one that I have met yet can share with me the degree that these engineers and even Ransom himself submitted code to the Linux kernel and how much UNIX code was given to the Linux community by SCO.
IMPLIED AND EXPRESS PERMISSION
One of the smartest things I have heard from SCO came from Blake Stowell. He is absolutely right on one thing. Just because SCO ships UNIX code with Linux does not mean they have given permission for others to ship it or to use it as well. But in my opinion and the opinion of my legal counsel, SCO, while it hasn’t given express permission to do so has given implied permission to do so. Express permission is when a company or individual says, ” Yes, you can use my code ” either publicly, like Microsoft did with Intervideo in reference to allowing Intervideo to port the Windows Media codec to Linux, or by including the necessary license whether that license is the GPL or BSD. Implied permission is when you are given the code, you use it and basically you aren’t hit with a cease and desist order. SCO knew that its alleged code was being used. They did a complete audit of the Linux source code, even after they found the code they continued to ship it and allowed others to ship it for an entire 2 years. This constitutes Implied permission, they knew that the code was being used yet they ignored it and decided to try to enforce the copyright after they were in severe financial distress, well by this time it is too late. Implied Permission is just as good in a court of law as express permission. They have two options in this case. They can either reiterate that the code is not to be included or used, or they can issue a Cease and Desist and by this time its to late. What I see happening is that SCO will reiterate that their code is not to be used and they will be required to leave its alleged code as is, but they will not be required to offer any enhancements or warranty of any kind for the code.
CONCLUSION
As you can see, Intellectual Property comes in many shapes and forms and it is not just software code as some suggest. No, I do not see an IP suit from Microsoft, but just because a company does not sue does not mean an infraction has not occurred. As for SCO’s Linux license here are my thoughts on that. Anyone considering paying SCO for a UnixWare license should wait before they do anything. Two points here are A) SCO does not own Linux and cannot license anything that they do not own. They have to be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the alleged code is theirs. B) Under the law SCO has to issue a cease and desist order and allow at least 30 days for people to comply. Because they have not done so yet shows me that SCO does not have as strong a case as they suggest in the media. Also what happens if SCO was to lose, would they offer a refund? I called SCO and asked that same question and no one would answer that question. What I think will happen in the case of litigation failure is that anybody that buys the license will get a free copy of UnixWare 7.1.3. This case does get more interesting by the day. What doesnt kill you makes you stronger and at the end of this whole ordeal, the GPL will survive the test of fire and will be proven to be a valid and enforceable software license. Much to the dismay of Mr. Gates and Mr. Ballmer.
About the Author:
Roberto J. Dohnert is a Unix/Linux Consultant and software developer. His first introduction to UNIX based systems dates back to NEXTSTEP. He is a member of the GNU Darwin Distribution and has made several contributions to that and other projects. His personal webpage is here.
While you were on your last sabbatical I have found out that Wrawrat, Archiesteel (who now calls himself the great something or other.) and Abraxis are RIGHT about SCO still
distributing Linux (“Free Beer”) style under the GPL to this very day AND that IBM is now defending Linux using substantially the same arguments they use. (You kind of missed out on the SCO thread where all of this recent information was going on.)
However I did NOT touch the FTP site that the three posters
I mentioned kept directing us to (I STILL won’t touch that with a 100 foot mouse wire!!!) The evidence that I found that SCO is still distributing Linux is on their OFFICIAL SITE at this link.
http://www.sco.com/support/download.html
This latest news has brought my view of Darl McBride back to my ORIGINAL one. This guy must be either be on SHROOMS or something very closely related chemically and simply not realizing that he is still distributing Linux OFFICIALLY, is too buisy engaging in a “pump ‘n’ dump” Enron style stock scam to clear out his public sites of Linux distributions that could ultimately be dammaging even to the legitimate part of his case SCO V IBM, (This is the most common opinion in the Linux community as to the reason for the lawsuit and McBride’s constant speech making and news conferencing it and related subjects.) or IN ON IT!
(I have NOT changed my basic theory of the stolen code, that it is in Linux and that Bilderburg Lou Gerster’s IBM put it there so that they could kill the only thing standing in the way of a re centralized computing scheme aimed ultimately at ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. Nor have I changed my basic opinion that only an open OS or a full restoration of competition in the Proprietary OS industry can prevent this from happening. I would STILL like to see Mr. McBride get his three bil from IBM IF HE HIMSELF IS BEING HONEST IN THIS and not engaging in numbers two or three as to why he is still distributing Linux on his OFFICIAL SITE and would still like to see Gerstner and any others involved in this at IBM pubished for SOFTWARE PIRACY because in effect they actually pirated not one but TWO operating systems. By stealing the code in the first place they pirated SCO and by placing it in Linux for the express purpose of destroying it they actually Pirated Linux as well. (Yes you can pirate GPL software if we interpret piracy as meang to violate the license agreement that comes with the software. Proprietary code in a GPL product is an express violation of the GPL and therefore software piracy against the GPL product. Like I told Wrawrat, Archiesteele, and the others douring another knock down drag out last night their software is NOT FREE as Richard (500 pounds) Stallman keeps saying it is. The only free software is that voluntarily placed in the public domain and free of all intellectual property law implements such as copyrights, patents, trademarks and LICENSE AGREEMENTS which the GPL OBVIOUSLY IS.
Their software ACTUALLY is PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE weather they want to admit it or not (just licensed on on a small c communistic or more accurately community model rather than having a capitalistic oriented EULA license like Microsoft stuff) and as such can be pirated by violating the license agreement.
As Open Source becomes more prevalent, I expect we will see more of these types of lawsuits being lobbed at those organisations backing Open Source. Obviously not with same dramatic flair to which SCO has tended, but rather genuine IP claims based on industrial property. Open Source will win some and lose some in these areas.
You also raised an interesting point in your article:
“What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger and at the end of this whole ordeal, the GPL will survive the test of fire and will be proven to be a valid and enforceable software license.”
But will it? There’s been much debate about the validity and virtues of the GNU GPL. I’ve heard claims that the license has holes a truck could be driven through, and counter-claims that it’s airtight. Case law being what it is, a declaration that the GNU GPL is in some way invalid or unenforceable could be a serious setback if an issue which hinges on the content of the GNU GPL is heard later. Opinions, anyone?
I don’t think IBM is on the “New World Order”. However, I do believe that IBM see’s Linux as a piece of software that can bring instant compatability from the Mainframe to the Desktop. How do you ask? One common API, the Linux API.
Byte
if it uses a browser. Look & Feel etc..
Specially M$.
And whow discovered Gates one can only clone
by stealing IP? They where forced to
copiy Netscape-code, eh? HA!
“When people use those cool Windows XP themes for KDE and GNOME and when people use Icons and themes that Microsoft publishes” – when being the operative word! The rest of the article is good, but that just isn’t true, I don’t see XP icons on any Linux DE theme site.
Actually, first web browser was NCSA Mosaic. Netscape were sued by NCSA, for using their code and if you see the about box of IE you can see that it also derived from there.
More on topic, I’m not sure if methods or general ideas can be protected. If they are, xerox should sue every os vendor for use of windows-based interface.
There is only one company that will gain some benefit over this rift.
I would not be surprised if behind the scene’s that company is involved.
Maybe I am late to this thread? I don’t seem to understand what you are writing from the intonation of your post. It reads like a reply to something, but your post is the very first — has there something been deleted..?
The computer industry is an industry ripe with criminals and con artists and it’s all about vendor lock -in and control. Linux is good to have around because it guaruntees that there is freedom and opportunity for efforts to build your own systems. It’s impossible to tell what will happen in the future which is not good, but if you don’t have a large investment in it than there’s nothing to worry about.
The guy who wrote the article does not understand copyright law at all. Copyright law does not protect “ideas”. It protects original expression, in other words, specific incarnations of those ideas. Anybody can write a novel in which a woman of no means goes on to become the Queen of England, it is the specific language in which that novel is written that can be copyrighted.
You can discount this whole article as nothing more than posturing. It is amusing that when brilliant legal minds have shown the absurdity of SCO’s claims, this gentleman feels that he can rewrite copyright law for us. Intellectual property, by the way, is a vacous term, at least in the legal sense. It is far too vague. There is contract law, copyright law, patent law, but there is no such thing as IP law.
This article is pure conjecture and throws no light on the issue.
Thanks but no thanks.
Whether or not the GPL is defendable is not a good reason to jump into Microsofts arms, in fact, it’s an indication to take a step back.
I am sorry to say this article has a lot of holes in it. The author makes a good efford, but he probably hasn’t studied the case well enough.
To the point:
1)IP is not the look alike of KDE with an XP like Theme. Only if the same code is used. This is impossible.
2)Wine doesn’t copy Windows Dlls but only creates a similar file structure and puts its own dlls in to it. They are replacements. Not copies from Windows. Otherwise Wine would just be a copy of Windows.
3)If SCO has entered its code into a GPL licensed Linux kernel or any GPL part, and doesn’t comply by the GPL license then it cannot distribute it. All code entered into a GPL licensed product automatically becomes GPL licensed code. It is a requirement of the GPL license. Blake Stowell doesn’t know what he is talking about or hasn’t read the GPL license.
4)If a method for doing something is described in a book, applying this method to your product is not IP infringement, unless the author expresses so.
5)Linux GPL License is there to protect free software from exactly the thing that SCO is trying to do. Get money from owning it.
Conclusion:
If SCO put code in Linux, it has GPLed it. There is no other way to put code in Linux. Period. If some third party stole the code and put it in Linux, SCO will have to prove it. Just by showing similar code means nothing. How do we know SCO didn’t copy it from Linux in the first place? That has to be proven too. And even then, the only thing they can do is ask for a removal of the code, because ALL code in Linux is and must be GPL.
Top Speed is a troll who likes Microsoft and hates Linux who
always comes to to sites dealing with SCO, Linux and intellectual property issues connected to them and pushes the I love Bill Gates – Linux is going to be destroyed line of the SCO V IBM case. He also does NOT believe that SCO still has their Linux distribution on their web and ftp sites when they DO. I have some agreements with him in some issues but Linux is NOT one of them.
Another one of these types that you might be meeting on this thread as it matures is screen named Sherbert. This one even claims to have signed the SCO NDA but blabs in such a way that he would be in BIGGIE TROUBLE if he did.
If you visit,
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;290958#2
it seems microsoft will send you some documuntation about various versions of the binary format. Today, you have to send email to microsoft to obtain the file. A couple of years ago, it was possible to download i directly, no questions asked.
/jarek
I doubt that this will happen and I’m no legal expert. But, having seen the results of software companies lawsuits against each other, they simply take up enrmous time and money and go nowhere. There are exceptions to that, but that has been the case for the most part.
When Apple and Microsoft made their five year deal, part of it was dropping all pending lawsuits against each other. That was a good move. It cleared the decks for some real cooperation to take place.
This article is a load of BS. Some critcal flaws:
“look and feel” is NOT legally protected intellectual property. The same goes for MS file formats and interoperability software like WINE. There is absolutely nothing illegal about trying to figure out proprietary file formats and writing programs that can work with them. I don’t think there is the slightest justification for saying that “Linux contains Microsoft IP”. Even if someone has illegally copied MS icons for a KDE or GNOME theme, that isn’t really part of Linux. The same thing goes on all the time with Windows users – just after OS X came out, Aqua- style icons for Windows became quite popular, and no one said that there was Mac OS IP in Windows. As far as “look and feel” is concerned, you ought to remember that it was the basis of the Apple suit against MS for developing Windows. Apple claimed that it owned the exclusive right to GUI user interfaces based on “look and feel”. The case was thrown out of court, and since then it has been legally well established that implementations with a similar “look and feel” do *not* constitute infringement of IP.
“Just because SCO ships UNIX code with Linux does not mean they have given permission for others to ship it or to use it as well.”
How in the world can you say they have not given permission for others to redistribute it? The SCO Linux distribution, like every other Linux distribution, explicitly states that the code is freely redistributable. wtf are you talking about?
Are you gentlemen and ladies listening at all? There is no such thing as IP law.
Regards,
Mystilleef
Mystilleef is of course spot on. “There is no such thing as IP law.”
The big threat is software patents. Everyone knows that the use software patents in the US is a disgrace. The granting of patents on algorithms is an outrage, let alone the problem of patents which even on the patent offices own rules are without merit ie prior art and obviousness.
The big companies use their patents defensively through cross licensing. This is Gates big threat Linux has no patents for cross licensing. It is therefore unfortunately dependant to a large extent on IBM for defence on this.
Since IBM has bet the house on Linux if MS launches a patent attack on Linux it is also challenging IBM. The resulting patent war be a battle of King Kong vs Godzilla – it could be very dangerous for those around it even though as in the movie Bill Kong will be defeated by IBMzilla – Tokyo gets pretty wasted.
Hopefully all this leagal stuff will inspire the KDE and Gnome folks to stop trying to make a carbon copy of the Windows interface. If I want to run something that looks like Windows, I’ll just run Windows.
There is interesting problem. Software and media industry ias, as fact, alive only thanks to “The State”. Such funny kind of capitalism which needs brute enforcement by non-private structure like “The State” is. So instead being neutral referee/judge over market agents, state in case of IPR is acting (spending taxplayers’ money) like personal police of certain marke agents.
Problem is just nature of that “property” which isn’t natural property, like real estate.
The author has thrown in every half baked concept of what he thinks IP should be to make the stretch that Microsoft IP is in Linux. There are only two legal mechanisms to preserve rights to works which are produced. The first is the copyright and the second is the patent. Patents protect processes and are limited in scope. Patents are easily circumvented by derriving a new but equivilent process that was not documented by the original author. Cry in your milk but that is just a fact in life. You can’t claim that others can’t think of another way to do something and claim it was yours. Copyrights cover individual works and expressions. If I write a graphics routine and copyright it then no one can reproduce the code I have copyrighted without my permission. However, if another individual writes a fresh routine having not seen the source to my routine then I cannot claim rights to their work. Again cry in your milk. Finally regarding the SCO issue. SCO knowingly took source code with the GPL intact, compiled it and sold it under the GPL. Under the law they have knowingly accepted the terms of the GPL and given away rights to the contentes of what they sold. Now I have never known SCO to produce anything that I would call Intelectual Property and I doubt they contributed anything of worth to the Linux community and I am certan that they don’t have System V code in the 2.4 kernel. Cry in your milk. Linux is clean by all accounts.
Now about Microsoft. Based on the authors definition the whole of Microsoft’s software suite is based on stolen technology. The GUI was stolen from Xerox PARC, the xecel formats are derrivative works from Lotus, Word formats are stolen from Adobe and Word Perfect, the original DOS commands were stolen from Unix. These are just a small sample because the basic business model Microsoft operates on is to copy a small but successful companies product and include it for free with their OS. When the small company is about to fold acquire the company and rights for the original work and start charging the customer for the product. Now that private individuals have come up with a system that bypasses the MS economic engine MS is paying people to cry foul against Linux. No wonder Europe and Aisia are embracing Linux. So when you see the KDE interfaces keep in mind that it is not MS IP that you are looking at but the independant hard work of thousands of IP professionals who recognized the hijacking of the IP field and made a new work.
Actually, first web browser was NCSA Mosaic. Netscape were sued by NCSA, for using their code and if you see the about box of IE you can see that it also derived from there.
That’s all fine and dandy, but I feel pretty confident that the first web browser was Tim Berners-Lee’s browser that he wrote while developing the www at CERN.
>>But, having seen the results of software companies lawsuits against each other, they simply take up enrmous time and money and go nowhere.<<
Are you kidding? SCO, previously caldera, bought the rights to dr-dos for cheap. Then caldera sued msft over dr-dos, and setteled for over $150,000,000.
A few months ago, scox shares were selling for under $1. Which is completely understandable since scox was losing marketshare, had a book value under $5 million, and was losing between $25 million and $125 million every year.
Now SCO shares are selling for $13. And insiders are selling like mad. Insiders also had the foresight to give themselves hundreds of thousands of options for as little as $0.001 each, just before the lawsuit was officially filed.
These lawsuits go nowhere you say? Not if you’re a scox insider!
From the article:
“Undoubtedly it does. Bill Gates in a recent meeting with financial analysts claimed that Open Source software contains Microsoft Intellectual Property. Does Open Source software contain Microsoft IP? Most certainly it does.”
Just because someone says it does, does not make it so.
In other words: Without proof its all conjecture.
To begin a article/opinion piece with this phrase only weakens the plank in the author’s platform.
< “When people use those cool Windows XP themes for KDE and GNOME and when people use Icons and themes that Microsoft publishes” – when being the operative word! The rest of the article is good, but that just isn’t true, I don’t see XP icons on any Linux DE theme site. >
Lycoris uses Icons from Windows XP http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=155
is the Luna theme for KDE, that gives users Icons and what such.
< “look and feel” is NOT legally protected intellectual property >
Tell that to Apple, who has patents on many aspects of its User Interface, Im sure they would like to know that those patents cannot be enforced.
< The same goes for MS file formats and interoperability software like WINE. There is absolutely nothing illegal about trying to figure out proprietary file formats and writing programs that can work with them. I don’t think there is the slightest justification for saying that “Linux contains Microsoft IP”. Even if someone has illegally copied MS icons for a KDE or GNOME theme >
Any product of the Mind is Intellectual Property. And as for Microsoft IP I said it is on the loose in Open Source software in General, not just in Linux. In the case of Wine, while you dont want to believe it it is there. But I see you didnt read the whole article.
< How in the world can you say they have not given permission for others to redistribute it? The SCO Linux distribution, like every other Linux distribution, explicitly states that the code is freely redistributable. wtf are you talking about? >
Like I stated Blake Stowwell is correct, shipping their version of Linux does not mean that they gave permission for others to ship it or use it. Its a fact.
>>Like I stated Blake Stowwell is correct, shipping their version of Linux does not mean that they gave permission for others to ship it or use it. Its a fact. <<
They did give their permission by agreeing to the GPL when they shipped their own version of Linux with the code in it. This is not just implied permission this is explicit permission. They don’t have to make a statement like “We give permission” for it to be explicit, simply agreeing to the License is enough.
the only thing i’m more tired of than sco’s crap is coral snakes’s long and rambling comments. i mean does this guy actually think any one actually wants to constantly read that crap?
{ “look and feel” is NOT legally protected intellectual property }
Tell that to Apple, who has patents on many aspects of its User Interface, Im sure they would like to know that those patents cannot be enforced.
That’s the point … they have patents. Duh.
Tell that to Apple, who has patents on many aspects of its User Interface, Im sure they would like to know that those patents cannot be enforced.
Weren’t most of these patent claims invalidated by Xerox (i.e. the Windows/Icon/Mouse/Pointer paradigm)?
Any product of the Mind is Intellectual Property.
True, but not all products of the mind can be protected by IP laws. If I have an idea for a film, but it remains just an idea, someone else can write a screenplay based on the same idea. Now, if I told that person that idea, I may have a chance in court, but most likely I will lose. If I never met that person and he developed the idea on his own (it happens).
Like I stated Blake Stowwell is correct, shipping their version of Linux does not mean that they gave permission for others to ship it or use it. Its a fact.
Uh, no. They are distributing their version of Linux on their Web Site under the GPL. This is a verifiable fact. If they do not agree with the terms of the GPL, then they should not have continued distribution under the GPL. The fact that someone may or may not have illegally implanted some of their code in Linux is now irrelevant, as they have knowing and willingly distributed the code on their web site under the GPL since the start of the legal proceedings. What they should have done, to remain consistent with their claims, is to stop releasing Linux entirely.
I sense a hidden agenda here.
@Kevin
Hopefully all this leagal stuff will inspire the KDE and Gnome folks to stop trying to make a carbon copy of the Windows interface.
Actually, they’re not making a carbon copy, they’re improving on it. The reason it is similar is to ease transition for users, but in fact KDE’s UI (at least – I’m less familiar with GNOME) has more features than Windows’.
If I never met that person and he developed the idea on his own (it happens).
I should really finish my sentences. What I meant to say is “If I never met that person and he developed the idea on his own (it happens), then I have no case against them – even though he might have had the same idea!”
Good lord, I stopped reading after I barely went through the first paragraph without vomiting.
[Intellectual Laws 101]
Look and feel of GUI cannot be patented/copyrighted. Does M$ vs. Apple case ring a bell? Method can be patented, and expression be copyrighted. But “functionality” alone cannot be IP’d, period. Violation occurs only if someone uses IP’d “method” or borrows IP’d “expressions” to deliver the same functionality as other product.
Say, if “a device with combustion mechanism and four wheels that transports passenger(s) from one place to another” is patentable, Daimler, Chrysler, Ford, Honda or whoever registered this IP first should own the entire automobile industry now. Another example -every automaker has own IPs for automatic transmission. Method is all different, but all deliver the same result.
Likewise, reverse engineering such as WINE does not violate IP laws unless your method and/or expression is contaminated. If reverse engineering is a violation, Compaq would never exist (IBM clone).
My goodness…
Anyway, the comment I was going to make originally is that as long as Linux remains good shape in the market, there will be scums (McBride, Gates, McNealy to name a few) to take advantage of hidden nature of propriatery code to undermine Linux’ credibility and reputations by throwing baseless accusations. It is a corporate extortion against non-profit groups. Moreover, these scums can take advantage of people’s shallow understanding of IP laws (read above, dammit) and further damage OSS community. Just look at what SCO is doing right now. They are trying to make profit out of accusations and FUD.
Such unfair attempts will deter developers from innovate freely, hence the whole software industry will suffer. Concerned consumers have no choice but to stay with a propriatery operating system that is known to be a full of security flaws. Only the extortioner will laugh. (Hi, Bill)
For fair competition and development of software, our government should keep close attention to this type of anti-competitive tactics. As the government benefits from development of OSS, they should protect those who are unprotected from aggressive and unfair attacks by multi-bi/million dollar corporations.
< They did give their permission by agreeing to the GPL when they shipped their own version of Linux with the code in it. This is not just implied permission this is explicit permission. They don’t have to make a statement like “We give permission” for it to be explicit, simply agreeing to the License is enough. >
You see this is where we are getting a little turned around here. If SCO’s claims are true then they did not know it was being shipped, thus they were unable to give permission. But as I stated in the editorial, the way my legal counsel sees it. Since SCO did become aware of the fact and has made no reasonable effort to correct the situation, this is where implied permission comes into play, for example, when the first Dracula Motion Picture came out, the publishing company that published Bram Stokers book sued the film company, stating that the film company infringed onn their property and used it without permission. Now, what happened in court was that the judge ruled, since the characters in Bram Stokers book were actual living people, and yes there was a Abraham Van Helsing, Mina and Jonathan Harker, who lived in england atthe same time Bram Stoker wrote his book, but anyway since they were actual living beings, the Publishing company had no right to lay claim to the characters. And since the Publishing company waited 4 years to actually pursue compensation, that they not only knew, but gave implied permission for the film company to continue doing what they were doing and the court went even further and voided the copyright. The same thing applies here, SCO may not have known, in which case Stowell is correct they could have pulled it and then if consumers continued to use they would have violated SCO’s patent rights. But to the extent that SCO did nothing and continued to ignore it for so much time,can mean that permission was implied.
You think MS might be using SCO to test the legal waters. I mean if MS were to have openly pushed the IP issue they’d get murdered considering they lost an anti trust trial. However, if they somehow convinced SCO to test the waters…
If SCO were to win huge in the case, it seems like MS might follow up and crush the open source movement based on any precent set by SCO with no fear of the anti trust people going after them again.
But to the extent that SCO did nothing and continued to ignore it for so much time,can mean that permission was implied.
Indeed! (I actually went back and re-read the article, you did make that point already – sorry.)
In fact, it continues to this day. No one can possibly claim that SCO is not aware that they are still distributing the 2.4.X series of Linux Kernels under the GPL on their public FTP site as we speak!
So, in fact, they are currently explicitly distributing the Kernel under the GPL, knowing (or at least, pretending to know) that some of their code is in there. And, yes, the fact that it is on their FTP site does mean that they are “distributing” it, and therefore agreeing to the terms of the GPL.
< Look and feel of GUI cannot be patented/copyrighted. Does M$ vs. Apple case ring a bell? Method can be patented, and expression be copyrighted. But “functionality” alone cannot be IP’d, period. Violation occurs only if someone uses IP’d “method” or borrows IP’d “expressions” to deliver the same functionality as other product. >
Actually yes it can, what hurt Apple in their case was that while they gave MS some rights to use aspects of the Mac GUI, the wording in the contract was so broad that they could not determine what Apple actually agreed to let MS use. Since that time Apple has gotten copyrights on their new GUI, Aqua.
< Likewise, reverse engineering such as WINE does not violate IP laws unless your method and/or expression is contaminated. If reverse engineering is a violation, Compaq would never exist (IBM clone). >
Actually it does violate, when you use property such as DLL’s which are not GPLed and incorporate them without Microsofts permission then you have commited a violation. Reverse engineering is an entirely different situation.
Since that time Apple has gotten copyrights on their new GUI, Aqua
True. However, when copyrights are concerned, you can get by if you have a certain degree of difference from the original. So one could “remake” the Aqua GUI so that it would look very similar (but still be different in the details) and get away with it. In other words, you can’t just copy the bitmaps, but you can re-make them as long as they aren’t too identical.
< True. However, when copyrights are concerned, you can get by if you have a certain degree of difference from the original. So one could “remake” the Aqua GUI so that it would look very similar (but still be different in the details) and get away with it. In other words, you can’t just copy the bitmaps, but you can re-make them as long as they aren’t too identical. >
That is why Apple has not sued the KDE group for Keramik. It is very noticible that Keramik was inspired by Aqua, but to the degree of difference you can tell, while Aqua may have inspired it, Keramik is actually a beast all on its own.
Please stop lumping OSS with GNU/Linux, OSS does not begin and end at Linux, and not all OSS projects are gooey projects. On the ordinary most of the OSS does not contain any windows ‘IP’. KDE, GNOME, XFCE and other such DEs do not ship with Microsoft icons. As far as IP goes I believe Microsoft is one of the worst violators of IP, ask apple and xerox.
Quote (Anonymous):
“As far as IP goes I believe Microsoft is one of the worst violators of IP, ask apple and xerox.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought GUI styles, layouts, etc. are not covered as IP?
Actually, never mind my prior comment – on second thought, _is_ covered. But then why wasn’t Microsoft sued?
The only Microsoft Icons I see on the Luna theme are for a couple Microsoft applications, that run on Linux. Is it wrong to include the icon for a commercial application you purchased on your free Linux desktop or something? This certainly isn’t an example of IP theft.
But then why wasn’t Microsoft sued?
They were. Apple sued them (and lost) in 1995, IIRC.
I think your take on Linux’s use of Microsoft IP is a bit off the mark. GAte’s recent comments that Linux violates their IP is more likely related to patents, of which Microsoft has thousands. Free and open source software are almost certainly infringing Microsoft’s partents simply because everyone in the industry is infringing them. Software patents are a minefield, and it’s impossible to write software without treading on someone else’s patented technology these days. Microsoft knows this better than anyone else since they’ve violated patents repeatedly.
You mention WINE’s use of DLL’s; it’s important to note two things about your use of this example.
1. WINE is not Linux, but rather a general UNIX application. So WINE’s use of proprietary DLLs has nothing directly to do with Linux, and does not exemplify Linux’s infringement of Microsoft’s patents or copyrights.
2. WINE does not come with Microsoft DLLs. Rather, they are supplied by the user. This is similar to using Microsoft TrueType fonts with Linux – this activity assumes that the user has a license to use Windows. As long as the WINE team does not distribute the Microsoft DLLs they’re in the clear, except in cases of patent infringement as described above.
Bill Gate’s recent comments about cross-licensing were rather dumb. (Bill Gates’s comments are always surprising in their ignorance. He’s a very smart guy, so you expect a lot more from him, but he tends to confuse issues and garble important acronyms when he gives interviews.) The inability to cross-license technology is a feature of the licenses under which free and open source software is distributed. It’s not an oversight – it’s that way on purpose. Cross-licensing deals are the result of a broken patent system, not the natural state of a competetive industry. If patents were granted only for non-obvious inventions, as the system was originally designed, cross-licensing would be extremely rare.
“He’s a very smart guy”
No, he isn’t. He was just in the right place at the right time, and made the right move. It could have been any one of us, the most likely in my mind would have been the guy that REALLY WROTE MS-DOS.
Good point – Bill Gates is widely regarded as a genius, but aside from being ambidexrous he hasn’t done much to demonstrate it.
Billy is a good man, a true American. He knows about the American way, just like my oil buddies.
You think he’s gonna lose? Not me with in the White House.
Billy and my boys down at the CIA have a good thing going.
Why do you think we’re running the Internet vote on Windows?
And you Americans call me a dummie.
I’m laughing and you’re crying.
Who’s the dummie now?
Actually I think Apple settled with MS, but stupidly the settlement specifically said Windows 3.1. So the future versions of Windows were free to copy Apple.
“No, [Bill Gates] isn’t [a ‘way smart guy.] He was just in the right place at the right time, and made the right move. It could have been any one of us, the most likely in my mind would have been the guy that REALLY WROTE MS-DOS.”
…and IBM just went ahead and grabbed while the grabbin’ was good, because that was what IBM was all about in those days. Maybe still is, for all I know.
Meanwhile, Gary Kildall (the guy who really started all this, with CP/M) was on his way of dying of a broken heart, while everybody went around sucking up to the wealthy and the wealthy kept saying “what’s in it for me?” over LOGO (which was supposed to be a freely-available, or low-cost, way to introduce kids to modern computer programming techniques.)
See, what many of you MS and anti-MS partisans don’t know is that there is a lot of history here going both ways, and SCO is set to PERVERT that history in the name of greed.
Which is, as I have said before, and as history will attest, the American Way.
If you don’t believe me, look up the story of the passenger pigeon, and how it went extinct.
Make no mistake; I don’t believe most Americans are in line with such behavior. But I do believe it’s time for most Americans to stand up for themselves, and stop letting the so-called “patriots” that weren’t elected to Government anyway stand up for them.
I cannot believe this was published as a serious article. The man knows very little about intellectual property law, and this article is simply a demonstration of that ignorance. It is simply perpetuating the confusion about IP and linux that the incompetent rabble of “internet journalists” have been peddling for the last few months.
Why was this posted, when my contribution of this article, which actually demonstrates some knowledge of how IP works was not:
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2914364…
Just in case someone is still reading this thread and believes the quote below, read on.
Lycoris uses Icons from Windows XP http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=155
is the Luna theme for KDE, that gives users Icons and what such.
A) That isn’t the Lycoris theme. That is some guy that ripped off XP’s icons and titlebar look (probably by cutting and pasting pieces screenshots).
B) I happened to be running XP when reading the other article where this claim was made and a screenshot of the Lycoris control center was posted. I compared it to my control center. Yes it is very verrry similar, but the icons are different (as in: they depict the same objects in the same style but are obviously different art when compared side by side) and the wording is different.
So stop trying to imply that Lycoris has just lifted the graphics directly from Windows XP. If you’ve got real proof otherwise, show it.
< Why was this posted, when my contribution of this article, which actually demonstrates some knowledge of how IP works was not: >
All your article demonstrates is the same thing people have been saying for months, SCO distributed the code yada-yada-yada. Stowell and Sontag are correct and no one can change that. If SCO did not give permission for anyone to distribute the code, then they are not bound by the terms of the GPL. What the courts will observe is how well did SCO enforce its rights after they discovered the code was in Linux. The GPL does not state what occurs if code is stolen and placed under the GPL.
< Fact: SCO continues this distribution today, even after publicly asserting that it is not properly licensed. >
This is from your article and I address that in my editorial, did SCO actively enforce its rights as the copyright holder?
< Fact: SCO’s contract with IBM does not preclude IBM employees from “use” of ideas (“residual knowledge mentally retained”) obtained by looking at System V code, so long as they are not verbatim copied. >
Also from your article, SCO is accusing IBM of verbatim copying, do you know what verbatim copying is? It is line by line copying of code.
< Fact: Section 2b of the GPL provides: “You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.” >
Im going to say this again, What happens if code is stolen and placed under the GPL bythe thief without the knowledge of the original developer, does it mean that code is now GPLed?
My point, and the points of my legal team is did SCO after the discovery enforce its license, did it issue a cease and desist order. No they did not, this is where Implied Permission falls under scrutiny.
< It is simply perpetuating the confusion about IP and linux that the incompetent rabble of “internet journalists” >
Better than the confusion of IP from others and sidewalk lawyers that say SCO distributed under the GPL and that is that. This article came to be from a position paper I wrote for our clients, I cut, mingled and added more so it could be published on OSNews, put your zealotry on the back burner and actually read the article and place it side by side with yours and you will see many of the things yours talk about I represent in mine. Ask yourself the questions I ask and point to me the rights of a developer who got ripped off and his code was placed under the GPL.
For a start, I am not a sidewalk lawyer, I am an actual lawyer.
Secondly, your point is that if code is stolen, then the alleged victim of that theft did not consent to the code being distributed under the GPL, and therefore, the code is not subject to the GPL.
However, it cannot be the case that a subsequent consent to distribution of the code by the alleged victim of the theft under the GPL is ineffective. Subsequent to SCO’s discovery of allegedly stolen code, they have distributed that code themselves in a manner that places that code under the GPL. They must be deemed to have read and understood the license on the kernel that they have distributed, and the must be deemed to know that their code is in it. This subsequent conduct is, in my view, a knowing distribution of their code under the GPL, and they must be deemed to have known the consequences of that.
If they did not want to distribute their code under the GPL, they should have pulled it from the kernel they were distributing, or they should have stopped distributing the kernel altogether.
The fact that they are vigorously enforcing their rights is irrelevant. It could be equally argued that they are enforcing their rights on the basis of a false assumption (ie that they have not already licensed their code under the GPL). This is not unusual at all. It is often the case that companies enforce rights that they subsequently discover that have been waived, or negated by some prior action of the company. The fact that SCO is enforcing its rights is irrelevant to the question of whether they have in fact already licensed the code under the GPL. It can have no bearing on their prior conduct.
I only have 1 point (which every lawyer should agree on).
1. The laws in each country is different regarding IP. In some countries, reverse engineering is legal, (despite what EULA/licences stipulate), international copyrights are not enforcable, etc…
All SCO has to do, is put their claim through a country, that has it’s laws fitted to benfit the SCO case… (ie where look-and-feel type stuff is copyrightable, and enforacble by law). Just remember, this type of stuff should come under international law, as for one thing, there would be a few countres out there that don’t want the US dictating how those countries should follow their own IP laws…
I’m glad to see that you have come back to the name that I can remember. Did you catch my post at the beginning of this thread about Darl McBride and shrooms or “pump ‘n’ dumping” stock at the beginning ;-).
Right now I am studying on a conspiracy that is REALLY RELEVANT to these OS-NEWS threads. That is Bill Gates’s and Microsoft’s LOOOONNNNGGGG history of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT which in fact begins with Bill’s very first commercial proprietary product that he wrote his famous anti piracy letter about. (“Bill’s” original proprietary BASIC was programmed on a computer at Harvard University that was intended for EDUCATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY and NOT developing proprietary software. Top speed and Sherbert should REALLY like this one since they claim that is intellectual property theft that makes Linux such a bad thing ;-).)
While we may have political dissagreements (I’m beginning to think that Wrawrat is more my type of person there) I am beginning to admire the way you guys stand up to these Microsoftie trolls and am very sorry to have participated with them on trolling on the previous threads the four of us were involved in.
Let’s sue each other and fill the pockets of our beloved lawyers. Let’s stop innovating and supporting our customers and care more for our share holders.
I wrote a program for the ZX Spectrum about 20 years ago. It was published in a magazine and I got £17.50 for it …… Wicked! Somebody copied it and sent it to another magazine and presumably got paid for it – yeah it took me hours to write.
I couldn’t believe it, what a piss take ….. but did I complain?
Linux is the way to go! I think everybody knows that.
SCO (TM) and Microsoft (TM) will have to adapt. Microsoft (TM) could easily distribute an OS based on Linux and call it MS Linux.
If I understand the lawsuit correctly, SCO has asked for a jury trial. This really makes all of the arguments for and against irrelavent. It does not matter how weak SCO’s case is technically or how strong IBM’s case is. What it will boil down to is how good the respective lawyers are in front of a jury.
Glenn
The GPL is a contract between developer (offerer) and distributor (offeree). Distribution by the offeree under GPL terms is both acceptance and performance of the contract.
The offeree promises nothing in return. This is a uniltateral contract. The offerer is bound by acceptance.
Claiming mistake by the offerer is unilateral mistake.
The party claiming unilateral mistake bears the risk if
they knew or should have known of the mistake and proceed
anyway. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts sec. 154.
After SCO continued to distribute it bore the risk
regardless of who errered on the copyrighted code.
There are no (pregnant cows) mutual mistakes in the
argument for voiding the contract.
I wrote a program for the ZX Spectrum about 20 years ago.
You are my new daily hero. I always wanted a ZX Spectrum but they didn’t sell any in Canada. Sinclair blew in North America by making a dubious distribution arrangement with Timex.
A friend of mine did have a mail-order ZX81, and we had quite a bit of fun with it – even made sound by fscking with the TV frequency…
Ah, those were the days!
“If I understand the lawsuit correctly, SCO has asked for a jury trial. This really makes all of the arguments for and against irrelavent. It does not matter how weak SCO’s case is technically or how strong IBM’s case is. What it will boil down to is how good the respective lawyers are in front of a jury.”
Why do you suppose juries are paid so little? Because it’s “payback” for the right to vote?
That would be even more of an indictment, considering what happend last election.
If you can “call” it an election.
…I never read it in those days. If I had, I would never have supported Windows in any way, shape, or form. I would have seen through him like a clear glass window.
I will always regret having made that mistake, because I know I had a lot to do with getting Windows into my shop in the early 1990’s.
Since then, the Redmond crowd has made me regret it over and over again.
Don’t get me wrong; Windows is a nice product.
Then again, if you had a brother who was a great auto mechanic and killed his wife, which would be more important to take note of?
Rmember, Gates and Co. were FOUND GUILTY OF DESTROYING NETSCAPE. In a way, that’s virtual murder. I would take a good guess that they’re now trying to use SCO as a hatchet-man to do the same to Linux.
All your blathering about IP and private rights and all the rest of it will never reach me if the people you support are a bunch of thugs.
I think that nobody should use word : intellectual property.
it’s fuzzy. It can mean almost anything. When you are talking about “intellectual property” what is EXACTLY the thing which you are meaning? Is it copyrights or what?
The word “piracy”, when used meaning unauthorized copying or illegal copying of copyrighted works is similar.
When you actually THINK what you are saying, you find out how stupid or funny these words are.
Well, at least , when these word are translated to finnish.
I’m not sure about english, because my native language is finnish.
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
To Wrawrat and Archiesteele. I appear to have been modded OUT of OS-NEWS as far as far as my Windows connection is concerned for violating the T & C with my wacky theories so I’m posting this under all our favorite opperating system LINUX. So while my Linux connection with OS-News is working, NO MORE CONSPIRACIES. Only relevant posts like this link will be comming from me in the future.
Reverse engineering for interoperability is authorised in most countries. Using MS formats does not mean you violate IP. Remember that the idea/format is not protected. It is the implementation of that idea/format which is.
It turns out that I was not modded out for violating the T &
C like I thought I was when I could not acces OS-NEWS under windows. Just another Win 9x BUG I guess. Probably staying with Linux to access OS-NEWS from now on to avoid any more false accusations.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/enterprise/story/0,2000048640,2027…
“I have just found out that the InterTrust V Microsoft patent infringement suit may well be MICROSOFT’S SCO!!!! ”
Ah… NO. I really wish people would get this straight and stop spreading more FUD, no matter which side you take. The SCO CASE IS NOT ABOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Just because SCO is acting duplicitous in this regard and attempting to extort licensing fees from well intentioned Linux using companies does not make it so. The ammended complaint makes it very clear that the only issue is a contractual dispute between SCO and IBM. Microsoft is being sued for IP infringement. Two totally different kinds of litigation.
I am not a ‘MS troll’, but I am proudly a ‘US troll’, and will defend the United States against all attackers, and Linux is one such attacker IMO, as are those that literally hate M$ simply because it is AMERICAN. I am VERY well aware of the past indiscretions of one Mr. Bill Gates, however, the man and his corporation recently survived a very rigorous investigation by the US Justice Department, was found guilty, and is now in the process of paying restitution. But OVERALL Microsoft’s contributions to the US as a whole have been POSITIVE.
Those that continue to despise MS are unwilling to admit the overall improvement to US and worldwide computer systems that have occurred DESPITE any illegalities by Mr. Gates or his company. In a nutshell, MS has:
Provided a common de-facto standard that improves communication between systems and users (standardization)
Tremendously reduced the complexity required to implement complex computer processes (user friendliness)
Created tremendous wealth for MS owners, employees and shareholders (capitalism)
Helped distribute US mentalities to the rest of the civilized world (US patriotism and leadership)
These end results far overshadow the ‘aggressive’ business tactics of Mr. Gates or his company. Many of the accusations levied against MS are no different than any other corporate entity would have possibly attempted had they found themselves in similar dominant positions in industry.
But contrast the positives I listed above with the negatives of IBM Corporation:
Ties with Holocaust
Duped customers repeatedly with failed shams such as PC Jr., Microchannel, OS/2 and now Linux
Now allegedly takes US trade secret UNIX technology and freely gives it to foreigners such as Torvalds
Also stands by while Torvalds distributes said technology to US adversaries such as North Korea and Syria without trade restriction that applies to UNIX
Therefore, comparatively speaking, my support of MS over IBM is justifiable, at least in my opinion.
Have a great day my friend!
Being that such things as Paladium, .NET, Yucon and Longhorn (Which I belive have their origins in the same treason meeting that I have outlined in my previous posts) are TOAST thanks to InterTrust V Microsoft I have pretty well dropped that mess to be avoid being modded out of OS-NEWS for violating the T & C and went on to something else, BILL GATES’S LONG RECORD OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT!!!
Furthermore you seem to have forgotten that Microsoft opened the Windows source code to the COMMUNIST CHINESE in order to keep a proprietary monopoly over that so called “market”. Would’nt the more american aproach have been to let the Chinese have their Red Flag Linux and keep Windows a closed American OS. (Actually even though they continue to call themselves Communists the Chinese have moved to a more Fascist style model with some capitalist private ownership featires being added to ttheir economic system.)
All this further goes to show that Bill Gates is an ANTI AMERICAN TRAITOR disguised as a pro American capitalist on the model of the Armand HAmmer family in the 19 50s, 60s, and 70s (And a SOFTWARE PIRATE to boot just as you claim torvalds to be.) just as I said that he was when he forst met. BOTH Microsoft and IBM seek a Fascist Revival in the United States USING MONOPOLY CONTROL OVER OUR COMPUTERS as the medium to bring it about and Fascism is just as dangerous as Communism if not actually MORE SO. (They did start a world war and try to liquidate an entire race of people after all!!!)
And as I have also said before until a proprietary OS that is genuinley owned by AMERICANS and not cleverly disguised TRAITORS open systems like Linux (Used INDEPENDENTLY not by plotters like IBM) with a strong “mind share” in the marketplace despite its foreign origin and GPL licensing, (I believe in Public Domain or something very close to it like BSD or MIT licensing for truely free software but to each his own, I’m not re hashing THAT troll fest again either.) remain the only way to stop this Fascist plot.
You obviously don’t know your IT history. Go away and read about the old Apple ‘Look and Feel’ lawsuits, which basically set M$ (and therefore us) free to copy what they liked. Read about Reverse Engineering being legal and talk to the poor guys who have been doing it to the M$ formats. Read about M$ releasing a partial spec of their doc format to the developer community.
The one thing you do get right is the ambiguity in the GPL between intentional release of code under GPL vs distributing it forcing it to be GPL.
Wine itself does NOT install M$ created dlls, Wine installs its own reversed engineered dlls. You can, however, copy any M$ versions you already have on your Win install in place of the Wine dlls to improve compatibility. So, no M$ IP there on Wines part, your actions are open to argument, however. Same goes for M$ rip-off icons.
Being that such things as Paladium, .NET, Yucon and Longhorn (Which I belive have their origins in the same treason meeting that I have outlined in my previous posts) are TOAST thanks to InterTrust…
IF M$ infringed on InterTrust, especially if it was knowingly, they should pay, period. M$ is under such scrutiny they can’t get away with ANYTHING these days.
Would’nt the more american aproach have been to let the Chinese have their Red Flag Linux and keep Windows a closed American OS.
I TOTALLY agree it would have been better, however I do happen to believe their ‘excuse’ that the unfair competition provided by Linux (given away as ‘free’, although it contains formidable capability due to stolen proprietary functionality) forced their hand in doing this. Again, those ‘peeks’ require a trip to Redmond and are closely guarded, unlike the free and complete access Linux gives to its source.
All this further goes to show that Bill Gates is an ANTI AMERICAN TRAITOR disguised as a pro American capitalist on the model of the Armand HAmmer family in the 19 50s, 60s, and 70s
I don’t agree that Gates anywhere equals the anti-American exploits of Mr. Hammer, who who built his career on making deals with Lenin and the USSR, as well as afiliated himself with the communist party. Gates has hardly reached that level, and likely never will.
And as I have also said before until a proprietary OS that is genuinley owned by AMERICANS and not cleverly disguised TRAITORS open systems like Linux
Snake I might agree with you there, but ‘Linux’ does not by it’s very nature fit your description of ‘owned by Americans’ since it is owned (controlled) by a foreigner, Torvalds. Your argument would get a lot more support if it’s end recommendation was Free or Open BSD, instead of Linux, wouldn’t it?
You don’t know the IT history. Linux is NOT a derivate of unix. Linux was written from scratch and was ONLY inspired by the principles of minix (or unix if you wish).
Ad Microsoft & defacto standarts.. you have to be kidding in that case – Microsoft only taked a real standarts and changed they to be less or non-compatible. (for example..MS’s implementation of TCP/IP)
MS IE dont use Netscape code u bloody tosser, it uses Mosaic code the first ever graphical Web Browser, Netscape uses Parts Of Microsoft IE, and Mosaic for its main processing engine, then in version 6.0 they began to move away from the Mosaic Graphics system and began work on Mozilla (Mosaic Killer), so get ur facts right dumb ass