In their keynotes at the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference, Jim Allchin and Bill Gates plan to stress the value of melding hardware and software innovation, as well as demonstrating what some of Microsoft’s new technologies can do. In the meantime, Bill Gates confirms that there will be no AMD Windows 64 until Q4, but he calls for 64-bit software support.
Longhorn, Whidbey, Media Center Snag Prime Billing at WinHEC
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 eWeek:
“Longhorn’s Real Job: Trying to Gore Linux”
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1579765,00.asp
The article explores why Microsoft is trying to tie hardware and software together as much as possible and also exploring why Microsoft is filing 10 patents per day for Longhorn.
It’s scary to think what MS is trying to do.
The article explores why Microsoft is trying to tie hardware and software together as much as possible and also exploring why Microsoft is filing 10 patents per day for Longhorn.
It’s scary to think what MS is trying to do.
Microsoft may not want a repeat of the Eolas debacle, where they get sued for something seemingly public domain 5 years down the road. Many companies (IBM comes to mind) maintain huge patent stables for precisely this purpose. Companies patent thing for both defensive and offensive reasons.
This blurb is taken from a blog on MSDN:
At Microsoft, we used to pay little attention to patents – we would just make new things, and that would be it. Then we started getting worried – other big competitors (much bigger than we were at the time) had been patenting their inventions for some years, and it made us vulnerable. One of these big companies could dig through their patent portfolio, find something close to what we had done, then sue us, and we would have to go through an elaborate defense and possibly lose. So Microsoft did what most big companies do, which is start to build what is called a “defensive” patent portfolio. So if a big company tried to sue us, we could find something in our portfolio they were afoul of, and counter-sue. In the cold war days, this strategy was called “mutual assured destruction”, and since it was intolerable for all parties to engage, it resulted in a state called “détente”, or “standoff”. This is what you see today for the most part in lots of industries.
“At Microsoft, we used to pay little attention to patents – we would just make new things, and that would be it. Then we started getting worried – other big competitors (much bigger than we were at the time) had been patenting their inventions for some years, and it made us vulnerable. One of these big companies could dig through their patent portfolio, find something close to what we had done, then sue us, and we would have to go through an elaborate defense and possibly lose. So Microsoft did what most big companies do, which is start to build what is called a “defensive” patent portfolio. So if a big company tried to sue us, we could find something in our portfolio they were afoul of, and counter-sue. In the cold war days, this strategy was called “mutual assured destruction”, and since it was intolerable for all parties to engage, it resulted in a state called “détente”, or “standoff”. This is what you see today for the most part in lots of industries. ”
Nice quote. It makes sense, unless you belive companies shouldn’t protect themselves. O_o
In other words, business is war.
This does not address the root causes. Microsoft has enough weight that if it truly believe that software patents were dangerous and if it had not offensive plans, it could create a very effective public campaign and it could get legislators to address the issue.
If it did this, it would have the support of every single company and developer in the opensource ecosystem.
Sorry, I am not buying your explanation.
<Bill Gates plan to stress the value of melding hardware and software innovation,>
Hmmm now what other OS melds hardware and software innovation? Maybe OS X? Jokers.
If this is true then maybe it is time for Open source people to start filing patens on just about everything in the Open source field. This would have two good affects on the open source software. First sooner or later Bill and company will need some of our patens – at which point he may have to exchange rights to his patents for use of those held by open source supporters. (It might be good to have a large open source foundation collectively enforce the patens). The second good thing to come of this would be that all the new patens would gum up the enforcement works to the point that the government may decide that software patens are a bad idea and to the point of refusing accept or enforce them. The confusion of cross patens will cause havoc even if the government does nothing.
we could finally get Tort reform in the U.S. and stop having the taxpayers dollars wasted on frivolous lawsuits by having more stringent requirements for actually filing a suit…
If this is true then maybe it is time for Open source people to start filing patens on just about everything in the Open source field.
Thanks for the laugh. OSS cheapskates aren’t going to pay patent attorneys to patent their stuff. They’ll just continue to ripoff IP until somebody sues their asses into oblivion — then, they’ll slither away like cockroaches when you turn on the light.
This does not address the root causes. Microsoft has enough weight that if it truly believe that software patents were dangerous and if it had not offensive plans, it could create a very effective public campaign and it could get legislators to address the issue.
He only got it half-right: Patents are not only defensive, they’re also offensive. M$ can go after anybody who violates their patents — and force them to either license the technology or stop using it entirely. It’s unlikely that legislators are going to change a right granted by the United States Constitution. Patents are here to stay. The only people that benefit from the elimination of patents are the ones who have no intention of filing their own; namely, the OSS community.
is it in intel’s interest to get MS to delay windows for 64?
“continue to ripoff IP”
As opposed to all the corporations making money off Open Source?
“is it in intel’s interest to get MS to delay windows for 64?”
Yes, only AMD has a 64-bit x86 chip out. (windows for Itanic has been out a long time) and intels 64-bit chip is pending, so if MS takes longer, AMD will hurt intel less.