On Thursday 17 May 2007 08:28, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> > Cor Nouws a écrit :
> >>Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> >>>There was a post on digg explaining what it was actually found and
> >>>how did  Balmer distorted the news in true Microsoft way:
> >>>http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1729908,00.asp
> >>
> >>Interesting, but Nov. 2004.
> >>Is this about the same claim(s) ?
> >
> > Huh, there might have been a problem in the dates, because this article
> > is supposed to have been published a few days ago...
>
> Hmm, all references lead to pages in august / november 2004.
> Which doesn't mean that the content is less valid...
> just my question: Is this about the same claim(s) ?

Cor,

I believe these are two separate set of claims, though Ballmer may have used 
the claims from 2004 as a starting point (or more cynically, to introduce 
even more FUD).  Just some items to look at:

- 2004 study done by Ravicher claimed over 200 patents potentially infringed 
by Linux.  I'm pretty sure his study was limited to the Linux kernel and 
nothing else.  Of those, iirc, only about 23 or so were identified as being 
owned by MS.

- Jump ahead to 2007, and Ballmer is now claiming that a variety of FOSS 
applications infringe over 200 MS specific patents.  This is very different 
from what Ravicher was claiming - many more apps covered and Ballmer is 
limiting his claims to MS patents.

I would have to guess the Digg poster was confused regarding the 2004 claims 
versus the new MS claims.  If I'm at my most cynical, I would say Ballmer/MS 
selected a number in the 2xx range with the intent that their claims get 
confused with the Ravicher study.  From what I'm seeing around the 'net, it 
seems like that strategy (if correct) is working.

My simple answer to the question of whether the 2004 Ravicher claims and the 
2007 Ballmer claims are the same is no.

hth,

-- 
Jeff Causey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to