Jeffry Smith wrote: > On 11/13/06, Bill Sconce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:54:11 +0300 >> "Jeffry Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > On 11/11/06, Bruce Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > Not to throw cold water on these well-fanned flames but... >> > > >> > > Prediction: Microsoft will buy Novell/SUSE or otherwise acquire >> all the >> > > Unix IP and try to litigate Linux/Unix out of business. Then it will >> > > turn its lawyer cannons on the GPL. >> > > >> > Only one problem - I doubt Novell owns all the Unix copyrights. >> >> >> And SCO didn't own Unix copyrights either. >> >> SCO's lawsuits are not, and were never, likely to prevail. But lack >> of basis didn't stop lawsuits from happening. As long as money has >> continued to be available there has been continuing court action, >> and continuing FUD in the press which *ahem* somebody may have found >> convenient. >> >> (True, harassment/FUD lawsuits cost big money. But that didn't stop >> SCO. They were even able to find investors to pitch in and help...) > > And the effect on linux growth has been? I see how well it has > stopped Linux growth - why no one uses it, and GNHLUG is moving to > Windows Vista :-)
I believe there is well documented evidence that these patent announcements adversely effect Linux companies in terms of stock prices and partnering ventures - just contrast stock prices of the company's affected by these announcements right around the time of the announcement. Not that the Linux community cares all that much about "companies" - it just cares about its freedom to "express itself" in software. ;-) About the only thing that can affect "free" stuff (software, hardware, air, ...) are legal actions, resources and perception. So far, Microsoft hasn't been successful with legal actions - at least not in a non-intimidation way. And the lack of resources is sorta moot for software. That leaves perception, which is what this action is aimed at. Probably with a hope to bolster any future legal action. Software and business process patents are sorta new in the change-resistant legal profession. Its only a matter of time before they are considered endorsed or rejected by the legal community. So far, Microsoft and big business has been building a strong case that these patent classes are good for society (and of course, for commerce). It still remains for the community-at-large to convince the legal profession that they are bad for society. I know a strong case can be made for the DMCA being bad for society (technology lost because it can't be reconstructed - legally or otherwise, and then there's anti-competitive behavior), but unless longer terms are granted for patents, I don't see how that will adversely impact society. > On 11/12/06, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You're assuming any "intellectual property" that Linux might >> "violate" is from the original Unix source. Linux is largely new >> code, and there are plenty of new ideas in it. > > For the purpose of MS buying Novell - yes. Certainly MS can sue over > patents they may hold now, but they don't need to by Novell to do that > (what this reply started on). > > In fact, I believe OSDL has calculated that about 283 patents "MAY" > have something to do with Linux (it depends on if they're valid > patents, etc). How many software patents have been granted since that calculation was made? And how many are in the protective state of being pending? And how much will it cost a small company (or non-profit, or individual) to defend itself against a "bad patent"? --Bruce _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
