Re: [discuss] Sooner or Later
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:01, Hinton Carl wrote: > Who owns WordPerfect? Corel. They were sold it by Novell, who bought WordPerfect Corp. > > -Original Message- > From: Wesley Parish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 12 January 2006 10:42 > To: discuss@openoffice.org > Subject: Re: [discuss] Sooner or Later > > > Is it worth while pointing out that the favourite word processor of > Legal > Offices seems to be WordPerfect, and WordPerfect 5.1 had Long Document > Names > piggybacking Short File Names in 1990, whereas MS Win95, the first > Windows to > my knowledge that had Long File Names piggybacking Short File Names, > came out > in 1995? > > I think it's time to twist the knife. > > Wesley Parish > > On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:28, Roger Markus wrote: > > Microsoft continues to acquire patents for things which have no > > business being patented. The article below from John Oates at the > > Register mentions Linux and open source, without specifically naming > > OpenOffice, but - make no mistake - we are in the same boat as Linux. > > > > If Linux is destroyed, so to will be OpenOffice. > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/11/microsoft_wins_patent_case/ > > > > Re: The US Patent Office has upheld Microsoft's claim of patent > > rights over its File Allocation Table. > > The decision reverses two earlier judgements and potentially > > allows Microsoft to go after open-source developers who use the > > technology. FAT controls how computers store information to hard > > drives and other storage devices such as Flash cards. > > The US Patent and Trademark Office ruled that the file system is > > "novel and non-obvious" and, therefore, deserving of a patent. > > The decision is important because it could mean Microsoft could > > force open-source distributors to pay it a royalty or remove the > > software from their products. Open-source software must, by > > definition, be patent-free. Concerns over patents within some Linux > > distributions have been blamed for hindering wider adoption of the > > operating system. > > > Florian Mueller, founder of nosoftwarepatents.com, said the > > decision gave Microsoft the weapons to attack Linux. Mueller said: > > "This is now a situation in which Microsoft could cause major problems > > > > to Linux vendors and users. Microsoft may not want to do that yet for > > other considerations, but the USPTO's decision gives Microsoft the > > strategic option to do so at a time of its choosing. Also, the USPTO > > and even the European Patent Office continue to grant new patents to > > Microsoft daily, and some of them may be equally dangerous to open > > source as the FAT patents. > > > "The example of the FAT patents shows that all those patent > > quality initiatives and patent pledges have no significant value to > > open-source developers, vendors and users if Microsoft ever wants to > > go for Linux's throat." > > > > The US patent agency is either corrupt and/or imbecilic. > > Unfortunately the rot at the top is spreading. Either we stop the rot > > > > or it will rot us. The irony of course is that even if the rot "wins", > > > > it will lose, because - being a parasite - it cannot live without > > something to feed upon. Let's put it out of its misery sooner rather > > than later. We could live with or without Microsoft, but they can't > > live with us - or so they think, correctly perhaps. They have built > > up their mighty empire through theft of others' ideas and through > > regularly breaking the law. They are an illegal bunch of scoundrels. > > > > Apparently they realize that they cannot win a fair and open fight and > > > > so ever more dirty do they become. > > > > To save open source, only the force of honest law and people with > > backbone and courage can... must... force them to stop ravaging and > > destroying the computer industry and the freedom of the Internet. > > > > I'm ranting and raving? You bet. The stakes are high and ranting > > after your dreams and livelihood have been destroyed is too bloody > > late! Now is the time to have some backbone and stand up. While I'm > > on the subject, here's a call for the Microsoft supporters to get off > > of this list. You cannot support both Microsoft and OpenOffice. If > > you support Microsoft, you are for the destruction of OpenOffice and > > do not belong in this group. Many of us are stuck using Microsoft's > > illegal software through having no choice - but that is no excuse to > > raise your voices in support of an illegal tyrant! > > > > RM -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish - Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? You ask, what is the most important thing? Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Sooner or Later
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:39:25 + Hinton Carl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay, so let's brainstorm some positive actions which can beat Mr. > Gates at his own game > > E.g. > > * Let's get Linux installed onto PCs as they come out of shops Here in New Zealand a largish company (Dick Smith Electronics) tried it and it was a flop. A person asks mates before investing in a computer. The mate knows nothing about it, so it seems risky. Moreso when it won't run Internet Explorer or Office?!? (Natively, /.ers) Second problem is updates. Different from distro to distro. Huge volume for someone on dialup, due to app updates as well as security/os updates. > * Let's get OpenOffice installed onto PCs as they come out of shops A Lot of Online PC Distributors are starting just that. > * Let's get big organisations and University using Linux Many established Uni's have moved from Unix to Linux. Many big corps will stick with an established solution provider. If the provider can make the case, it'll be done. > * Let's get the installation of OpenOffice onto Windows PCs to format > part of the drive as Linux Ext 2 and install onto that Dual booting to play with linux. "It looks complicated", where different = complicated. > * Let's make OpenOffice so much better than MS-Office that nobody > wants MS - (sorry for swaring) In some ways it already is. > * Let's work side by side with the guys working on Linux OO.o in my experience works better on linux than windows. It integrates better with Mozilla * on all platforms than our cruddy Office 97 at work does with IE. > * Let's tell all our friends about OpenOffice > * Let's sue MS for stealing our ideas > * Let's work on a strategy to oust Bill once and for all > I think you should save your zealotry for your associates. Preaching to the converted will achieve little other than waking the trolls. Besides it draws the thread off topic. I think this evangelism is worthwhile in its right time and place, i just think this forum is not the place. So this is less of a putdown, more a re-aiming of the cannon ;) -- Michael Those that can, do; those that can't, teach. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Sooner or Later
On 1/12/06 7:02 AM Dave Barton wrote: > On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 11:01 +, Hinton Carl wrote: >> Who owns WordPerfect? > > Corel ... which is also investigating using OpenDocument Format. lsp >> -Original Message- >> From: Wesley Parish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: 12 January 2006 10:42 >> To: discuss@openoffice.org >> Subject: Re: [discuss] Sooner or Later >> >> >> Is it worth while pointing out that the favourite word processor of >> Legal Offices seems to be WordPerfect, and WordPerfect 5.1 had Long Document >> Names piggybacking Short File Names in 1990, whereas MS Win95, the first >> Windows to my knowledge that had Long File Names piggybacking Short File >> Names, >> came out in 1995? >> >> I think it's time to twist the knife. >> >> Wesley Parish > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Sooner or Later
>>The legislation has to change.<< +1 For all the talk of "fixing" the USPTO, imo until there is a legislative change to get rid of business method and sw patents, the USPTO will continue granting them. Unfortunately, this will require a significant effort to be undertaken and one can expect massive resistance from the business world. Even companies like IBM, which recently came out with an announcement about its efforts to work with the USPTO to improve the process, is still one of the largest org's obtaining patents in the US. While IBM and other companies are certainly friends of Linux and OSS efforts, they also make billions from their patents and will not give them up easily. Thus, you continue to hear calls for "reform" but not banishment. jmo, but that is why some of these efforts outside the US are so important even to those in the US. Only when sw and business method patents become a liability for companies (or possibly some key constituency like some that Lars noted) trying to operate on a global level will we see serious calls to put an end to the practice. Jeff Causey Lars D. Noodén wrote: the patent on XML serialization would be one problem but there are thousands of others. Most stuff from text books and even request for comments (RFCs) have been patented. As we see from the FAT case, prior are arguments just won't cut it. The legislation has to change. SW patent interests have been piggybacking sw patent legislation onto various free trade agreements. Recently, CAFTA, and even more recently in Thailand. The Thai talks were interupted by protests and will be moved to the US where if there are any Thai protests, they can use the Free Speech Zones (tm) safely out of sight of the legislators, the public and the press. Unfortunately, like all other press coverage the focus was on AIDS medicine and not technology. The former being more distracting and time wasting. sw patents threaten not just open source, but also closed source and even businesses using computers. That last group is for all practical purposes always left out of the discussion. If your group, school, business or university looks like it is profiting in some way from a patented algorithm, business method, or code, then expect a visit from a portfolio company. sw patents (e.g. "one-click", shopping carts, blogs, etc.) affect end users. The European Patent Convention from 1972 does specifically ban sw patents, business method patents, etc. But the European Patent Office has been churning out thousands of currently invalid patents on them in expectation that the US will be able to by hook or crook get sw patents into the EU or one at a time into member states. That will effectively close off the market for only the big players and since there are very few big players in Europe that means mainly US and Japanese ones. The prohibition on sw patents needs to be re-affirmed and codified in the EU. If European legislators can be convinced not to voluntarily take the back seat, then even the US will eventually have to ditch sw patents and go back to the normal way of doing things. Lookup more info the EFF and the FSF. I expect more trouble this summer like last summer, but with more stealth. -Lars Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Software patents endanger the legal certainty of software. Keep them out of the EU by writing your MEP, keep the market open. On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Roger Markus wrote: Microsoft continues to acquire patents for things which have no business being patented. The article below from John Oates at the Register mentions Linux and open source, without specifically naming OpenOffice, but - make no mistake - we are in the same boat as Linux. If Linux is destroyed, so to will be OpenOffice. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/11/microsoft_wins_patent_case/ Re: The US Patent Office has upheld Microsoft's claim of patent rights over its File Allocation Table. The decision reverses two earlier judgements and potentially allows Microsoft to go after open-source developers who use the technology. FAT controls how computers store information to hard drives and other storage devices such as Flash cards. The US Patent and Trademark Office ruled that the file system is "novel and non-obvious" and, therefore, deserving of a patent. The decision is important because it could mean Microsoft could force open-source distributors to pay it a royalty or remove the software from their products. Open-source software must, by definition, be patent-free. Concerns over patents within some Linux distributions have been blamed for hindering wider adoption of the operating system. Florian Mueller, founder of nosoftwarepatents.com, said the decision gave Microsoft the weapons to attack Linux. Mueller said: "This is now a situation in which Microsoft could cause major problems to Linux vendors and users. Microsoft may not w
Re: [discuss] Sooner or Later
Is it worth while pointing out that the favourite word processor of Legal Offices seems to be WordPerfect, and WordPerfect 5.1 had Long Document Names piggybacking Short File Names in 1990, whereas MS Win95, the first Windows to my knowledge that had Long File Names piggybacking Short File Names, came out in 1995? I think it's time to twist the knife. Wesley Parish On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:28, Roger Markus wrote: > Microsoft continues to acquire patents for things which have no business > being patented. The article below from John Oates at the Register mentions > Linux and open source, without specifically naming OpenOffice, but - make > no mistake - we are in the same boat as Linux. If Linux is destroyed, so > to will be OpenOffice. > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/11/microsoft_wins_patent_case/ > > Re: The US Patent Office has upheld Microsoft's claim of patent rights > over its File Allocation Table. > The decision reverses two earlier judgements and potentially allows > Microsoft to go after open-source developers who use the technology. FAT > controls how computers store information to hard drives and other storage > devices such as Flash cards. > The US Patent and Trademark Office ruled that the file system is > "novel and non-obvious" and, therefore, deserving of a patent. > The decision is important because it could mean Microsoft could force > open-source distributors to pay it a royalty or remove the software from > their products. Open-source software must, by definition, be patent-free. > Concerns over patents within some Linux distributions have been blamed for > hindering wider adoption of the operating system. > Florian Mueller, founder of nosoftwarepatents.com, said the decision > gave Microsoft the weapons to attack Linux. Mueller said: "This is now a > situation in which Microsoft could cause major problems to Linux vendors > and users. Microsoft may not want to do that yet for other considerations, > but the USPTO's decision gives Microsoft the strategic option to do so at a > time of its choosing. Also, the USPTO and even the European Patent Office > continue to grant new patents to Microsoft daily, and some of them may be > equally dangerous to open source as the FAT patents. > "The example of the FAT patents shows that all those patent quality > initiatives and patent pledges have no significant value to open-source > developers, vendors and users if Microsoft ever wants to go for Linux's > throat." > > The US patent agency is either corrupt and/or imbecilic. Unfortunately the > rot at the top is spreading. Either we stop the rot or it will rot us. > The irony of course is that even if the rot "wins", it will lose, because - > being a parasite - it cannot live without something to feed upon. Let's > put it out of its misery sooner rather than later. We could live with or > without Microsoft, but they can't live with us - or so they think, > correctly perhaps. They have built up their mighty empire through theft of > others' ideas and through regularly breaking the law. They are an illegal > bunch of scoundrels. Apparently they realize that they cannot win a fair > and open fight and so ever more dirty do they become. > > To save open source, only the force of honest law and people with backbone > and courage can... must... force them to stop ravaging and destroying the > computer industry and the freedom of the Internet. > > I'm ranting and raving? You bet. The stakes are high and ranting after > your dreams and livelihood have been destroyed is too bloody late! Now is > the time to have some backbone and stand up. While I'm on the subject, > here's a call for the Microsoft supporters to get off of this list. You > cannot support both Microsoft and OpenOffice. If you support Microsoft, > you are for the destruction of OpenOffice and do not belong in this group. > Many of us are stuck using Microsoft's illegal software through having no > choice - but that is no excuse to raise your voices in support of an > illegal tyrant! > > RM -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish - Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? You ask, what is the most important thing? Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [discuss] Sooner or Later
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 11:01 +, Hinton Carl wrote: > Who owns WordPerfect? Corel > -Original Message- > From: Wesley Parish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 12 January 2006 10:42 > To: discuss@openoffice.org > Subject: Re: [discuss] Sooner or Later > > > Is it worth while pointing out that the favourite word processor of > Legal Offices seems to be WordPerfect, and WordPerfect 5.1 had Long Document > Names piggybacking Short File Names in 1990, whereas MS Win95, the first > Windows to my knowledge that had Long File Names piggybacking Short File > Names, > came out in 1995? > > I think it's time to twist the knife. > > Wesley Parish -- Registered Linux User #288562 http://counter.li.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [discuss] Sooner or Later
Who owns WordPerfect? -Original Message- From: Wesley Parish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 January 2006 10:42 To: discuss@openoffice.org Subject: Re: [discuss] Sooner or Later Is it worth while pointing out that the favourite word processor of Legal Offices seems to be WordPerfect, and WordPerfect 5.1 had Long Document Names piggybacking Short File Names in 1990, whereas MS Win95, the first Windows to my knowledge that had Long File Names piggybacking Short File Names, came out in 1995? I think it's time to twist the knife. Wesley Parish On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:28, Roger Markus wrote: > Microsoft continues to acquire patents for things which have no > business being patented. The article below from John Oates at the > Register mentions Linux and open source, without specifically naming > OpenOffice, but - make no mistake - we are in the same boat as Linux. > If Linux is destroyed, so to will be OpenOffice. > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/11/microsoft_wins_patent_case/ > > Re: The US Patent Office has upheld Microsoft's claim of patent > rights over its File Allocation Table. > The decision reverses two earlier judgements and potentially > allows Microsoft to go after open-source developers who use the > technology. FAT controls how computers store information to hard > drives and other storage devices such as Flash cards. > The US Patent and Trademark Office ruled that the file system is > "novel and non-obvious" and, therefore, deserving of a patent. > The decision is important because it could mean Microsoft could > force open-source distributors to pay it a royalty or remove the > software from their products. Open-source software must, by > definition, be patent-free. Concerns over patents within some Linux > distributions have been blamed for hindering wider adoption of the operating system. > Florian Mueller, founder of nosoftwarepatents.com, said the > decision gave Microsoft the weapons to attack Linux. Mueller said: > "This is now a situation in which Microsoft could cause major problems > to Linux vendors and users. Microsoft may not want to do that yet for > other considerations, but the USPTO's decision gives Microsoft the > strategic option to do so at a time of its choosing. Also, the USPTO > and even the European Patent Office continue to grant new patents to > Microsoft daily, and some of them may be equally dangerous to open source as the FAT patents. > "The example of the FAT patents shows that all those patent > quality initiatives and patent pledges have no significant value to > open-source developers, vendors and users if Microsoft ever wants to > go for Linux's throat." > > The US patent agency is either corrupt and/or imbecilic. > Unfortunately the rot at the top is spreading. Either we stop the rot > or it will rot us. The irony of course is that even if the rot "wins", > it will lose, because - being a parasite - it cannot live without > something to feed upon. Let's put it out of its misery sooner rather > than later. We could live with or without Microsoft, but they can't > live with us - or so they think, correctly perhaps. They have built > up their mighty empire through theft of others' ideas and through > regularly breaking the law. They are an illegal bunch of scoundrels. > Apparently they realize that they cannot win a fair and open fight and > so ever more dirty do they become. > > To save open source, only the force of honest law and people with > backbone and courage can... must... force them to stop ravaging and > destroying the computer industry and the freedom of the Internet. > > I'm ranting and raving? You bet. The stakes are high and ranting > after your dreams and livelihood have been destroyed is too bloody > late! Now is the time to have some backbone and stand up. While I'm > on the subject, here's a call for the Microsoft supporters to get off > of this list. You cannot support both Microsoft and OpenOffice. If > you support Microsoft, you are for the destruction of OpenOffice and > do not belong in this group. Many of us are stuck using Microsoft's > illegal software through having no choice - but that is no excuse to > raise your voices in support of an illegal tyrant! > > RM -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish - Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? You ask, what is the most important thing? Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Sooner or Later
the patent on XML serialization would be one problem but there are thousands of others. Most stuff from text books and even request for comments (RFCs) have been patented. As we see from the FAT case, prior are arguments just won't cut it. The legislation has to change. SW patent interests have been piggybacking sw patent legislation onto various free trade agreements. Recently, CAFTA, and even more recently in Thailand. The Thai talks were interupted by protests and will be moved to the US where if there are any Thai protests, they can use the Free Speech Zones (tm) safely out of sight of the legislators, the public and the press. Unfortunately, like all other press coverage the focus was on AIDS medicine and not technology. The former being more distracting and time wasting. sw patents threaten not just open source, but also closed source and even businesses using computers. That last group is for all practical purposes always left out of the discussion. If your group, school, business or university looks like it is profiting in some way from a patented algorithm, business method, or code, then expect a visit from a portfolio company. sw patents (e.g. "one-click", shopping carts, blogs, etc.) affect end users. The European Patent Convention from 1972 does specifically ban sw patents, business method patents, etc. But the European Patent Office has been churning out thousands of currently invalid patents on them in expectation that the US will be able to by hook or crook get sw patents into the EU or one at a time into member states. That will effectively close off the market for only the big players and since there are very few big players in Europe that means mainly US and Japanese ones. The prohibition on sw patents needs to be re-affirmed and codified in the EU. If European legislators can be convinced not to voluntarily take the back seat, then even the US will eventually have to ditch sw patents and go back to the normal way of doing things. Lookup more info the EFF and the FSF. I expect more trouble this summer like last summer, but with more stealth. -Lars Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Software patents endanger the legal certainty of software. Keep them out of the EU by writing your MEP, keep the market open. On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Roger Markus wrote: Microsoft continues to acquire patents for things which have no business being patented. The article below from John Oates at the Register mentions Linux and open source, without specifically naming OpenOffice, but - make no mistake - we are in the same boat as Linux. If Linux is destroyed, so to will be OpenOffice. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/11/microsoft_wins_patent_case/ Re: The US Patent Office has upheld Microsoft's claim of patent rights over its File Allocation Table. The decision reverses two earlier judgements and potentially allows Microsoft to go after open-source developers who use the technology. FAT controls how computers store information to hard drives and other storage devices such as Flash cards. The US Patent and Trademark Office ruled that the file system is "novel and non-obvious" and, therefore, deserving of a patent. The decision is important because it could mean Microsoft could force open-source distributors to pay it a royalty or remove the software from their products. Open-source software must, by definition, be patent-free. Concerns over patents within some Linux distributions have been blamed for hindering wider adoption of the operating system. Florian Mueller, founder of nosoftwarepatents.com, said the decision gave Microsoft the weapons to attack Linux. Mueller said: "This is now a situation in which Microsoft could cause major problems to Linux vendors and users. Microsoft may not want to do that yet for other considerations, but the USPTO's decision gives Microsoft the strategic option to do so at a time of its choosing. Also, the USPTO and even the European Patent Office continue to grant new patents to Microsoft daily, and some of them may be equally dangerous to open source as the FAT patents. "The example of the FAT patents shows that all those patent quality initiatives and patent pledges have no significant value to open-source developers, vendors and users if Microsoft ever wants to go for Linux's throat." The US patent agency is either corrupt and/or imbecilic. Unfortunately the rot at the top is spreading. Either we stop the rot or it will rot us. The irony of course is that even if the rot "wins", it will lose, because - being a parasite - it cannot live without something to feed upon. Let's put it out of its misery sooner rather than later. We could live with or without Microsoft, but they can't live with us - or so they think, correctly perhaps. They have built up their mighty empire through theft of others' ideas and through regularly breaking the law. They are an illegal bunch of scoundre
RE: [discuss] Sooner or Later
Okay, so let's brainstorm some positive actions which can beat Mr. Gates at his own game E.g. * Let's get Linux installed onto PCs as they come out of shops * Let's get OpenOffice installed onto PCs as they come out of shops * Let's get big organisations and University using Linux * Let's get the installation of OpenOffice onto Windows PCs to format part of the drive as Linux Ext 2 and install onto that * Let's make OpenOffice so much better than MS-Office that nobody wants MS - (sorry for swaring) * Let's work side by side with the guys working on Linux * Let's tell all our friends about OpenOffice * Let's sue MS for stealing our ideas * Let's work on a strategy to oust Bill once and for all Regards Carl Hinton -Original Message- From: Roger Markus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 January 2006 06:29 To: discuss@openoffice.org Subject: [discuss] Sooner or Later Microsoft continues to acquire patents for things which have no business being patented. The article below from John Oates at the Register mentions Linux and open source, without specifically naming OpenOffice, but - make no mistake - we are in the same boat as Linux. If Linux is destroyed, so to will be OpenOffice. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/11/microsoft_wins_patent_case/ Re: The US Patent Office has upheld Microsoft's claim of patent rights over its File Allocation Table. The decision reverses two earlier judgements and potentially allows Microsoft to go after open-source developers who use the technology. FAT controls how computers store information to hard drives and other storage devices such as Flash cards. The US Patent and Trademark Office ruled that the file system is "novel and non-obvious" and, therefore, deserving of a patent. The decision is important because it could mean Microsoft could force open-source distributors to pay it a royalty or remove the software from their products. Open-source software must, by definition, be patent-free. Concerns over patents within some Linux distributions have been blamed for hindering wider adoption of the operating system. Florian Mueller, founder of nosoftwarepatents.com, said the decision gave Microsoft the weapons to attack Linux. Mueller said: "This is now a situation in which Microsoft could cause major problems to Linux vendors and users. Microsoft may not want to do that yet for other considerations, but the USPTO's decision gives Microsoft the strategic option to do so at a time of its choosing. Also, the USPTO and even the European Patent Office continue to grant new patents to Microsoft daily, and some of them may be equally dangerous to open source as the FAT patents. "The example of the FAT patents shows that all those patent quality initiatives and patent pledges have no significant value to open-source developers, vendors and users if Microsoft ever wants to go for Linux's throat." The US patent agency is either corrupt and/or imbecilic. Unfortunately the rot at the top is spreading. Either we stop the rot or it will rot us. The irony of course is that even if the rot "wins", it will lose, because - being a parasite - it cannot live without something to feed upon. Let's put it out of its misery sooner rather than later. We could live with or without Microsoft, but they can't live with us - or so they think, correctly perhaps. They have built up their mighty empire through theft of others' ideas and through regularly breaking the law. They are an illegal bunch of scoundrels. Apparently they realize that they cannot win a fair and open fight and so ever more dirty do they become. To save open source, only the force of honest law and people with backbone and courage can... must... force them to stop ravaging and destroying the computer industry and the freedom of the Internet. I'm ranting and raving? You bet. The stakes are high and ranting after your dreams and livelihood have been destroyed is too bloody late! Now is the time to have some backbone and stand up. While I'm on the subject, here's a call for the Microsoft supporters to get off of this list. You cannot support both Microsoft and OpenOffice. If you support Microsoft, you are for the destruction of OpenOffice and do not belong in this group. Many of us are stuck using Microsoft's illegal software through having no choice - but that is no excuse to raise your voices in support of an illegal tyrant! RM Legal Disclaimer:- Internet communications are not secure and therefore the Barclays Group does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Although the Barclays Group operates anti-virus programmes, it does not accept responsibility for any damage whatsoever that is caused by viruses being passed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessaril
[discuss] Sooner or Later
Microsoft continues to acquire patents for things which have no business being patented. The article below from John Oates at the Register mentions Linux and open source, without specifically naming OpenOffice, but - make no mistake - we are in the same boat as Linux. If Linux is destroyed, so to will be OpenOffice. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/11/microsoft_wins_patent_case/ Re: The US Patent Office has upheld Microsoft's claim of patent rights over its File Allocation Table. The decision reverses two earlier judgements and potentially allows Microsoft to go after open-source developers who use the technology. FAT controls how computers store information to hard drives and other storage devices such as Flash cards. The US Patent and Trademark Office ruled that the file system is "novel and non-obvious" and, therefore, deserving of a patent. The decision is important because it could mean Microsoft could force open-source distributors to pay it a royalty or remove the software from their products. Open-source software must, by definition, be patent-free. Concerns over patents within some Linux distributions have been blamed for hindering wider adoption of the operating system. Florian Mueller, founder of nosoftwarepatents.com, said the decision gave Microsoft the weapons to attack Linux. Mueller said: "This is now a situation in which Microsoft could cause major problems to Linux vendors and users. Microsoft may not want to do that yet for other considerations, but the USPTO's decision gives Microsoft the strategic option to do so at a time of its choosing. Also, the USPTO and even the European Patent Office continue to grant new patents to Microsoft daily, and some of them may be equally dangerous to open source as the FAT patents. "The example of the FAT patents shows that all those patent quality initiatives and patent pledges have no significant value to open-source developers, vendors and users if Microsoft ever wants to go for Linux's throat." The US patent agency is either corrupt and/or imbecilic. Unfortunately the rot at the top is spreading. Either we stop the rot or it will rot us. The irony of course is that even if the rot "wins", it will lose, because - being a parasite - it cannot live without something to feed upon. Let's put it out of its misery sooner rather than later. We could live with or without Microsoft, but they can't live with us - or so they think, correctly perhaps. They have built up their mighty empire through theft of others' ideas and through regularly breaking the law. They are an illegal bunch of scoundrels. Apparently they realize that they cannot win a fair and open fight and so ever more dirty do they become. To save open source, only the force of honest law and people with backbone and courage can... must... force them to stop ravaging and destroying the computer industry and the freedom of the Internet. I'm ranting and raving? You bet. The stakes are high and ranting after your dreams and livelihood have been destroyed is too bloody late! Now is the time to have some backbone and stand up. While I'm on the subject, here's a call for the Microsoft supporters to get off of this list. You cannot support both Microsoft and OpenOffice. If you support Microsoft, you are for the destruction of OpenOffice and do not belong in this group. Many of us are stuck using Microsoft's illegal software through having no choice - but that is no excuse to raise your voices in support of an illegal tyrant! RM
