Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
On 5/17/07, James D. Parra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even if hypothetically there are patent infringements in the Linux kernel, then the open source community would do the right thing and remove the offending code and, because open source development moves so rapidly, that means Linux would no longer be infringing before it even got to court. So even if Microsoft did have a case, by the time it got to court the case would be gone and whatever damages that they were able to ask for would be very minimal. Sorry!! It can't be done until MS says what specific parts of the kernel is violating it. And given the stupid nature of patenting system (I had some real taste of it) if MS is been clever to patent something like Interrupt Service Routine concept with a clever writeup such as Reverse Feedback Hardware Interaction Method, then yes we do need to pay money to MS for all the interrupt service routines we wrote. One of my early carrier experience, when startups would try to build IP portfolio to so that the company could be sold for good money, I remember writing patent application for codes that was simply client/server under the text Intelligent Server Agent. ( I have changed. I do no more evil :P ) So its clever MS playing tricks by the books where the equal amount of criticism should go towards the Patent System. Regards, Mohammad -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
James D. Parra wrote: This is a good article; http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12212/53/ Even if hypothetically there are patent infringements in the Linux kernel, then the open source community would do the right thing and remove the offending code and, because open source development moves so rapidly, that means Linux would no longer be infringing before it even got to court. So even if Microsoft did have a case, by the time it got to court the case would be gone and whatever damages that they were able to ask for would be very minimal. ~James Thus explaining Microsoft's refusal to name patents. I doubt that, even given the argument that some court finds some of these patents valid, Microsoft would WANT that code removed. Kinda like SCO. And I still want to know the date on those patents Microsoft claims that it has and when it actually noticed this. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
On Wed, May 16, 2007 12:10:46 PM -0700, James D. Parra ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This is a good article; http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12212/53/ Please, not again! Can it be good if it makes mistakes like this: Even if hypothetically there are patent infringements in the Linux kernel, then the open source community would do the right thing and remove the offending code You can write or believe this only if you confuse (or want to confuse) patents with copyright, which is a pretty dangerous thing to do with FOSS. Software patents (regardless of whether they have a reason to exist) protect specific algorithm and functionalities. Copyright only protects actual text, that is the specific _incarnation_ in C, C++ or whatever, of a certain algorithm. If you copy and paste proprietary source code in your program, it is a copyright violation: to fix it, you just cancel those lines of code, and rewrite new code which has different variable names, a different order of the flow diagram, etc... but implement the same algorithm. That's it. But if there is a patent on, say, the _mathematical_ _formulas_ or the abstract flow diagram which make the Linux kernel multitasking, you cannot remove the offending code, because what the patent forbids is any use of those algorithm and diagrams in any forms, no matter how you write the related code. The only way to remove the offending code of a patent is to STOP using that functionality. This has nothing to do with whether there are or not patent violations in Linux or any other GPL software. It's just a basic distinction which should not be forgotten, if nothing else to stop repeating absurdities like the one in that article, that is the illusion that you can cure a patent violation as painlessly as you cure a copyright one. Not to mention that: and, because open source development moves so rapidly, that means Linux would no longer be infringing before it even got to court. this would not change much for any individual or company found guilty of patent violations in the code they distributed until yesterday Marco -- Help *everybody* to love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
On Friday 18 May 2007 02:54, M. Fioretti wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2007 12:10:46 PM -0700, James D. Parra ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This is a good article; http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12212/53/ Please, not again! Can it be good if it makes mistakes like this: Even if hypothetically there are patent infringements in the Linux kernel, then the open source community would do the right thing and remove the offending code You can write or believe this only if you confuse (or want to confuse) patents with copyright, which is a pretty dangerous thing to do with FOSS. Software patents (regardless of whether they have a reason to exist) protect specific algorithm and functionalities. Copyright only protects actual text, that is the specific _incarnation_ in C, C++ or whatever, of a certain algorithm. If you copy and paste proprietary source code in your program, it is a copyright violation: to fix it, you just cancel those lines of code, and rewrite new code which has different variable names, a different order of the flow diagram, etc... but implement the same algorithm. That's it. But if there is a patent on, say, the _mathematical_ _formulas_ or the abstract flow diagram which make the Linux kernel multitasking, you cannot remove the offending code, because what the patent forbids is any use of those algorithm and diagrams in any forms, no matter how you write the related code. The only way to remove the offending code of a patent is to STOP using that functionality. This has nothing to do with whether there are or not patent violations in Linux or any other GPL software. It's just a basic distinction which should not be forgotten, if nothing else to stop repeating absurdities like the one in that article, that is the illusion that you can cure a patent violation as painlessly as you cure a copyright one. Not to mention that: and, because open source development moves so rapidly, that means Linux would no longer be infringing before it even got to court. this would not change much for any individual or company found guilty of patent violations in the code they distributed until yesterday Well I am not a lawyer but I think there are problems with Microsoft claims. I think under US legal system damages can only be awarded if proper notice of the patent was given. Notice is given by the patent owner by marking the patented product with the designation patented, or the abbreviation pat., followed by the patent number. Such notice should be applied to the patented article or articles made by a patented process. The patent number would have to be included with every file of code they ever produced. Also since software patends are a fairly new thing they can not back date their claims to the beginning of Windows or even Linux. Furthermore it would be very hard to prove if Microsoft experienced any financial loss directly caused buy the patend infringements. Than again stranger things happened. I have been selling on line for a long time. A few years ago Some American company started accusing people selling on line of patend infringements. Apparently they owned a patend for online sales and everybody who sells using that method will have to pay royalties. When they contacted me I simply told them to f**k off but I heard that some gullible folk got conned into paying thousands of $. The main problem here is the patent office. Some years ago here in Australia some guy in Melbourne tested the idiotic system and applied for patent for a wheel. The patent has been granted. -- Regards, George Osvald OK Studio ® http://www.okstudio.com.au Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
* George Osvald [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05-17-07 21:33]: Well I am not a lawyer but I think there are problems with Microsoft claims. And they would probably fit better in [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please have some consideration and stop filling the list and archives with wild rantings and speculation about non-technical non-openSUSE items. There are already 23 posts in this thread which contribute absolutely nothing to learning about or solving a problem with an openSUSE installation. I did say Please :^), -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USAHOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 OpenSUSE Linux http://en.opensuse.org/ Registered Linux User #207535@ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
On Thu May 17 2007, George Osvald scratched these words onto a coconut shell, hoping for an answer: On Friday 18 May 2007 02:54, M. Fioretti wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2007 12:10:46 PM -0700, James D. Parra ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This is a good article; http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12212/53/ Please, not again! Can it be good if it makes mistakes like this: Even if hypothetically there are patent infringements in the Linux kernel, then the open source community would do the right thing and remove the offending code You can write or believe this only if you confuse (or want to confuse) patents with copyright, which is a pretty dangerous thing to do with FOSS. Software patents (regardless of whether they have a reason to exist) protect specific algorithm and functionalities. Copyright only protects actual text, that is the specific _incarnation_ in C, C++ or whatever, of a certain algorithm. If you copy and paste proprietary source code in your program, it is a copyright violation: to fix it, you just cancel those lines of code, and rewrite new code which has different variable names, a different order of the flow diagram, etc... but implement the same algorithm. That's it. But if there is a patent on, say, the _mathematical_ _formulas_ or the abstract flow diagram which make the Linux kernel multitasking, you cannot remove the offending code, because what the patent forbids is any use of those algorithm and diagrams in any forms, no matter how you write the related code. The only way to remove the offending code of a patent is to STOP using that functionality. This has nothing to do with whether there are or not patent violations in Linux or any other GPL software. It's just a basic distinction which should not be forgotten, if nothing else to stop repeating absurdities like the one in that article, that is the illusion that you can cure a patent violation as painlessly as you cure a copyright one. Not to mention that: and, because open source development moves so rapidly, that means Linux would no longer be infringing before it even got to court. this would not change much for any individual or company found guilty of patent violations in the code they distributed until yesterday Well I am not a lawyer but I think there are problems with Microsoft claims. I think under US legal system damages can only be awarded if proper notice of the patent was given. Notice is given by the patent owner by marking the patented product with the designation patented, or the abbreviation pat., followed by the patent number. Such notice should be applied to the patented article or articles made by a patented process. The patent number would have to be included with every file of code they ever produced. Also since software patends are a fairly new thing they can not back date their claims to the beginning of Windows or even Linux. Furthermore it would be very hard to prove if Microsoft experienced any financial loss directly caused buy the patend infringements. Than again stranger things happened. I have been selling on line for a long time. A few years ago Some American company started accusing people selling on line of patend infringements. Apparently they owned a patend for online sales and everybody who sells using that method will have to pay royalties. When they contacted me I simply told them to f**k off but I heard that some gullible folk got conned into paying thousands of $. The main problem here is the patent office. Some years ago here in Australia some guy in Melbourne tested the idiotic system and applied for patent for a wheel. The patent has been granted. I think it's been obvious for some time that being granted a patent and having something enforcable aren't the same thing at all. Once upon a time it was, but presently it seems our patent office is so overwhelmed, and we don't appear to have an Einstein there as some other lucky country did once. That they just stamp things as patented and let the courts sort it out. It will be interesting to see if the Supremes do something useful and sort the mess, as they have hinted they might. Perhaps having a young-(ish) Chief Justice who is self IDed as a geek could work in favour of at least tightening what can and can not be patented. Seems it could be smart to copyright stuff tho. Maybe? or work toward the idea which works thusly in photography. The copyright is assumed as I click the shutter. Now my picture of Fuji san from the bullit train might appear to be one like many others, but it is different, as my eye and my hand made it. Others may make similar pics, but they wont make one exactly like mine, the time has passed. -- j I've lived in the real world enough, we're all here because we ain't all there. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
RE: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
This is a good article; http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12212/53/ Even if hypothetically there are patent infringements in the Linux kernel, then the open source community would do the right thing and remove the offending code and, because open source development moves so rapidly, that means Linux would no longer be infringing before it even got to court. So even if Microsoft did have a case, by the time it got to court the case would be gone and whatever damages that they were able to ask for would be very minimal. ~James -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
On Thursday 17 May 2007, James D. Parra wrote: This is a good article; http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12212/53/ Even if hypothetically there are patent infringements in the Linux kernel, then the open source community would do the right thing and remove the offending code and, because open source development moves so rapidly, that means Linux would no longer be infringing before it even got to court. So even if Microsoft did have a case, by the time it got to court the case would be gone and whatever damages that they were able to ask for would be very minimal. The main point is that Linux kernel is a free software. Nobody sells kernel directly. Linux distributors are earning money by packaging and providing service/support. So if nobody ever sold kernel to anybody the amount owing to Microsoft in royalties is ZERO. If there is any code resembling Microsoft coding I doubt it can ever be used in court. Show me anyone going through billions lines of code since 20 years ago. Besides Linux is based on UNIX and UNIX was here before Microsoft so if there is any resemblance who is copying who? -- Regards, George Osvald OK Studio ® http://www.okstudio.com.au Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
George Osvald wrote: On Thursday 17 May 2007, James D. Parra wrote: This is a good article; http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12212/53/ Even if hypothetically there are patent infringements in the Linux kernel, then the open source community would do the right thing and remove the offending code and, because open source development moves so rapidly, that means Linux would no longer be infringing before it even got to court. So even if Microsoft did have a case, by the time it got to court the case would be gone and whatever damages that they were able to ask for would be very minimal. The main point is that Linux kernel is a free software. Nobody sells kernel directly. Linux distributors are earning money by packaging and providing service/support. So if nobody ever sold kernel to anybody the amount owing to Microsoft in royalties is ZERO. If there is any code resembling Microsoft coding I doubt it can ever be used in court. Show me anyone going through billions lines of code since 20 years ago. Besides Linux is based on UNIX and UNIX was here before Microsoft so if there is any resemblance who is copying who? If Microsoft ever started talking specifics, about any little thing, they would be dead. Completely and totally dead. There is no way they can engage the community on ANY specific topic without debasing, degrading themselves into the lowest of realms. Ain't gonna happen. Not now. Not ever. They can't. I wouldn't either. I wish them well, I really do. But the open source kernel has already taken over. Its just not common knowledge/press yet. Will be soon enough. It's already happened. Just the ripples need to go thru yet. Anyway, the xorg/ati thing is really ticking me off! Totally! I like the open source, but it DOES have its drawbacks. Pain in the ass thing, the display being mostly dorked. But, the system, and daemons are running fine. No problem with the stuff running, just the display twisted. Solid core, flaky top. At least you don't need to re-boot! Anoche, JF -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
On Wednesday 16 May 2007 20:18, Jim Flanagan wrote: If Microsoft ever started talking specifics, about any little thing, they would be dead. Completely and totally dead. There is no way they can engage the community on ANY specific topic without debasing, degrading themselves into the lowest of realms. Ain't gonna happen. Not now. Not ever. They can't. I wouldn't either. I wish them well, I really do. But the open source kernel has already taken over. Its just not common knowledge/press yet. Will be soon enough. It's already happened. Just the ripples need to go thru yet. I agree. But did you see Bill's lies from WinHEC... WinHOKE... they have sold 40 million licenses of Vista (78% Premium) in just 100 days! Sorry, but I almost puked--- what a liar. You know... everybody is buying it... you buy it too... the folks I know who have it removed it... and of course Mke Dell isn't even loading it... and every day you hear about 1 or two more entities dropping Windoze... so I'm not sure who these 40 million folks are... probably just licenses laying in a box... like at DELL computer . Anyway, the xorg/ati thing is really ticking me off! Totally! I like the open source, but it DOES have its drawbacks. Pain in the ass thing, the display being mostly dorked. But, the system, and daemons are running fine. No problem with the stuff running, just the display twisted. Solid core, flaky top. At least you don't need to re-boot! Right. But you know--- the ATI thing is just a carry-over from windoze days and ati admits it. And if you believe their hype they are going to be doing something about it. I wrote them a letter and told them that my X1050 would be the last card I buy from them unless they get serious about delivering an open driver with support and source. I'm done with them. -- Kind regards, M Harris -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
On Monday May 14 2007 10:08:29 pm frank nelson wrote: Only fair. It would be a bit hypocritical to demand a standard for others, that one does not demand of oneself. Ah that'd be Microsoft Marketing 101 just down the hall second door on the right. -- Stan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 S Glasoe wrote: On Monday May 14 2007 10:08:29 pm frank nelson wrote: Only fair. It would be a bit hypocritical to demand a standard for others, that one does not demand of oneself. Ah that'd be Microsoft Marketing 101 just down the hall second door on the right. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1729908,00.asp Quote from article: But Ravicher said Ballmer misinterpreted his study's findings. He misconstrues the point of the OSRM study, which found that Linux potentially, not definitely, infringes 283 untested patents, while not infringing a single court-validated patent. The point of the study was actually to eliminate the FUD about Linux's alleged legal problems by attaching a quantifiable measure versus the speculation, he said. And the number we found, to anyone familiar with this issue, is so average as to be boring; almost any piece of software potentially infringes at least that many patents. /J - -- There's nothing a concentrated phaser blast can't solve. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGSa+8Jvr6GUkh0/0RApuGAJoDqunJ5i9kdLxk00hAEYJv0KV4FgCg4nCk +1ulmNF/CvUbVcgUf2U+YfY= =KVV1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
Dave Howorth wrote: Jan Karjalainen wrote: S Glasoe wrote: On Monday May 14 2007 10:08:29 pm frank nelson wrote: Only fair. It would be a bit hypocritical to demand a standard for others, that one does not demand of oneself. Ah that'd be Microsoft Marketing 101 just down the hall second door on the right. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1729908,00.asp Did you look at the date on this article and the date in the subject line? Yes, but the quote (snip below) does stands as true, even if it's a couple of years old. the OSRM study, which found that Linux potentially, not definitely, infringes 283 untested patents, while not infringing a single court-validated patent. -- I'd really like to lay one across your teeth. -- Beverly -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
--- James Knott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There was some recent discussion on this list about MS claims of patent infringement and someone claimed they hadn't done so recently. From the Suse, M$ and Dell thread. Nope, I don't need recent cites. Until retracted Ballmers statments stand as official Microsoft Policy. Therefore the onus is on you to find a retraction. You made a statement that by it's nature is deemed false if you can not substantiate it. There is no onus on me to do anything. If you refuse to substantiate, or retract, I can only conclude that you knew the statement was false, yet made it anyway, making you a liar, and no more to be believed than Mr. Ballmer. As it now stands, you have no credibility whatever, and I see no reason to continue any discussion with you, on any matter whatever. Well, you might want to read this article and consider the claims substantiated. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/ Thank you, James. This is exactly what was needed to substantiate Mr. Anderson's claim. As it is now substantiated, I hereby retract my statements concerning Mr. Anderson's honesty, integrity, or honor, (however one might interpret the statement above concerning my conclusions, and the use of the word liar.) That this should appear only days after Mr.Anderson's original claim that Mr. Ballmer was still making these other unsubstantiated claims about Linux and free software, most assuredly verifies and substantiates his correct use of the word still. My apologies to Mr. Anderson, for any distress this may have caused him. As his credibility is now fully restored, I would, again, be more than pleased to discuss, with him, this, or any other subjects, as they may arise, whenever it may seem appropriate. James, once more thank you for bringing this article to my attention, so that I might be allowed an opportunity to correct a situation in which I was in error. Ya done good kid, and I truly appreciate it. Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
On Monday 14 May 2007 04:59, frank nelson wrote: thank you for bringing this article to my attention, so that I might be allowed an opportunity to correct a situation in which I was in error. Ya done good kid, and I truly appreciate it. Very nice... :) -- Kind regards, M Harris -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 13 May 2007 19:01, John Andersen wrote: On Sunday 13 May 2007, Pueblo Native wrote: Gutierrez refuses to identify specific patents or explain how they're being infringed, lest FOSS advocates start filing challenges to them. Security by Obscurity takes a new twist. they dont want anyone to start investigating a workaround before their impending court date lol. -- _ John Andersen - -- powered by OPENSuSE 10.2 athlon i386 GNU/Linux http://reillyblog.com http://norwichlinuxusersgroup.com 9:22pm up 0:23, 1 user, load average: 0.27, 0.70, 0.74 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGSQuvlUTSIL6z5CARAsQ2AJ9P8Z2L8TabdrPQ6CYJP9qrB9v2UACfYFls Q6g4WCmiJ6htqyrA8KhFXjM= =839o -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
--- M Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 14 May 2007 04:59, frank nelson wrote: thank you for bringing this article to my attention, so that I might be allowed an opportunity to correct a situation in which I was in error. Ya done good kid, and I truly appreciate it. Very nice... :) Only fair. It would be a bit hypocritical to demand a standard for others, that one does not demand of oneself. Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
There was some recent discussion on this list about MS claims of patent infringement and someone claimed they hadn't done so recently. From the Suse, M$ and Dell thread. Nope, I don't need recent cites. Until retracted Ballmers statments stand as official Microsoft Policy. Therefore the onus is on you to find a retraction. You made a statement that by it's nature is deemed false if you can not substantiate it. There is no onus on me to do anything. If you refuse to substantiate, or retract, I can only conclude that you knew the statement was false, yet made it anyway, making you a liar, and no more to be believed than Mr. Ballmer. As it now stands, you have no credibility whatever, and I see no reason to continue any discussion with you, on any matter whatever. Well, you might want to read this article and consider the claims substantiated. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/ -- Use OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 15:25 -0400, James Knott wrote: There was some recent discussion on this list about MS claims of patent infringement and someone claimed they hadn't done so recently. From the Suse, M$ and Dell thread. Nope, I don't need recent cites. Until retracted Ballmers statments stand as official Microsoft Policy. Therefore the onus is on you to find a retraction. You made a statement that by it's nature is deemed false if you can not substantiate it. There is no onus on me to do anything. If you refuse to substantiate, or retract, I can only conclude that you knew the statement was false, yet made it anyway, making you a liar, and no more to be believed than Mr. Ballmer. As it now stands, you have no credibility whatever, and I see no reason to continue any discussion with you, on any matter whatever. Well, you might want to read this article and consider the claims substantiated. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/ Unfortunately you would need a patent lawyer to go through all of M$' claims. If you've followed any M$ patent discussions over the past few years, you would see that they've been applying for any and everything, including that thing that we know as sudo. Oddly enough Bill Gates is on record as talking about how much WinNT was like Unix. So as far as Ballmer's claims go, take them with as much salt as you can heft. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
James Knott wrote: There was some recent discussion on this list about MS claims of patent infringement and someone claimed they hadn't done so recently. From the Suse, M$ and Dell thread. Nope, I don't need recent cites. Until retracted This might be completely irrelevant, but am I in some sort of time warp here? But other than that, I thought this statement was telling: At the same time, Smith was having Microsoft's lawyers figure out how many of its patents were being infringed by free and open-source software. Gutierrez refuses to identify specific patents or explain how they're being infringed, lest FOSS advocates start filing challenges to them. So you claim numbers, but you aren't showing your cards. Tell me why I should be scared again? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
On Sunday 13 May 2007 21:25:13 James Knott wrote: There was some recent discussion on this list about MS claims of patent infringement and someone claimed they hadn't done so recently. Microsoft also claims The Free Software movement is dead. Linux doesn't exist in 2007. @ http://www.bangkokpost.com/090507_Database/09May2007_data05.php Don't take anything too serious until judged by the highest court, like http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/2189700/court-ruling-patently-clear Quote from there: A US patent grants exclusive rights to use for 20 years. The Supreme Court ruling effectively calls for more rigorous criteria for the granting of patents. Bye, Steve -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
On Sunday 13 May 2007, Pueblo Native wrote: Gutierrez refuses to identify specific patents or explain how they're being infringed, lest FOSS advocates start filing challenges to them. Security by Obscurity takes a new twist. -- _ John Andersen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
On Sun May 13 2007, John Andersen scratched these words onto a coconut shell, hoping for an answer: On Sunday 13 May 2007, Pueblo Native wrote: Gutierrez refuses to identify specific patents or explain how they're being infringed, lest FOSS advocates start filing challenges to them. Security by Obscurity takes a new twist. I'm guessing they hope that SCO isn't going to lose it's fight w/ IBM... Forlorn it may be, but hope for some , including hope they can bury or buy linux out, does, they say, spring eternal. -- j I've lived in the real world enough, we're all here because we ain't all there. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
On Sunday 13 May 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun May 13 2007, John Andersen scratched these words onto a coconut shell, hoping for an answer: On Sunday 13 May 2007, Pueblo Native wrote: Gutierrez refuses to identify specific patents or explain how they're being infringed, lest FOSS advocates start filing challenges to them. Security by Obscurity takes a new twist. I'm guessing they hope that SCO isn't going to lose it's fight w/ IBM... Forlorn it may be, but hope for some , including hope they can bury or buy linux out, does, they say, spring eternal. But I can't believe anyone things SCO will prevail at this point. Their pretty much toast. MS is a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. The last SCOTUS ruling on patents has to have them worried. One would think that might knock out 200 of their 240+ patents. After all, simply transferring SUDO to windows can hardly be said to be non-obvious. -- _ John Andersen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
