OSNews

They have a list but they will not show us ?

hmmm, reminds me a little of SCO there.
Where does Darl McBride work thesedays ?

The civil legal system in the U.S. is a game of no-limit hold 'em. First position makes a claim about their hold cards, and the other players respond in kind, possibly folding for the cost of the blinds. Who actually has the best starting hand doesn't really matter. What matters is the strength of the hands represented. If any player makes a big move at this stage, the chances of seeing a flop are slim.

If they square up, the flop will give enough information to speculate on who might be ahead. Those suited connectors might be worth paying to see a flop, but they might be worthless afterwards. Depending on your pre-flop betting, it could be hard to bluff at this stage. You might have to cut your losses and get out. Now it's game time, and the bag of tricks comes out: check-raise, slow-play, table talk, etc. The game is about pot odds.

Very few hands reach a showdown. This only happens when: 1) both players are equally sure they have the best hand, 2) the pot is too important relative to their stacks to let go, or 3) one of the players is desperate. The cards only matter in these relatively rare circumstances. Every other hand is about the chips--who has the biggest stack, who bets when, and how much they bet.

Big stacks play tight and aggressive. Smaller stacks play loose and conservative. Maniacs hit it big or go bust. Only idiots show their cards just to brag about a bluff. Good players will rarely show their cards unless necessary, and they only do so to influence the perception of their strategy.

So what does this mean? Microsoft is the big stack in first position. They have no intention of seeing a flop or showing their cards. They're out to steal the blinds. But where the legal system doesn't work like hold 'em is that there are no blinds. Microsoft wants Linux vendors and users to ante up, but they can't make us sit at their table. Until they put their chips in the pot and commit to litigation, nobody owes them squat. We don't have to buy into their game, and we don't have to show our cards.

Only idiots show their cards. I'm off to find Ron Hovsepian's home game, because he's the proverbial deep-pocketed fish that everybody loves to exploit.

>"We're not going to have a discussion publicly with that level of detail," he said.

Why not? FUD! He he.

It's very difficult for any of us to make the assessment that there's no basis to Microsoft's claims. It's very easy and premature for many of us to just stamp our feet and cry "FUD" at the top of our lungs. We don't have the information to do this.

The reality as I see it, is to watch this space. It'd be a rather blinded perspective to expect Microsoft to do nothing about the infringments they believe exist. Microsoft always has reasons for their actions, and this is no different.

It's also rather rediculous to cast Fortune magazine, of all forms of publications that exist, as so silly to just fall for something, as though they are so daft.

Microsoft is up to something, without any doubt. Litigation is not the only means of achieving a goal.

"It's very difficult for any of us to make the assessment that there's no basis to Microsoft's claims"

On the contrary, it's actually very easy for us to make that assessment. The burden of proof is not on the accused but on the accuser. If you accuse me of something but *refuse* to provide evidence then you are full of it. At least that's a reasonable stance to take until such a time that you DO provide said evidence. How could I defend myself against your accusation if I don't know what it is exactly that I have supposedly done?

That's true, but that doesn't mean it isn't coming, or that they aren't still up to something. The last thing Microsoft would want or need is to get themselves embroiled in a public slinging match.

They're far more calculating than that.

"That's true, but that doesn't mean it isn't coming, or that they aren't still up to something."

Right but what can we do? All we have are very vague accusations that we can not defend ourselves against and succumbing to intimidation isn't the right thing do. At least my dad's advice to me regarding the school bully was never "Oh just give him what he wants and it'll go away". I would really hope my dad wasn't an exception to the rule.

Edited 2007-05-16 12:09

They are up to something: they're waging a major FUD campaign against the free software developers and community. Don't you think that if they really had something in their hands they'd have already used it? I think Linus pretty much summed it all: until they come up with something, it's pure and simple FUD, and that's exactly what they want.

Rehdon

That's true, but that doesn't mean it isn't coming, or that they aren't still up to something. The last thing Microsoft would want or need is to get themselves embroiled in a public slinging match.

They're far more calculating than that.

If a government could arrest you for violating a law, but wouldn't tell you what that law was, we'd call that government a police state.

It's time people stood up and starting treating Microsoft with the contempt police states deserve.

Yes and no. I think it was a gambit on MS's part. They are gambling that the mere threat of IP litigation is going to forestall Linux adoption. In other words, it's mostly a PR offensive (which can be quite effective, mind you).

With that in mind, the reaction most people have of ridiculing Microsoft's claims is *exactly* the right one to have. If they're going to fight on the PR front, then that's where we need to fight back, with assertions that the claims are unfounded until some evidence is provided. This will prevent MS from monopolizing the message, and counter their FUD effort.

If MS actually moves from empty threats to legal action, then the counter strategy will also change, from ridiculing MS's accusations to actual action (such as counterlitigation, patent warfare, and possibly modifications to the code in the off-chance that some of the patents are actually valid...)

Did you even bother reading the rest of his post? He made a pretty convincing argument - I'd love to hear your rebuttal.

{Microsoft is up to something, without any doubt. Litigation is not the only means of achieving a goal.}

Yes it is. Without litigation, without proof, Microsoft are purely and simply just attempting extortion.

http://davedargo.blogspot.com/2007/05/chief-of-licensing.html

http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=17917&comment_id=24...

"Microsoft are purely and simply just attempting extortion."

Are you saying that extortion doesn't work? I'm pretty sure that history will show that it can be a very effective, although not a very ethical, course of action.

I happen to know this guy works for Microsoft. I have traced him for years. I would not trust anything he has to say. I have the proof but I can't share it with you, you will just have to trust me.

Hopefully you now understand.

Except we DO have evidence that Microsoft is operating on a fear basis now: They've published and widely publicized that Linux (and X and KDE and Gnome and...) infringe on their patents, but:

a.) They refuse to say what the claims actually are
b.) They refuse to press charges
c.) They continue to widely broadcast these claims

No proof has been offered. (That does not mean they DON'T have proof)
They are either unwilling (or, possibly, unable) to start legal action on what are claimed to be very serious charges.

This leads me to believe that Microsoft's intent is one of five things:
1.) Use the claims themselves to scare people away from Linux
2.) Capture some legal high ground by getting Linux to fire the first shot
3.) Get Novell-style agreements so they can get a piece of the Linux pie
4.) Settlements
5.) Incompetence

Edited 2007-05-16 21:01

Well it is FUD, what else is it, what are they then trying to achieve with their claims ? Should everyone stoop down to microsofts lawyerspeak now ?

Edited 2007-05-16 10:40

"You're honor, I stand here to declare to you that Microsoft is engaged in FUD!"

I don't know what's worse. Microsoft riddles or Internet forum acronyms.

Above what? Above the incredibly stupid "you have something that is ours but we wont tell you what it is" mentality? Surely he is.
I mean how can anyone take this seriously? It's if I would make the statement: "You stole some of my stuff but I wont tell anyone exactly what. But goddamnit it was mine and you stole whatever it was.".
This is some of the most obvious FUD since the "glorious" IBM heydays.

Edited 2007-05-16 11:01

I must agree, I hate the word FUD so very, very much.
So here's my wishlist for 2007:

-people stop spreading FUD
-people stop calling everything FUD

In this order. As long as MS keeps pulling stupid stunts, we need the word "FUD".
I wish we didn't, but we do.

Well. That's just FUD.

I'd like to see FUD, astro turfing (or whatever it is) and trolling something of the past. They're all dumb and have difficulty moving beyond forums like this.

"I'd like to see FUD, astro turfing (or whatever it is) and trolling something of the past."

The words FUD, astro turfing and trolling is not the problem. Removing the words will not make the behavior go away but instead make it harder to combat.

lol why, because we won't have words to describe it?

Complaining about the TLA FUD using the TLA TLA? Hmm?

Actually, this seems to be a rare instance where it exactly qualifies.

They're claiming that Linux violates all sorts of patents- a serious charge... but they're not actually going to reveal what those patents are, or actually FILE the charges.

In short, Microsoft currently seems to be content to just warn everyone that Linux infringes, allow for WIDE uncertainty over what's actually infringing, and scare everyone with no specfics.

That's almost a textbook definition of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

"""
That's almost a textbook definition of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
"""

Indeed. I've even found myself using the term with respect to this. I normally avoid it, as it is a much overused and abused term.

Someone runs a benchmark which "proves" that Windows 2003 Server is faster than RHEL? It's FUD! Someone criticizes Linux for not having a stable in-kernel abi? It's FUD, I tell you!

Both examples are inaccurate uses of the term, of course.

I've used the term to describe what is going on here because it is *accurate* in this case.

However, I really should have heeded advice that I have given here previously. And that advice is not to use the term because overuse and over-abuse has caused the term to lose its meaning, and hence lose any punch that it may have once had.

It's still best to type the extra characters to say, unambiguously, what one really means instead of relying upon convenient, but old and worn out, cliche terms like "FUD".

Edited 2007-05-16 21:35

OK, they told people that it actually cost MORE to run Linux instead of Windows and that didn't work. So they told us that Linux was not as secure as Windows and that didn't work either. Then they bankrolled the SCO fiasco and that really didn't work. So next they tried to scare linux users with saying "linux violates hundreds of our patents and you must pay us royalties" and now they are backing off as soon as they find out that the linux vendors aren't going to just roll over. The linux vendors want proof that Microsoft can't/won't show. I wonder whats next? If they put more effort into making an innovative product everyone wanted and spent less time attacking the competition they would be much better off.

That would be the grown up thing to do, but aparently MS wants to try & use its mega money to push around the competition. I wish MS would make better software, I get tired of the windows crashes & freezes. God, they have more money then the entire OSS comunity put together & they still can't deliver a good OS. The funny thing is the open source comunity can & does.

Disgusting is the word for this, when Microsoft should earn its money from words like "innovation", "services", "quality".

Oh, trust me, they do, even if it is a pack of lies.

{Some specific lines of kernel code which can be easily rewritten, or global idea's and global functions?}

Global ideas and global functions in Linux are based on ancient Unix, BSD and the ideas presented in literally hundreds of "Unix internals" textbooks.

Like this one: http://www.amazon.com/UNIX-Internals-Frontiers-Uresh-Vahalia/dp/013...

or this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Design-Operating-System-Prentice-Software/dp/...

or this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Design-Implementation-Operating-System-System...

Most of Unix and all of BSD is not patented, and only Unix SysV is copyrighted.

Edited 2007-05-16 12:25

At least the mafia was well-dressed.

LOL!

Time to press RICO charges then

Rehdon

Time to press RICO charges then

Have you noticed the resemblance between Steve Ballmer and Tony Soprano

nice....

At least the mafia was well-dressed.

....and ate better food.

Great analogy, though. Completely on point.

I also think the idea of suing users is ridiculous. Yet one has to admit a user of Linux isn't the same as a consumer of a Big Mac. One of the big plusses of FLOSS (and the reason I use it in the workplace) is the freedom to make changes. I bet lots of companies make changes in the source code, and some probably donate it back. In Linux land, the line between developers and users is a bit blurred.

{I also think the idea of suing users is ridiculous. Yet one has to admit a user of Linux isn't the same as a consumer of a Big Mac. One of the big plusses of FLOSS (and the reason I use it in the workplace) is the freedom to make changes. I bet lots of companies make changes in the source code, and some probably donate it back. In Linux land, the line between developers and users is a bit blurred.}

So you are saying that it is silly to sue a consumer for buying a Big Mac, but look out anyone who buys an electric frying pan from Wallmart?

Nope, that can't be it. Still too silly, even for Microsoft.

Me: ... one has to admit a user of Linux isn't the same as a consumer of a Big Mac. (With FLOSS you have) the freedom to make changes. I bet lots of companies make changes in the source code, and some probably donate it back (making) the line between developers and users is a bit blurred.

you: So you are saying that it is silly to sue a consumer for buying a Big Mac, but look out anyone who buys an electric frying pan from Wallmart?

What the .. Way to put words in my mouth that aren't at all similar to what I actually said.

Fark's sake how do you make that leap? I'd lump the idea of buying a frying pan in with buying a Big Mac. Same thing. The eater of the Big Mac and the user of the frying pan have no part in the creation thereof. I still say users of FLOSS are different from both both of those examples. People who use Linux often make changes to it and donate the changes back. How the hell do you go from "the line between users and developers is a little blurred with FLOSS" to buying a frying pan?

Is your next counterexample going to be something equally nonapplicable? Maybe you'll throw out a strawman like "so you think Ford could sue Chevy users if Chevy drivers if Chevy infringes on Ford patents?" If you do that, you will again be missing the point of my original post, which is an indeterminate number of users of FLOSS are also occasionally developers thereof in the sense that they edit code and send it upstream.

I don't think this opens them to litigation, assuming they aren't violating patents in patches they send upstream; even then it's a question of whether they or upstream are liable since upstream is responsible for applying the patch or not. Of course that is assuming the patent is valid (even though the very existence of software patents is IMHO a travesty). Stop blindly reacting to what I am saying like it's an attack on FLOSS, and read it for what it is: me saying that users of Linux sometimes act in a limited capacity as developers.

Edited 2007-05-16 13:45

"which is an indeterminate number of users of FLOSS are also occasionally developers thereof."

Right but that does not automagically make you the manufacturer or make you responsible for the product. Many companies have contests and such where you can voice your ideas on how to make their products better. If they accept my ideas does that make me responsible for their product? No. The fact that you contribute to something does not make you responsible for it.
Granted this analogy isn't a 100% match but it's serviceable.

This raises another interesting question though: exactly who IS responsible for Linux?

Edited 2007-05-16 13:43

{Stop blindly reacting to what I am saying like it's an attack on FLOSS, and read it for what it is: me saying that users of Linux sometimes act in a limited capacity as developers.}

What you don't express is, what is special about developers?

I am co-developing a bit of code right now, as it turns out. I think of a method to do what I want, to fix the problem I'm having, I get it coded & compiled and then test it out. I even bone up on the topic using (say) Wikipedia sometimes when I'm not quite sure of the math.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_lift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_product
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_coordinate_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps

It is just math. It is in the textbooks. There is no secret to it.

I put the math into the computer source code. At the end of the exercise, a copy of the source code will go to my customer.

This makes me so different from other people doing their job ... exactly how?

Why should I get to rip people off and threaten other people with lawsuits if they happen to do the same task next year as I did today?

Edited 2007-05-16 14:50

Again with the bullshit about suing the *users* of the product instead of the actual manufacturer. Sorry Horacio, that's not how things work.

Actually, at least in the Netherlands, this is how things work. Anyone using something patent-encumbered "in or for a business" is in violation. If you're behaving properly, though, simply stopping the violation within a reasonable timeframe is generally sufficient - which is why in most cases it doesn't really make sense for the patent holder to go after the end-users when he can try and get damages from the manufacturer instead.

This is clearly FUD: even if the patents actually exist and may be valid in some regions, by keeping the details a secret MS is preventing us from simply sitting down and doing something about it. If it'd come to a case, a judge would probably take into account the fact that we were prepared to do something about the violation, but couldn't because of MS's secrecy.

"Again with the bullshit about suing the *users* of the product instead of the actual manufacturer. Sorry Horacio, that's not how things work. It's like if McDonalds would sue anyone who's ever had a burger at Burger King if Burger King had infringed on a McDonalds patent. Absurd does not begin to describe it."

--------------------------

Well, the thing is that some OSS devs do in fact pass the responsibility of abiding by patents to the users.
For example, OSS developer VideoLAN makes the popular VLC video player, which supports playing videos that require patented codecs (such as MPEG2). But rather than paying the license fees themselves, they pass that responsibility on to the user.
From their site (I found out about this by reading another message board regarding this issue):

====================
http://download.videolan.org/doc/faq/en/videolan-faq-en.pdf
3.4. What about personal/commercial usage?
Some of the codecs distributed with VLC are patented and require you to pay royalties to their licensors. These are mostly the MPEG style codecs.

With many products the producer pays the license body (in this case MPEG LA (http://www.mpegla.com)) so the user (commercial or personal) does not have to take care of this. VLC (and ffmpeg and libmpeg2 which it uses in most of these cases) cannot do this because they are Free and Open Source implementations of these codecs. The software is not sold and therefore the end-user becomes responsible for complying to the licensing and royalty requirements. You will need to contact the licensor on how to comply to these licenses.

This goes for playing a DVD with VLC for your personal joy ($2.50 one time payment to MPEG LA) as well as for using VLC for streaming a live event in MPEG-4 over the Internet.
====================

So you see, the idea of holding users responsible is an idea put forward by OSS devs themselves. VideoLAN explicitly states that because they're "free and open source", it's up to the user to pay the license fees (knowing full well that the users won't bother to do this).

This is a game that certain OSS devs play: violate patents, and dare the patent holders to go after the users, knowing that the resulting bad PR woudn't be worth it.

Edited 2007-05-16 15:47

That has me wondering...if OSS devs aren't responsible for what the user does with their work, then who protects the user?

I mean, there are three main audiences involved in the life and times of a piece of software (free or no): developers, distributors, and users (ordered in scale of importance and legal protection).

The distributors are, officially, protected by the license; they can modify and redistribute the developers' works); the developers, however, call the shots over their work from the getgo, and can relicense their work under another license if they want.

The users, at the lowest level of importance of this game, gets no particular provision from the license, only restrictions (you can't do this or that with this software) and regulations. They can only receive rights and freedoms over the software if they either become a legal distributor or a legal developer of the software.

This clearly spells the following out to me:

There is no legal protection for the user under any license whatsoever.

None, zero, zilch, etc.

No protection for the user.

This is why Microsoft can go MAFIAA on all our asses if they wanted; the user can be charged with violation of whatever particular "individual right" that they may possess.

This extends into other industries as well: the user is unprotected from the ravages, direct or indirect, of the RIAA, MPAA, etc.

We are the frickin' Third Estate in a technolegal Ancien Régime.

Users are unprotected, even by the ideals of the GPL.

Edited 2007-05-16 16:36

"There is no legal protection for the user under any license whatsoever. "

Of course there is not. No one is responsible for the use you make of the things you buy, except yourself.

Patenting is different from licensing and this has NOTHING to do with whether users can be sued for patent infringements or not.

"violate patents, and dare the patent holders to go after the users,"

License violation != patent violation.

The developers might be using the patent without violation, depening on their countries' patent laws, e.g. if they have no associated commercial interests and the country's patent law grants free access to non-commercial parties.

Same thing also applies to users with only personal need in the software.

The only parties which might violate the patent and which should be licencing it are the ones who add value to their products by using the software, or are selling the software and/or services based on it.