OSNews

Hate to break it to you, but IBM has a WHOLE LOT MORE patents than Microsoft. Also, do you not think that Linux distributors and companies around the world will not band together to fight a common enemy?

If Microsoft sues Redhat, what makes you think they won't sue the Gentoo foundation, or any other Linux "distributor"? Many very large companies make their bread based on Linux. Thinking they won't come together is naiive of Ballmer at best. Whos to say that Microsoft doesn't violate hundreds of patents owned by some of these companies like OIN or IBM? I bet they do.

Jeff Waugh put it best, "Say it with me: DON'T f--k WITH DIVERSITY. cf. The War of the Worlds, H. G.
Wells, 1898.":
http://lists.linux.org.au/archives/linux-aus/2003-August/msg00136.h...

Because it hasn't gone after non-profit software organizations like Gentoo, Fedora, Debian or GNU/FSF. It is a corporation that competes against companies like Novell, Red Hat or (in the past) Netscape.

That Ballmer has specifically targeted Red Hat, a corporate vendor that depends upon a non-profit organization, in the press puts the company closer to a dangerous precedent: suing non-profit software organizations. And since GNU/Linux distributions are usually created and distributed by non-profit projects, it seems inevitable that Microsoft will target these projects as well.

However, that is the future potential of this war, once it ever reaches U.S. courts. The current situation, from the surface, seems more like a messy battle between companies for customers.

Where this could really hit the GNU/Linux fandom is in the pocketbook, as these companies - Red Hat, Novell, Mandriva, Canonical, Xandros - are often the prime corporate backers for these projects. Customers of these companies will be scared by an impending legal battle, will back out and place their bets with Microsoft. The pro-Linux companies will then have to wage their own PR campaigns to woo back the customers, which may or may not mean that the companies will publicly distance themselves from their pet non-profit projects.

So this could be interpreted in one or more of the following ways:

1) A dirty move to win customers from, and weaken, a corporate competitor.

2) A move to weaken the relationship between corporate companies and non-profit projects.

3) A protracted, indirect move to weaken the non-profit projects through hurting the marketshare of their financial backers.

Take your pick.

I don't think you understand.

There is a respectable body of patents that have already been pledged to support Linux. In the event that Microsoft sued Linux over patents, Linux would counter-sue Windows over patents.

There would be no point in customers seeking refuge in Microsoft software, because Microsoft software will be in as much strife as Linux. In fact, due to the suit and counter-suits, it may even reach the absurd situation that no-one in the US is allowed to run any software through court injunctions.

As soon as it reached that point, there would be a political solution. The US would be forced into a position of "no software patnets" to stop the insanity.

At the end of that process, Microsoft will have lost a whole heap of goodwill and money, and it will still not have stopped Linux.

Ergo, Microsoft will not sue Linux over patents.

Edited 2007-10-10 02:09

Yes, but do you realize how many companies using Linux are also using windows? What if it backfires and those companies go whole hog Linux?

FUD is a double edged sword, and if ballmer doesn't quiet down he is going to have to swallow it.

There is a big difference between owning an American patent and having the right to IP and having that enforced in a court. If they own a bunch of crap patent, then the court can actually just say "go fsck yourself, Ballmer".

Owning them is one thing, having them declared valid in a court case is quite another.

Show us what patents are being infringed. You are the patent holder; the burden of proof is on you.

eg:
OpenGL (MS bought patent in 2002)
FAT32 long filenames

He cannot be a troll. I've never seen him frequent this website. ;}

forever {
kick_steve_ballmer_in_the_balls;
}

forever {
kick_steve_ballmer_in_the_balls;
}

Error on line 2: Balls do not exist

Oh he has balls alright. Big ones.

A spine is what he is missing.

why do the US companies compete so much, what would happen if the talent from google, microsoft, redhat, oracle, ibm, sun, and many others shared resources to make IT (software, whatever) easy for the common man/woman. Not to be National (i.e. focused on the us as there are many nations that contribute to new technologies in the IT spectrum) But, to be blunt to all (all earthlings) would benefit from partnerships with differing ideas but shared resources, not separatist strategies. Too many times the focus is on money and if anyone is following this strategy it is microsale(soft). The industry age competition was based on competing over years of competitive development. For example, the car manufactures. That made sense 10-15 years ago. But in software and hardware development lifecycles; innovation can be driven in far greater lengths (shorter timeframes) by sharing ideas in real "shared" time to the benefit of all.

Quote: "Many minds are greater than one mind, although it takes a great mind to decipher the true path of the many. Still without the direction of the many the great mind will only see one path. A good one, but not
the right one."

P.S.
If the human race (each individual) could fight their own greed issues we would all be happy. Please pass this on to your friends who fall into the big "G" category. I believe and U should to that if they realize this, they will change. If they don't then they shouldn't be your friend and everyone needs friends.

Here's a Groovy variant where everyone can have their fun:
peopleInWorld.each {
steveBallmer.kickInTheBalls
}

Does RedHat provide indemnification to its users? I know commercial operating systems do, but most linux distros don't. I am not sure about RH, as it kind of sits in the middle.

Red Hat does

http://www.redhat.com/rhel/details/assurance/

Novell's deals has only helped validate this kind of FUD.

"Ballmer praised Novell at the UK event for valuing intellectual property, and suggested that open source vendors will be forced to strike similar deals with other patent holders."

Novell's deals has only helped validate this kind of FUD.
Yes, that is true. Microsoft only made their deal with Novell to show that Novell, a big Linux distributor, believes Linux infringes Microsoft's IP.

I was discussing this today with one of the Gnome folks and he told me that the reason Microsoft isn't showing us what patents Linux infringes is that even if those claims were true, the affected code would be quickly rewritten or the patent claim would fail in court. Either way, Microsoft loses and they know it.

And FYI, the only reason Microsoft Windows is so popular is that wide availability of applications for it. Only a few people use windows because they are impressed by the internals of the OS itself.
If big engineering applications (not games) like AutoCAD, matlab and SAP2000 get ported to Linux, windows will suffer greatly.

Edited 2007-10-09 17:36

Excuse me...
http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/requirements.html

Ha!

Wishing for something to be true doesn't mean it is or ever would be true: the number of seats for all the "big engineering applications" is a rather self-limiting market by nature of the fact that it's "engineering" that requires far more than the average bear knows and comprehends in order to be useful, and the situations where the software is of value is also that limited. I've worked on such applications personally, and the number of seats (if you're doing well) numbers somewhere in the thousands for the higher-end 3D stuff. Why do you think Microsoft has never entered the fray of that market? Surely, they have the software engineering resources that if they truly wanted to, they could throw resources at it over a period of time and within a few years, they'd have something that could take on AutoCAD or Kubotek KeyCreator (what I worked on until I was laid off) ProEngineer or the other few in the field.

A HUGE thing that makes it less likely for most of those high-end packages from ever being ported to all the linux distros is precisely because there's so many mutations to choose from, and the QA testing nightmare involved. Microsoft Office is a simple thing to test for correct behavior and add new behavior, compared to complex 3D CAD software, because whatever minor nitpicky output might actually be considered a defect, at least one customer has critical drawings that were used for manufacturing their products from that, and they aren't that forgiving of their resulting products changing from one "minor" change of behavior between fixes/updates. As much as Linux and mutations change in small, subtle ways and not-so-subtle ways, combined with the practical observation that everyone else in an organization is already using Microsoft Office and other applications for managing workflow, budgeting, etc. that's all nicely integrated, that (AFAIK) isn't currently available for Linux that's not custom-written.

Autocad is a rare exception to engineering software that's not available for Linux. Most engineering software was first available for UNIX, so it's not too difficult to port it to Linux.

At least where I work, more people run Windows because they want Office or Outlook than run Windows because they need some specialty science/engineering application.

MATLab, Mathematica, Maple, Fluent, Patran/Nastran, ProEngineer, Cadence, Synopsys, ModelSim, ArcGIS, Abaquas, Ansys are just a few available for Linux.

i dont think you know what commercial means.... you are looking for the word proprietary.

And as to your questions, redhat does provide indemnification.

Actually they often do not. Many users of Microsoft SQL Server (I believe the 2000 version) were sued and lost on a patent infringement case.

I honestly don't see how that would happen. How is a user supposed to know what patents (if any) the software he's using infringes? And even if he does, why is it his problem? It should be the manufacturer's problem.

You're making a rational assumption about an increasingly irrational situation. Unlike copyright laws, patent laws restrict the use of a patented technology, not just manufacturing and distribution.

That's why vendors offer indemnity, and many enterprise/institutional organizations require indemnity as a condition of sale for the software/hardware they purchase.

"Does RedHat provide indemnification to its users?"

In most countries this is not necessary since end-users/consumers can not be expected to understand the internal complex workings of the products they purchase and what patents they could possibly violate. Patent violations are the responsibility of the manufacturer and/or distributor.

There's a difference between one says publicly (in this case, Ballmer's extortion-like rhetoric) and what one says under oath in a court of law.

Basically, the OP wants Ballmer to stop making public threats, and instead explain exactly how Linux infringes as part of legal action. In other words, he's inviting Ballmer to put his money where is mouth is (I agree: it's time to put up or shut up for MS about this).

Glad I could be of help.

"That's somewhat contradictory."

Not at all. Stop the trash talk and defamation and instead provide some proof. Nothing contradictory there.

You've completely missed the point of what I was saying.

Personally I would NEVER want to screw him, but that's just me O:-)

"""
Personally I would NEVER want to screw him, but that's just me O:-)
"""

No. Not just you. There are *many* in these forums who are not into bestiality.

LOL
I nearly pissed myself, reading this. And not because I fear MS could sue me, that's for sure!

Now I'm not disputing your claim, but remember it is a heavy claim and such heavy claims are pretty worthless without some sort of proof or explanation. Care to elaborate?

I find the Oo.org one quite peculiar seeing as Sun was paid $2 Billion in IP violations and more by Microsoft [correct me if I'm wrong] so if there were so many violations you'd think Microsoft would have hammered out a different deal with Sun.

If you believe Wikipedia, Microsoft has all kinds of covenants not to sue, even with Sun.

The patent 'landscape', if you will, is a World War I style powderkeg. Either it's defused via legislation restricting software patents and overturning existing ones, or it'll eventually blow up. I don't think ANYONE wants to see that happen, because the only ones who win will be everyone outside the USA who don't have to obey US patent laws.

I'd rather compare it to the atomic bomb. All the big powers have one (patent portfolio) and nobody dares to use theirs full blown, because nobody would survive the counter-strikes.

Yea like WTF does it take 10 minutes + for my computer to boot and be usable in Vista? And why does it have to slowly redraw and load files in windows explorer? Why does Windows Explorer crash so often (at least it doesn't make the whole system crash anymore). Vista is craptastic but due to MSFT's monopoly on school systems I still have to have a partition of it.

IOW there's no way Linux violates MSFT patents because they don't even resemble them - Linux's apps. work!

I suspect that unless we have a patent revolt in the US the EU will eventually have a patent law. Why? - WTO pressures. NAFTA has enabled the US to kick around its might greatly regarding patents and copyrights so unless the EU stays strong on this issue I suspect it will become an issue at the WTO if it's not already up for discussion.

When the alternatives are the PS3 and Blu-Ray, either way is supporting a "stupid company" with very questionable business ethics.
At least its easier to live up to my "vow" never to buy Sony-branded products.

Besides, Microsoft doesn't own HD-DVD.

Edited 2007-10-09 17:39

One minor point: Sony encourages customers to run Linux (or any OS) on their PS3 if they so wish.

Not sure what Microsoft's stance is wrt Linux on x360

Seems like quite the lesser of two evils going with PS3.

I have Ubuntu on PS3. Problem is, you have very restricted access to the underlying hardware due to Sony's RSX driver prohibiting this. While Sony are better than Microsoft in that they contributed patches to Linux you also have to consider that Sony did this to head off any truly open drivers for the PS3 (since it works "well enough" for most people). Also, Sony didn't add Linux out of altruism, it's because they get a lower import tax/duty in the EU if the PS3 is classed as "computing" hardware rather than "entertainment" hardware only.

That said, the PS3 is an excellent bit of gear and I'm happy it runs Linux very well (despite the restrictions on access to the GPU, which means no hardware OpenGL).

I'd buy a sony product...PS3...and for one game only...Pro Evolution Soccer

And i'll tell you one more thing...I am on a verge of buying new pc but all im thinking is, all these dx10 gfx card and stuff....i wont run vista, so why bother with new pc since dx10 wont be ported to xp.

The only game im playing is Pro Evolution Soccer, so why spend 2000€ on a pc that can handle the game plus vista, or just spend 400€ on a ps3.

"And all you people that like the xbox 360, and HD-DVD support this stupid company? You should all be ashamed of yourselves. These comments want me to never use MS products ever again. Oh wait, I vowed that along time ago, when MS did something else like this."

Ad-hominem attack.

I don't have nor do I intend on having a 360 but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand and those are a seperate division of MSFT that could (and should have) be easily broken from the company and spun off as a different one if an anti-trust suit ever actually punished MSFT as they should have been.

If they actually engage a lawsuit, OIN can help but this is a marketing move to spread FUD with confidence gained from signing some patent agreements with a few Linux vendors - Novell, Linspire, Xandros ...

Yes, I agree. But, given the state of patent system in US, it's likely that Linux infringes some Microsoft patents. But it's equally (or even more) likely that Microsoft infringes patents owned by OIN, IBM, RedHat (?) and others.

Yes, it's probably only FUD as I don't see a real patent-war against Linux friends (thanks, IBM) as something that would benefit Microsoft, but FUD is bad enough. Maybe companies from the Linux side should tell the world that their patents are being infringed by Microsoft too?

I used to think that part of the objective of OIN was to provide a sense of security. Something like "they can't sue us because we have X, Y and Z". Maybe this should be better advertised.

Of course, without software patents the situation would be different.

That would be fair only if it went both ways: commercial developers could use anything that's patented and used in Free Software without any strings attached, and vice-versa. Anything else would be a double-standard and would be distinctly unfair.

Good luck convincing people and companies that have invested time and various resources towards innovative stuff that they should hand over stuff so readily, Microsoft or otherwise.

The simplest solution would be to end software patents altogether, though I'd be surprised if that happened without a grandfather clause for existing ones.

I don't agree. Why would 'Free Software' receive special treatment ? The fact that some people have given up part or all of the revenue for their own product does not make them saints in my eyes. In fact, some other words keep coming to my mind.

DG

As soon as MS reveals what patents they think are being violated, the Linux community will start to point to prior art and quickly invalidate those claims.

MS doesn't stand a chance and I hope that Red Hat and others will finally call their bluff on this. Ballmer can only go around spreading FUD for so long before he has to back up his claims.

In the meantime, the penguin marches on unabated...

Edited 2007-10-09 18:36

but of course you have to have a valid patent that stands up as novel, non-trivial and with out examples of prior art existing that is being knowingly violated and covers an area of code impossible to remove. The chances of that are extremely small.