[Ubuntu-PH] Microsoft's Patent against FOSS

[hard wyrd]

On 5/17/07, Jopes <jofellxcite at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is the discussion that I'm waiting for.
>
> Point 2: Microsoft promises not to sue or charge end users. Instead,
> they'll make "settlements" with distributing companies so you as an end user
> shouldn't be affected. Well, I don't have anything against Microsoft, but I
> just don't want to trust that promise (it may change in time).


You will be surprised they haven't gone after IBM and Apple regarding these
darn patents. You know why? Apple licensed the GUI core from Xerox. MS
copied it (ding!). Some important aspects in NT were from OS/2 (ding!).

Wonder why MS paid heaps of money as a "balance" for Novell aside from the
millions it gave in exchange for Novell's pay-up? It's for Novell not to go
after MS regarding the key features MS "borrowed" from Novell Directory
Services/eDirectory which it implemented into Active Directory. And what
about the IPX/SPX? What about clustering on Intel hardware? What about
Network Discovery with SNMP? MS has every reason not to taunt Novell, let
alone IBM.

Point 3: Microsoft violating other patents is out of the question. In legal
> terms, it doesn't matter if the prosecution side is guilty of committing
> patent infringement. As long as Linux "steals something" from Microsoft,
> Linux is in the bad side. How I wish MS won't sue Redhat, etc., with their
> double-click patents.


This is where "prior art" will come into play. Anything related to the gui
will fall back into Xerox's original pet project originally licensed to
Apple.

Point 4: Software patents are pathetic, which ranges from "Eureka! I found
> an idea to make this algo faster!" to "Oh, I think I have to use this
> variable name." Imagine lately, the Linked List was patented. Bottomline:
> Software may be ideas that should be exclusive to the company who made it.
> Still, U.S. courts should be smart enough to know what's obvious and
> what's not. Good thing MS's FAT thingy was denied (they were trying to get
> royalties from using the FAT file system, when in fact, it's the simplest
> thing you can think of for a Bento Box... just split whatever big chunk of
> tempura you have to smaller pieces so it would fit the box).


Again, software is just a bunch of ordered numbers. And number manipulation
is almost equal to Math. Nobody licenses Math nor its functions and methods.

Point 5: They won't make companies (especially big ones) believe in the
> first place. First of all, MS hasn't publicly described what the 235 patents
> are. It's like bullying people for a (set of) wrongdoing(s) that people
> themselves don't know of. As far as FOSS is concerned, it's clean of its
> conscience. Second, who the hell will believe that Linux / FOSS are better
> alternatives than MS's technologies because they were infringing patents
> from the Big One? I mean saying Linux was better because they got stuff from
> the worst? Give me a break. Besides, the Fortune-article-tactic is obviously
> a way to just spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I should say a desperate
> move because we are used to hearing news like this in the internet or some
> forum. Using Fortune magazine is waaay too desperate.


As usual this is being bellowed (always) by "The Bald Guy at Redmond" S.
Ballmer and his consorts. FUD, FUD, and more FUD. They can't name any patent
specifically coz there is a possibility that they might have patented
something that has been patented before yet they implemented it differently.
Thus, it will become a prime example of a mooted patent. Hark back to the
old school companies before MS was even born.

-- 
"A dog that has no bite, barks loudest."
Registered Linux User #400165
http://baudizm.blogsome.com
http://phossil.ifastnet.com
Subscribed to:
LARTC, Open-ITLUG, PRUG, KLUG, sybase.public.ase.linux

SHA256: 857dd62339c9fe27460b725747dfe25d5612933f7d879c35fb0cba2dadaf972f
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-ph/attachments/20070517/c302c64f/attachment.html>