"Billary/2008" <pathetic@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> put down his kiddie **** and
wrote:
>
> "What Me Worry?" <__@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:i6Kdnfdpa_hFTNXbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Billary/2008" <pathetic@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:Vu32i.67044$Ae.5138@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "3396 Dead" <22113396Dead@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:mL22i.4485$UU.103@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.com.com%2FRe****t%2BMicrosoft%2Bsays%2Bopen%2Bsource%2Bviolates%2B235%2Bpatents%2F2100-1014_3-6183437.html
>>>>
>>>> Re****t: Microsoft says open source violates 235 patents
>>>> Top Microsoft lawyer alleges in a magazine interview that the Linux
>>>> kernel and OpenOffice.org violate hundreds of the company's patents.
>>>> By Ina Friedand Stephen Shankland
>>>> Staff Writer, CNET News.com
>>>> Published: May 13, 2007, 7:35 PM PDT
>>>> Last modified: May 13, 2007, 8:30 PM PDT
>>>> Tell us what you think about this storyTalkBackE-mail this story to a
>>>> friendE-mailView this story formatted for printingPrint Add to your
>>>> del.icio.usdel.icio.us Digg this storyDigg this
>>>> Re****t: Microsoft says open source violates 235 patents
>>>>
>>>> update Microsoft claims that free and open-source software violates
235
>>>> of its patents, according to a magazine re****t published Sunday.
>>>>
>>>> In an interview with Fortune, Microsoft top lawyer Brad Smith alleges
>>>> that the Linux kernel violates 42 Microsoft patents, while its user
>>>> interface and other design elements infringe on a further 65.
>>>> OpenOffice.org is accused of infringing 45, along with 83 more in
other
>>>> free and open-source programs, according to Fortune.
>>>>
>>>> It is not entirely clear how Microsoft might proceed in enforcing
these
>>>> patents, but the company has been encouraging large tech companies
that
>>>> depend on Linux to ink patent deals, starting with its controversial
>>>> pact with Novell last November. Microsoft has also cited Linux
>>>> protection playing a role in recent patent swap deals with Samsung
and
>>>> Fuji Xerox. Microsoft has also had discussions but not reached a deal
>>>> with Red Hat, as noted in the Fortune article.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is also quoted in the article as saying
>>>> Microsoft's open-source competitors need to "play by the same rules
as
>>>> the rest of the business."
>>>>
>>>> "What's fair is fair," Ballmer told Fortune. "We live in a world
where
>>>> we honor, and sup****t the honoring of, intellectual property."
>>>>
>>>> The story notes that some big tech proponents of open source have
been
>>>> stockpiling intellectual property as part of the Open Invention
>>>> Network, set up in 2005 by folks like Sony, Red Hat, IBM, NEC and
>>>> Philips. The article surmises that if Microsoft were to go after open
>>>> source, these companies' combined know-how might give it some patent
>>>> weapons to go after Windows.
>>>>
>>>> A Microsoft representative did not immediately respond to an e-mail
>>>> seeking comment.
>>>>
>>>> Given how deeply entrenched open-source software has become in the
>>>> computing industry, taking direct legal action against the
open-source
>>>> realm would be a complicated, hackle-raising undertaking for
Microsoft.
>>>> Customers use open-source software widely, and many major computing
>>>> companies--IBM, Dell, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard, Motorola and
>>>> Oracle, for example--sup****t Linux work directly.
>>>>
>>>> It's not the first time that open-source patent concerns have arisen.
A
>>>> 2004 study by a Open Source Risk Management, a company selling
>>>> insurance against risks of using open-source software, concluded that
>>>> Linux could violate at least 283 patents, 27 of them Microsoft
patents.
>>>>
>>>> Patents and the open-source movement get along awkwardly at best.
>>>> Patent law gives proprietary, exclusive rights to patent holders, but
>>>> open-source programming is built on the idea of free sharing. Newer
>>>> open-source licenses sometimes address the issue by requiring
>>>> contributors to open-source projects to grant users and developers of
>>>> the software a perpetual, royalty-free license to any patents that
>>>> relate to the contribution.
>>>> Now on News.com
>>>> Re****t: Microsoft says open source violates 235 patents Most hated
>>>> blogger on the planet? Photos: Engineering lessons learned from
Katrina
>>>> Extra: Online radio remixes the future of music
>>>>
>>>> Different companies have dealt in different ways with the open-source
>>>> patent conundrum. For example, HP has taken a pro-patent stance,
while
>>>> IBM, Nokia, Sun and others have granted some rights to use some of
>>>> their patents in open-source software.
>>>>
>>>> The Open Invention Network remains a relatively young effort, but it
>>>> has attracted participation this year from proprietary software giant
>>>> Oracle and from Linux sup****t seller Canonical. A company may license
>>>> the network's patents for free as long as they promise not to assert
>>>> any patent claims against those involved in the "Linux environment."
>>>>
>>>> The Free Software Foundation is working on a new draft of the General
>>>> Public License, one element of which will ban partner****ps such as
the
>>>> one struck by Novell and Microsoft.
>>>
>>> The Linux geeks love to bash MSFT. Yet they love to copy the features
>>> and funtionality of MSFT products. They only wish they had a product
>>> half as powerful and feature rich as MSFT has. The Linux geeks are
>>> nothing but a bunch of thieves intent on destroying the rights of
>>> intellectual property owners.
>>
>> Billary, try pulling your head out of your ass at least once a month...
>>
>> Linux's kernel is based upon open-source codebases dating back to the
>> early days of UNIX. The user interface runs on top of the open-sourced
>> X-windows system. These codebases were in use before the earliest
>> version of Windows, which was developed *in response to* the X-windows
>> and the [then dominant] Macintosh operating system. It was Microsoft
>> that copied its features and GUI design from Apple (who copied it from
>> Xerox PARC in the late 1970's), not the other way around.
>>
>> Since the open source movement is very strict about only using open
>> sourced codebases, and since another company (SCO) has already
attempted
>> to sue Linux out of existence - and failed miserably - I don't think
>> anybody is too worried about Microsoft. If they're smart, they'll
co-opt
>> Linux (embrace and extend) rather than attempt to sue it out of
existence
>> (which will fail). They're likely attempting a multi-pronged attack.
>>
>> It its infamous lawsuit, SCO claimed that it had evidence of
significant
>> patent infringement in the Linux codebase. As it turned out, they were
>> lying. They had nothing. Nada. Zilch. The case was thrown out - but
>> not until their stock had soared many months, making the execs and
their
>> lawyers very rich. MSFT is very likely attempting a more expensive
>> version of the SCO gambit: Spew massive FUD all over the headlines,
drag
>> the case out for a couple of years, watch your stock climb as you
>> threaten large Linux shops (especially recent converts) with crippling
>> lawsuits should they continue to resist Microsoft's expensive, bloated,
>> insecure, bug-ridden, proprietary products. Typical monopolist tactics.
>>
>> There's a reason that Microsoft has been likened to the alient "Borg"
>> from Star Trek. Resistance is futile.
>>
>
> Take YOUR head out of YOUR ass. MSFT isn't trying to kill Linux
Sure they are. Only a fool would suggest otherwise.
> they're trying to defend their patents. Any owner of intellectual
> property would do the same.
SCO said the same thing. And they were proven liars. So is MSFT. Let
Ballmer show us the code, or let him STFU.
> You're so critical of the MS-OS
Where was I critical of the MS-OS (you mean Windows?) Do you specialize
in
missing the point? We're not talking about Windows, we're talking about
Microsoft's blatant, FUD-fueled legal attack on Linux (and more
im****tantly,
large, commercial Linux shops).
In addition to Linux, OpenOffice.org is named as a violator of MSFT
patents.
OpenOffice is simply the open source version of Sun's commercial
StarOffice
productivity suite, which has been a commercial product for 13 years. If
Sun's StarOffice was in violation of Microsoft patents, why is Microsoft
only now attempting to defend themselves?
This is monopolistic behavior. Microsoft should have been split into
pieces
as a federal court originally decided. They are a menace to the
marketplace.
> yet assholes like you aren't qualified to write a single line of code
> beyond "hello world".
In Billary's Bizarro World, Linux, FreeBSD, Eclipse, the Gnu Project, the
Apache Project, X.org, OpenGL, OpenOffice.org, MySQL and many more
polished,
stable, well-maintained, high-quality, usable, reliable, secure,
standards-based open source software (OSS) products were all written by
incompetents. Uh huh.
What color is the sky in Billary Bizarro World?
<desperate shrieking mercy-snipped>
|
