MS exec rattles sabre, suggests Linux could infringe patents

[TB]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/28155.html

Another pathetic attempt by M$ to draw attention to itself with headlines......not to mention a pathetic attack on Linux. To be honest, this article is just hot air but I'll cut + paste it for everyone's benefit:

The CEO of Microsoft Israel has played the FUD card against Linux, raising doubts about the provenance of the intellectual property in the software, and advising potential customers to seek indemnification from the supplier in the event of patent infringement.

Or at least we think that's what Arie Scope said in an article here last week. If your Hebrew is enough to get you past the registration page you'll no doubt be able to cope with the whole piece, which provides a response to open source initiatives in Israel. These include proposed legislation on the use of GPL software by the government.

In the article, Scope says: "IBM is not developing its own version of the Linux OS. Rather than that it distributes Red Hat's version and clears itself from any liability in case the customer changes the code. I advise organizations to review the licensing agreement of Red Hat distributed by IBM, and ask the company for legal protection if it turns out that the OS infringes patents."

It's not entirely uncommon, one might observe, for suppliers of systems to deny responsibility if the customer breaks stuff through fiddling with the software, but that's probably not what Scope means. Effectively he's trying to raise doubts about IBM's long-term commitment to Linux, and to the customers it supplies Advanced Server to.

The IP issue has more edge to it, because major business customers do have concerns about IP issues with Linux, particularly because Linux distributors have historically been small companies who'd have difficulty indemnifying them should they be subject to legal action. Why they should be, or why Linux distributions should be any more at risk in this area than, say, Windows 2000 Advanced Server, is not entirely clear. But they worry, nevertheless.

Scope is therefore turning his guns on a Linux distributor that does have resources, IBM, and suggesting customers demand it backs its sales force with its wallet. Just like Microsoft does? One does wonder. One also wonders whether a lawsuit against Red Hat Advanced Server might just be sitting in a silo near Redmond, waiting for someone to push the button...

Yep...........nothin but FUD. And not just any FUD, we're talking Grade A USDA approved FUD. What I find so hilarious about this guy Scope is his total lack of coherence. Well I guess that's how we know he's a genuine Microsoft executive.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: TB ]

[voidmain]

Ahhh, Zombie is now CEO of Microsoft Israel I see.

[slave]

As much anti-Microsoft bias that The Register tends to exhibit, all I can say here is puh-lease.  Intellectual property?  Give my a break!  If there's one idea I hate it's the idea that someone can have the "right" to control what other people draw, code, write, or say, just because someone else claims to have "ownership" of ideas.  IP is just used to stifle innovation and exploit others.  And the *only* reason anyone likes IP is because it is used to make a profit, and I don't believe something created for the sole purpose of making money can be a good thing.  The idea that the "rights" of an author outweigh the rights of the entire world is just ludicrous.  I swear if aliens came to Earth one day and saw the way we did things where we hoarded our ideas from each other jealously instead of cooperating and sharing ideas they would be pretty disappointed.  Why is it that on children's TV shows we're always taught the importance of sharing and cooperation but in the business world it seems to be the exact opposite.  Did none of these corporate dudes watch Sesame Street?

Also, the US patent office has its head so far up its ass it can see what it ate last Wednesday.  They are *not* competent at making fair patents when it comes to software.

Don't be gay, Microsoft!  Fight linux legit, not by bringing in some nonsensical expert terminology like "(non)intellectual property!"


The preceding comments are (C) Copyright 2002 Windows XP User.  All rights reserved.  No part of this writing may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transcribed, in any form or by any means -- electronic (that includes storing it in your brain so you better have poor memory or I'll have to come over to your house and whack your head until you forget!) mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise -- without the prior written permission of Windows XP User Enterprises.

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Windows XP User #5225982375 ]

[voidmain]

Throw that man (XP User) another star!

[Doctor V]

quote:Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
As much anti-Microsoft bias that The Register tends to exhibit, all I can say here is puh-lease.  Intellectual property?  Give my a break!  If there's one idea I hate it's the idea that someone can have the "right" to control what other people draw, code, write, or say, just because someone else claims to have "ownership" of ideas.  IP is just used to stifle innovation and exploit others.  And the *only* reason anyone likes IP is because it is used to make a profit, and I don't believe something created for the sole purpose of making money can be a good thing.  The idea that the "rights" of an author outweigh the rights of the entire world is just ludicrous.  I swear if aliens came to Earth one day and saw the way we did things where we hoarded our ideas from each other jealously instead of cooperating and sharing ideas they would be pretty disappointed.  Why is it that on children's TV shows we're always taught the importance of sharing and cooperation but in the business world it seems to be the exact opposite.  Did none of these corporate dudes watch Sesame Street?

Also, the US patent office has its head so far up its ass it can see what it ate last Wednesday.  They are *not* competent at making fair patents when it comes to software.

Don't be gay, Microsoft!  Fight linux legit, not by bringing in some nonsensical expert terminology like "(non)intellectual property!"


The preceding comments are (C) Copyright 2002 Windows XP User.  All rights reserved.  No part of this writing may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transcribed, in any form or by any means -- electronic (that includes storing it in your brain so you better have poor memory or I'll have to come over to your house and whack your head until you forget!) mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise -- without the prior written permission of Windows XP User Enterprises.

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Windows XP User #5225982375 ]

Sounds about right.  M$ will never fight anyone legit and never have.  They have always, and will always use whatever perfidious measure thay can to prevent fair play.

They are the champions of Intellectual Property.  They are currently in the process of making a DRMOS (that they already patented as a 'DRMOS') whose sole purpose is to protect and enforce the Intellectual Property copyrights as to the wishes of the copyright holders even where it prevents legal uses for customers.  And they'll say its for security.

Keep in mind that agreeing to the EULA in XP gives M$ the right to upgrade your XP to Longhorn and later to Palladium from remote.  So you never have to choose to buy either or the 'upgrades', they will be put on your system automatically.

And I remember your saying:

 

quote:Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
Go DRM! Go Palladium!

All DRM is is a mechanism for enforcing those very Intellectual Property copyrights.  Its your choice wether to agree with and support IP/DRM or not, but you do have to face this undeniable fact:  If you choose not to support it, your going to eventually have to stop using windows.

I think its time for you to give up on windows and  use Linux.  If you're going to do it eventually, there's not reason not to switch now.  Become Linux user #5225982375.

V

[voidmain]

Doc, I don't know if you have been keeping up with XP User but he has installed RedHat 8.0 and claims to like it. He's on the road to freedom. I don't know if I am hoping for too much here but I have a feeling he might soon be changing some tag lines and possibly user name.

[Doctor V]

Yeah, I've noticed that he has made an about face.  Infinitely better than before.  But he still has a ways to go.  He uses Redhat, but apparently still uses XP as well.  I get sick to my stomach on every one of the rare occasions that I have to boot into Windows.  But never XP, no good reason exists to ever use XP.  So he's halfway there IMO.  I'm hoping as well that he will change the tag lines and user name.  I guess a change that extreme dosn't happen overnight, but gratz on your partial freedom  # 993.

V

[TB]

[sarcasm]Be careful Doctor V, XP User can sue you now! Or at least beat you over the head repeatedly. [/sarcasm]

It's about time IP laws got scrapped......or at least seriously reformed because nowadays they are just being perverted by corporations in their quest for greed. And quite frankly, the idea almost borders on the preposterous. Does it really matter who thought of or invented something first? It really doesnt to me. Sure, it might be historically important, but even history has made that screw-up before. Like with the electric light bulb........that sure as hell was NOT Edison's invention.

[voidmain]

Who's invention was it? I know Edison was not the inventor of alternating current which many people incorrectly credit him with, that was Tesla, who actually worked for Edison for a while. But I am pretty sure Edison is credited with the invention of the incandescent light bulb (with help of course):

http://www.inventorsmuseum.com/LewisLatimer.htm

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[Doctor V]

People invent and create things for money.  Its certainly not the only reason, nor is money necessary for inno.... argh, I just can't say the 'i' word anymore.  People will certainly invent and create things even if copyright is not guarenteed, but copyright can serve as extra motivation.  So I think copyright definitely has its good points.  But a copyright holder should not need 90 years of exclusive rights to a work to reap the benifits.  A few years would be enough.  And exceptions should be made for partys that wish to build off of the copyrighted material.  The purpose of copyright should not be to create billionairs.  That is counterproductive as it destroys the motivation to in*ov*t*.  A great inventor would focus on one invention rather than continuing to create new things.  It also limits the ability of other parties to build off of what was created by another, thus hindering the progress of technology as a whole to socitey.  It could even be the case that another party be developing the same item at the same time only to be forced to stop because of the issueing of a patent.  With technology always being based on other technology, the only way to in*ov*te is to get rights to use previously created works, which requires money.  Since the best technologies often are dependant on several other technologies, under this model, only very rich organizations can hope to in*ov*t* at all.  This stifles competition, which harms customers.

The best way I can think of to describe the current copyright laws is to say that they are a maggot-infested pile of dogshit.  They have been changed many times and tailored to best suit large rich and powerful incumbent corporations, and severely restrict and harm the both smaller smaller comannys and the public at large.

V

[slave]

quote: I think its time for you to give up on windows and use Linux. If you're going to do it eventually, there's not reason not to switch now. Become Linux user #5225982375.

Actually I haven't used Windows in over four weeks, probably because I'm too lazy to reboot and Linux comes with all the programs I need.  I can't be arsed to find and download WinRAR when I can apt-get rar, CuteFTP (and all the cracks) when I already have gFTP, and roxio seedy cd creator always goofs up on me when xcdroast does not and I can't be arsed to fix it.  Imagine that, too lazy to use Windows.

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Windows XP User #5225982375 ]

[TB]

Edison is only credited for the invention of the light bulb because he made millions from it (how easy is it to sell light bulbs when you own the power company???). I recall reading that the US Supreme court declared Edison's patent for the light bulb void because it was discovered an Englishman called Joseph Swan had a British patent for the light bulb for over a year prior to Edison's "invention". Oh, and Swan sued the crap out of Edison when he found out about the money being made. Apparently Swan had also had his work published in journals too, so it's quite possible that Edison had read about Swan's work and saw the financial oppurtunity.

It's a typical thing - history only remembers powerful and wealthy people. Wasn't it Napoleon who said "History is a bunch of lies, agreed upon"?

EDIT: A google search on Joseph Swan gave me a shitload of hits. Apparently it's SIR Joseph Swan, and it seems to be a reasonably well known fact. I guess we just have to re-educate people now!

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: TB ]

[pkd_lives]

This patent thing should be going gainst M$. I mean this is the perfect reason for showing why closed source code is unacceptable for various resons.

Now M$ were convicted of pirating that French companies code, and by all accounts they had trouble proving it, whereas with Open source the infringements can be spotted.

So surely M$ argument about patent infringement is really best kept quite by them. How do you know your patent and your rights have not been infringed upon if the code is closed, and as such if the code is closed then you cannot even verify for yourself whether there is a chance the code you are *leasing* is legal.

And you as a company are just a liable for infringement through use of code from closed as open source.

Their argument for indemnification is pointless. Unless you are spend billions of dollars with a company it is just not worth it, and the cost would drive out competition from small companies. And M$ do not offer indemnification for their product, in fact they refuse even the perfunctory 1 year warranty.

Yes patents would be easy to infringe, but this situation has been dealt with. Mechanical patents survive without much problem, and people can SEE what has been done. Do you see huge and widespread abuse of mechanical patents, NO you do not, there are a few, but that's no less and no more than those from other types of patent. Same with literary copyright, same with electronic circuits, same with most other technologies - WHAT MAKES SOFTWARE SO FUCKING DIFFERENT THAT YOU NEED TO FUCKING REINVENT THE WHEEL.  :mad:  , nothing but corporate greed as far as I can see.

[lazygamer]

What makes software different? Well it shoulden't be different, but there is a reason why it is so acceptable. I believe that software is an illusion in the end, im suprised it's physically possible.

It really boils down to putting tiny little things in electric currents, and putting tiny little things in magnets. The result is that you turn magentism into a libary and electricity into a road to the libary.

Now software appears where these little things mean shit, and they can be combined together to do more complex stuff. To me, software seems like very primitive form of nanites(you know those nano sized machines).

Because this is so incredible, it seems different then other forms of innovation. This is why it has up until now, been possible to get away with it. In fact, if it wasn't for Torvalds and Stallman, we would have no revolution, no "nature's reaction to restricting information".

[Doctor V]

Copyright laws are total BS, written just to fuck us over and keep the pigopolies in power.  Thats all they do at this point.  There is no reason to follow a law that is so blatantly opressive.  Its perfectly ok for a person to break the law in this case.  Its impossible to enforce a law that is broken by the masses.  But those who follow the laws make them stronger.  Lets all break copyright regulations.  I'm gonna go copy a picture of Mickey and change it a little and hang it up somewhere.

V