PDA

View Full Version : What is Microsoft suing for??



linuxisevolution
March 17th, 2009, 08:37 PM
I have read that Microsloft wants to sue Linus (or someone -I can't remember) because the Linux kernel violated several Microsoft "IP"'s, mostly having to do with the X environment. They also just sued the makers of TomTom for implementation of the Linux kernel in their embedded GPS device.


I simply don't understand, what exactly are we violating each time we boot Linux according to Microsoft?

:popcorn:

Mehall
March 17th, 2009, 08:41 PM
I have read that Microsloft wants to sue Linus (or someone -I can't remember) because the Linux kernel violated several Microsoft "IP"'s, mostly having to do with the X environment. They also just sued the makers of TomTom for implementation of the Linux kernel in their embedded GPS device.


I simply don't understand, what exactly are we violating each time we boot Linux according to Microsoft?

:popcorn:


One of them is how log-file name support works under Fat32 file system, I can;t remember what the other is.

They know they won't win, but it makes people doubt linux, if MS sue us.

linuxisevolution
March 17th, 2009, 08:43 PM
One of them is how log-file name support works under Fat32 file system, I can;t remember what the other is.

They know they won't win, but it makes people doubt linux, if MS sue us.

If they sue us and some lawyer comes to UF or my house or tries to contact me in anyway because of a Linux related Lawsuit, I am going to take my Windows XP cd, show it to them, and then melt it.

KiwiNZ
March 17th, 2009, 08:51 PM
Microsoft have not specified what IP's are being violated.

I do not think they will sue individual users.

If Distros are violating Microsoft IP they need to rectify this.

ddrichardson
March 17th, 2009, 08:51 PM
I simply don't understand, what exactly are we violating each time we boot Linux according to Microsoft?
That's the point, they don't want to say - they want to cause uncertainty in adoption of GNU/Linux incase some almighty patent issue brings it down.

They won't come out and say anyway - there are other companies such as IBM and Sun that have huge patent portfolios too and its safer to rattle a saber than actually run the risk that their OS is infringing someone else's IP.

linuxisevolution
March 17th, 2009, 08:53 PM
Microsoft have not specified what IP's are being violated.

I do not think they will sue individual users.

If Distros are violating Microsoft IP they need to rectify this.

Hello kiwi! Nice to see you on the forums, and I imagine bapoumba told you of our agreement?

I know they won't sue me in general, I was just making a point.

I am certain they will soon come after Ubuntu if we get a lot of market share..

KiwiNZ
March 17th, 2009, 08:59 PM
If Ubuntu is violating MS IP's then its a very remote possibility. I doubt they will in the foreseeable future. There would little to be gained.

Having said that , its the responsibility of the Linux community to ensure that the Linux is not violating MS IP's or any IP's

ELD
March 17th, 2009, 09:12 PM
Just makes me glad to live in the UK, no patent crap for me ^_^

ddrichardson
March 17th, 2009, 09:23 PM
Just makes me glad to live in the UK, no patent crap for me ^_^
I hope thats sarcasm, we already have a precedent (http://www.computing.co.uk/computing/news/2212353/symbian-wins-software-patent).
http://www.softwarepatents.co.uk/

Mehall
March 17th, 2009, 09:30 PM
I hope thats sarcasm, we already have a precedent (http://www.computing.co.uk/computing/news/2212353/symbian-wins-software-patent).
http://www.softwarepatents.co.uk/

it must have been sarcasm, surely

Despite RIAA/MPAA owning the respective things in the UK, we still don't get Pandora/Hulu access... wtf?

mocoloco
March 17th, 2009, 09:32 PM
Microsoft is suing TomTom (http://www.techflash.com/microsoft/Microsoft_sues_TomTom_over_patents_in_case_with_Li nux_subplot_40305732.html), makers of GPS devices.
As far as the allegations of patent infringement, those have been around for many years. This is the first time they've actually done anything. However they're not suing over specific Linux things, just the use of the FAT32 filesystem, which is also used by many other systems (probably the only filesystem that all OSes can read out-of-the-box without any hacking).

ddrichardson
March 17th, 2009, 09:37 PM
<rant>

Know what gets me? Those ads you can't skip at the start of shop bought DVDs - you know the one that says you wouldn't steal a car so don't copy a DVD. Talk about hyperbole, its like a vegetarian saying you wouldn't eat an elephant so why eat a sausage.

And the only people that see the ads are people who bought them in the first place.

</rant>

interllect
March 17th, 2009, 10:43 PM
I guess Microsoft are tired of getting sued themselves by the EU, so as the saying goes "if you carnt beat em join em"

kidux
March 17th, 2009, 10:45 PM
<rant>

Know what gets me? Those ads you can't skip at the start of shop bought DVDs - you know the one that says you wouldn't steal a car so don't copy a DVD. Talk about hyperbole, its like a vegetarian saying you wouldn't eat an elephant so why eat a sausage.

And the only people that see the ads are people who bought them in the first place.

</rant>
I'd eat an elephant... :P

Skripka
March 17th, 2009, 11:07 PM
Hello kiwi! Nice to see you on the forums, and I imagine bapoumba told you of our agreement?

I know they won't sue me in general, I was just making a point.

I am certain they will soon come after Ubuntu if we get a lot of market share..

They (Microsoft) have explicitly stated they have no intention of going after Linux in general at this time. The litigation against TomTom has to do with their implementation of FAT32 on their devices.. We had a long discussion about this when the news first broke a while back.

Fenris_rising
March 17th, 2009, 11:09 PM
I'd eat an elephant... :P

Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase 'Jumbo sausage' :D

regards

Fenris

smbm
March 17th, 2009, 11:10 PM
<rant>

Know what gets me? Those ads you can't skip at the start of shop bought DVDs - you know the one that says you wouldn't steal a car so don't copy a DVD. Talk about hyperbole, its like a vegetarian saying you wouldn't eat an elephant so why eat a sausage.

And the only people that see the ads are people who bought them in the first place.

</rant>

Sorry to go off topic.

I used to work at HMV, we had to watch anti-piracy industry films in our staff meetings. One of the ones they made us watch told us that downloading films over the internet enabled international terrorist organisations to flourish. Absolutely unsane.

Skripka
March 17th, 2009, 11:13 PM
<rant>

Know what gets me? Those ads you can't skip at the start of shop bought DVDs - you know the one that says you wouldn't steal a car so don't copy a DVD. Talk about hyperbole, its like a vegetarian saying you wouldn't eat an elephant so why eat a sausage.

And the only people that see the ads are people who bought them in the first place.

</rant>

Don't ya love DRM?

linuxisevolution
March 17th, 2009, 11:20 PM
Who is more the "Dumb Retarded Monkeys"?

-The people who came up with DRM?

or

-The people who buy it?

;)

More the people who came up with it, but I see your point.

Anyone who wants to obey some richer people will buy it and make them even richer and give them more power, where as ... *cough* piratebay.org *cough*
:P

linuxisevolution
March 17th, 2009, 11:23 PM
It is DRM that prevents you from FFing adverts/piracy warnings.

My uncle came up with a way to bypass it with DVDs. I believe he wrote on the disk with a permanent marker in a certain spot and then he could FF it. ;)

issih
March 17th, 2009, 11:27 PM
Its very simple really, as soon as MS actually owns up to what patents it believes are violated (as opposed to just quoting a random number) the developers will set to work to rewrite the offending portions to avoid the infringement, and suddenly they lose a valuable weapon in their campaign to keep linux as niche as possible.

They don't want to tell you what has been done wrong, they just want you to accept that something has, and therefore feel guilty and bad for ever having thought about using linux.

Its no different to the sco case, and if they ever do try and take things into court, they will, exactly like sco, be forced to fess up as to what precisely the infringements are...which they simply won't do.

ddrichardson
March 17th, 2009, 11:31 PM
Sorry to go off topic.

I used to work at HMV, we had to watch anti-piracy industry films in our staff meetings. One of the ones they made us watch told us that downloading films over the internet enabled international terrorist organisations to flourish. Absolutely unsane.
Like all truly great lies this is based in a modicum of truth. Prior to Internet distribution, VHS piracy and distribution was one revenue source of income for terrorist activities. We're talking like a decade ago at least here though.

ddrichardson
March 17th, 2009, 11:34 PM
Its no different to the sco case, and if they ever do try and take things into court, they will, exactly like sco, be forced to fess up as to what precisely the infringements are...which they simply won't do.
Actually, I don't think it is like the SCO case. If Microsoft does announce and pursue then a number of large companies with large patent portfolios will aggressively counter sue Microsoft.

But you're right about the other part - AstroTurf and unsubstantiated rumor, next to embrace, extend and extinguish its Microsoft's favorite strategy.

bakedbeans4life
March 17th, 2009, 11:37 PM
Here is a wild stab in the dark. Rumour has it Microsoft tried to acquire Tom-Tom in 2006, they obviously refused. Tom-Tom use Open Source instead of the competing product from the Microsoft's stable (no jokes about the horse has already bolted). Just about every company that uses solid state technology uses the FAT file system because of it's inherent ubiquity and compatibility with Windows. Tom-Tom is just one of many that take advantage of this fact. Microsoft uses this pretext to perform a hostile takeover of Tom-Tom.

Tom-Tom are not in the best of shape right now, the recession and all. To Microsoft they are a sitting duck right for the plucking (well it ends in "ucking" at any rate).

They either force one of the biggest names in technology that use Open Source to adopt a Microsoft solution, or they set a precedent that even using Open Source can be dangerous to your bottom line. Another nice day at the office for the Redmond posse.

Please note, I am not singling out Microsoft, I am sure the IBM of old did far worse than this. But that don't make it right.

I have read what Skripka says, and he does have a point. Is this all about a violation of a patent, or that said patent was used in conjunction with Open Source. The legal proceedings should be interesting at least.

smbm
March 17th, 2009, 11:48 PM
Like all truly great lies this is based in a modicum of truth. Prior to Internet distribution, VHS piracy and distribution was one revenue source of income for terrorist activities. We're talking like a decade ago at least here though.

I'd guessed it was probably something like that, I just thought it was another laughably glib statement like the not stealing a car/handbag ones in DVD menus :D

lavinog
March 17th, 2009, 11:56 PM
PS-It is DRM that prevents you from FFing through adverts/piracy warnings.

I am not for piracy, but I am moving towards it for this reason.
We have alot of Di$ney dvds, each one has ads for other disney movies that we already own. What bothers me is that they advertise PG-13 movies on G-rated DVDs, and I can't skip them. (Pirates of the caribbean <-- Irony?)
They are getting better with their "Fast-play," but the whole idea of it is just dumb. Pretty much if you own any of their movies, you will already be aware of their other movies.

ddrichardson
March 18th, 2009, 12:11 AM
I am not for piracy, but I am moving towards it for this reason.
We have alot of Di$ney dvds, each one has ads for other disney movies that we already own. What bothers me is that they advertise PG-13 movies on G-rated DVDs, and I can't skip them. (Pirates of the caribbean <-- Irony?)
They are getting better with their "Fast-play," but the whole idea of it is just dumb. Pretty much if you own any of their movies, you will already be aware of their other movies.
I don't know if this is a product of DRM or a product of modern business and its incessant need to stick an advert in wherever they can, regardless of whether it might irritate the customer.

My bank, has stuck in a full page advert after login which you need to scroll through to get to your account. I find that invasive but it seems par for the course now.

My wife bought Airplane I and II for 4 in Asda/Walmart the other day and the damn thing is not standard and wont play in our DVD. Having to rip it to another disc to watch it is so out ridiculous I can't begin to express my rage so I'll just choke it down like everything else in the world today. Damn kids. Get off my lawn.

mips
March 18th, 2009, 12:18 AM
I would like to see what the long term impact of "In re Bilski" will have on software patents as a whole in the USA & other countries that have software patents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081103134949355&query=Bilski
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081105132651542&query=Bilski
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081109185020183&query=Bilski
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081112034806294&query=Bilski
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081102011538422&query=Bilski
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090307055042604&query=Bilski
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081030150903555&query=Bilski
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080409033837121&query=Bilski
http://www.groklaw.net/search.php?query=Bilski&keyType=all&datestart=&dateend=&topic=0&type=all&author=0&mode=search

The above links make for some very interesting reading, that is if you are into reading.

issih
March 18th, 2009, 12:25 AM
Actually, I don't think it is like the SCO case. If Microsoft does announce and pursue then a number of large companies with large patent portfolios will aggressively counter sue Microsoft.


Perfectly true, any move would be like the first nuclear launch during the cold war. One giant intellectual property war later, the entire software industry will be bankrupt and a lot of lawyers will be very happy. Nonetheless this doesn't change my point. If, for some insane reason, Microsoft does go into litigation then for their cases, alleging infringement by the linux kernel, they will be forced to detail the exact nature of the infringement. The existence of a whole slew of cases countersuing MS won't alter that.

Still, all in all, its not likely to happen.

yse
March 18th, 2009, 12:30 AM
As developer, I CANT accept piracy.
Is so easy to talk about software, free software. You dont have any idea how real companies works. They pay TAXES and employers, and a lots of other sh*ts. And now honestly, lets say, one company make and awesome piece of software, and they all get rich. Whats your problem? Enjoy the software. Use it for your own needs. Try to put yourself for 5 minutes in the position of a developer, then think again when you judge privacy. And think again about all form of art who is affected by privacy, not only software.

About patents.. heh, i remember the mp3 patent debate some years ago.. all peoples crying about it, and IN THE SAME time, nobody wanted to adopt OGG. Usually, there are ways to avoid patents, you need to find them. Else, whats the problem? Pay for it. You are licensed, case solved.

About TomTom i actually think is their fault because of the situation. They really risked it and they know it from many years ago. And frankly, i doubt TomTom didn't got money to buy a damn patent... but not respecting some licenses.. well..

And about Microsoft patents, what can i say, they actually are "blind" and they are really soft in suing companies who use their patents... Frankly, if you do that in big industry, not only in software business, you have real problem. Everywhere in world happens that. Thats why patents are. In respect for the idea and creator you have to pay for it.

ddrichardson
March 18th, 2009, 12:33 AM
Perfectly true, any move would be like the first nuclear launch during the cold war. One giant intellectual property war later, the entire software industry will be bankrupt and a lot of lawyers will be very happy. Nonetheless this doesn't change my point. If, for some insane reason, Microsoft does go into litigation then for their cases, alleging infringement by the linux kernel, they will be forced to detail the exact nature of the infringement. The existence of a whole slew of cases countersuing MS won't alter that.

Still, all in all, its not likely to happen.
Your cold war analogy is apt - except its M.A.D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_deterrence), no-one fires.

ddrichardson
March 18th, 2009, 12:48 AM
As developer, I CANT accept piracy.
Is so easy to talk about software, free software. You dont have any idea how real companies works.

Yes, I do.


They pay TAXES and employers, and a lots of other sh*ts. And now honestly, lets say, one company make and awesome piece of software, and they all get rich. Whats your problem? Enjoy the software. Use it for your own needs. Try to put yourself for 5 minutes in the position of a developer, then think again when you judge privacy. And think again about all form of art who is affected by privacy, not only software.

Dude, there's a million miles between protecting revenue and making your users lives unnecessarily difficult. No one has disputed their right to make money.


About patents.. heh, i remember the mp3 patent debate some years ago.. all peoples crying about it, and IN THE SAME time, nobody wanted to adopt OGG. Usually, there are ways to avoid patents, you need to find them. Else, whats the problem? Pay for it. You are licensed, case solved.

That's nothing to do with DVD - in the case stated a DVD was legally purchased which due to non-standard, un-advertised implementation of DRM means that a legitimate purchaser - the very people you're crowing about paying - are not able to get the goods they paid for. Net result? No more purchases.


About TomTom i actually think is their fault because of the situation. They really risked it and they know it from many years ago. And frankly, i doubt TomTom didn't got money to buy a damn patent... but not respecting some licenses.. well..

Are you suggesting that a system developed in 1976 (hey thats my birthday) should still be generating revenue with no input 33 years later?


And about Microsoft patents, what can i say, they actually are "blind" and they are really soft in suing companies who use their patents... Frankly, if you do that in big industry, not only in software business, you have real problem. Everywhere in world happens that. Thats why patents are. In respect for the idea and creator you have to pay for it.

Rubbish - "A patent is a set of exclusive rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_right) granted by a state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State) to an inventor or his assignee for a limited period of time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent) in exchange for a disclosure of an invention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention)".

yse
March 18th, 2009, 12:53 AM
Are you suggesting that a system developed in 1976 (hey thats my birthday) should still be generating revenue with no input 33 years later?

Exactly.

There are pieces of art who sells with insane prices. Date of manufacturing dont matter.

ddrichardson
March 18th, 2009, 12:58 AM
Exactly.

There are pieces of art who sells with insane prices. Date of manufacturing dont matter.
Art is not the same at all - the existence of a single copy of high desirability is what makes it cost so much.

And date does matter with patents - term of patent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent).

yse
March 18th, 2009, 01:02 AM
Art is not the same at all - the existence of a single copy of high desirability is what makes it cost so much.

And date does matter with patents - term of patent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent).

Whats your point then?

As long as states and lawyers will exist on our little planet, most probable patents will be here also. And copyright laws and so on. Probable we need a new world order to modify that. Seriously.

bakedbeans4life
March 18th, 2009, 01:02 AM
As developer, I CANT accept piracy.
Is so easy to talk about software, free software. You dont have any idea how real companies works. They pay TAXES and employers, and a lots of other sh*ts. And now honestly, lets say, one company make and awesome piece of software, and they all get rich. Whats your problem? Enjoy the software. Use it for your own needs. Try to put yourself for 5 minutes in the position of a developer, then think again when you judge privacy. And think again about all form of art who is affected by privacy, not only software.

About patents.. heh, i remember the mp3 patent debate some years ago.. all peoples crying about it, and IN THE SAME time, nobody wanted to adopt OGG. Usually, there are ways to avoid patents, you need to find them. Else, whats the problem? Pay for it. You are licensed, case solved.

About TomTom i actually think is their fault because of the situation. They really risked it and they know it from many years ago. And frankly, i doubt TomTom didn't got money to buy a damn patent... but not respecting some licenses.. well..

And about Microsoft patents, what can i say, they actually are "blind" and they are really soft in suing companies who use their patents... Frankly, if you do that in big industry, not only in software business, you have real problem. Everywhere in world happens that. Thats why patents are. In respect for the idea and creator you have to pay for it.

A moment of epiphany, at least I now know as to the why.

Not that I agree with piracy

lavinog
March 18th, 2009, 01:04 AM
Couldn't prior art be argued for the long-file name support in fat32. I somewhat remember a hack that was used (might have been norton utilities) that allowed long file name support with fat16.

If MS wants to sue for use of FAT32, let them...this could be useful for adopting FOSS options for flash media. Since windows users are already used to installing bloated drivers for everything, they wont mind installing drivers to read other filesystems. (media card reader driver cds containing Ubuntu ;) )

yse
March 18th, 2009, 01:06 AM
A moment of epiphany, at least I now know as to the why.



We actually try to have a discussion here. Can you stop your attacks against me or i need to report you?

ddrichardson
March 18th, 2009, 01:07 AM
Whats your point then?

As long as states and lawyers will exist on our little planet, most probable patents will be here also. And copyright laws and so on. Probable we need a new world order to modify that. Seriously.
You'd understand my point if you had read the link, patents have a term.

Copyright is not the same as a patent.

You tell us all we know nothing about the real world of development and yet don't understand these fundamental principles that shape one of the most important subjects to developers around the world. The question is - whats your point?

yse
March 18th, 2009, 01:09 AM
You'd understand my point if you had read the link, patents have a term.

Copyright is not the same as a patent.

You tell us all we know nothing about the real world of development and yet don't understand these fundamental principles that shape one of the most important subjects to developers around the world. The question is - whats your point?

My point is, IF patent exist, must be protected, because is owned by some one in a legal way.

Thats the point. And patents and piracy are working very close some times.

KiwiNZ
March 18th, 2009, 01:09 AM
Please keep the personal stuff out of here

bakedbeans4life
March 18th, 2009, 01:10 AM
Couldn't prior art be argued for the long-file name support in fat32. I somewhat remember a hack that was used (might have been norton utilities) that allowed long file name support with fat16.

If MS wants to sue for use of FAT32, let them...this could be useful for adopting FOSS options for flash media. Since windows users are already used to installing bloated drivers for everything, they wont mind installing drivers to read other filesystems. (media card reader driver cds containing Ubuntu ;) )

You could also argue the "doctrine of latches" may apply here. Microsoft knew about this for long enough, why did they not pursue a court case before now?

ddrichardson
March 18th, 2009, 01:11 AM
Couldn't prior art be argued for the long-file name support in fat32. I somewhat remember a hack that was used (might have been norton utilities) that allowed long file name support with fat16.

If MS wants to sue for use of FAT32, let them...this could be useful for adopting FOSS options for flash media. Since windows users are already used to installing bloated drivers for everything, they wont mind installing drivers to read other filesystems. (media card reader driver cds containing Ubuntu ;) )
Possibly, something similar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpg#Patent_issues) happened with JPG.

ddrichardson
March 18th, 2009, 01:12 AM
Please keep the personal stuff out of here
No personal attacks from this call sign - if it came across that way it was unintentional.

bakedbeans4life
March 18th, 2009, 01:15 AM
Please keep the personal stuff out of here

Sorry!!

What I should of said is at least I now know where he is coming from, nothing more.

bakedbeans4life
March 18th, 2009, 01:16 AM
No personal attacks from this call sign - if it came across that way it was unintentional.

It was me, not you.

ddrichardson
March 18th, 2009, 01:17 AM
My point is, IF patent exist, must be protected, because is owned by some one in a legal way.

Thats the point. And patents and piracy are working very close some times.
With respect, it doesn't work like that, no matter how many times you assert that it does.

Ownership is also a contentious issue because there are a number of companies who specialize in suing for infringement of patents they didn't invent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll) and that's really against the spirit of the law.

yse
March 18th, 2009, 01:17 AM
Sorry!!

What I should of said is at least I now know where he is coming from, nothing more.

I doubt you have any vague idea.

Secondly, that's a new form of racism or what?

bakedbeans4life
March 18th, 2009, 01:21 AM
I doubt you have any vague idea.

Secondly, that's a new form of racism or what?

I tried to say I understood you, and to your point of view. Did anybody else take my comments a racist?

KiwiNZ
March 18th, 2009, 01:21 AM
I doubt you have any vague idea.

Secondly, that's a new form of racism or what?

enough , please stay on topic or this thread will be closed

lavinog
March 18th, 2009, 01:26 AM
Anyone remember this one:
url: Duke Nukem Targeted in Patent Infringement (http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1997/08/6252)
Imagine if that guy won his case.
url: Video game with playback of live events (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4662635)

yse
March 18th, 2009, 01:27 AM
With respect, it doesn't work like that, no matter how many times you assert that it does.

Ownership is also a contentious issue because there are a number of companies who specialize in suing for infringement of patents they didn't invent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll) and that's really against the spirit of the law.

Well, for ownership/arbitration/patent infringement, and all other legal stuff, there are lawyers.

What i don't understand is, why you don't accept the world how it is now. Patents, copyright, law.... just respect them, and you can sleep well at night. There are peoples who respect them. Not everybody afford a process with a big company. And usually, as a company, you want to move forward, don't get stuck in point. If that patents is really necessary, buy it. Or try other way to solve the problem.

bakedbeans4life
March 18th, 2009, 01:33 AM
Well, for ownership/arbitration/patent infringement, and all other legal stuff, there are lawyers.

What i don't understand is, why you don't accept the world how it is now. Patents, copyright, law.... just respect them, and you can sleep well at night. There are peoples who respect them. Not everybody afford a process with a big company. And usually, as a company, you want to move forward, don't get stuck in point. If that patents is really necessary, buy it. Or try other way to solve the problem.

With respect yse, Microsoft issued a statement about Linux infringing on many hundreds of it's patents, they never said which ones. They never demonstrated or backed up anything they claimed. And the Linux community is supposed to respect this?

bobmatino17
March 18th, 2009, 01:33 AM
everyone buy something with windows mobile and tell gates your palm pilot doesnt work! or get an ipod and tell gates that your zune... oh wait, i dont have a zune ive got an ipod just like 99% of the other people.

i wonder if hed sue if you installed windows on an ext2 partition with the apropreate drivers....

ddrichardson
March 18th, 2009, 01:39 AM
Well, for ownership/arbitration/patent infringement, and all other legal stuff, there are lawyers.

What i don't understand is, why you don't accept the world how it is now. Patents, copyright, law.... just respect them, and you can sleep well at night. There are peoples who respect them. Not everybody afford a process with a big company. And usually, as a company, you want to move forward, don't get stuck in point. If that patents is really necessary, buy it. Or try other way to solve the problem.
At what point did I say I didn't respect them? That doesn't mean that someone can come along and tell me something I know is untrue and I'll blindly accept it!

yse
March 18th, 2009, 01:41 AM
With respect yse, Microsoft issued a statement about Linux infringing on many hundreds of it's patents, they never said which ones. They never demonstrated or backed up anything they claimed. And the Linux community is supposed to respect this?

Linux "community" like everybody else must respect the laws. Why linux community is more special that others? We are all the same.

Now, if Microsoft sue something from Linux or a distro there are 2 ways:

1. prove they are wrong. that's the hardest process. personally, instead going for that option, i will try first to analyze the problems again AND maybe i can avoid them.

2. give them right and support the punishments.

Seriously, there is no way how you can challenge Microsoft if you don't have right.

In the end, if you really need a patent for your distro, damn buy it and move over.

linuxisevolution
March 18th, 2009, 01:48 AM
everyone buy something with windows mobile and tell gates your palm pilot doesnt work! or get an ipod and tell gates that your zune... oh wait, i dont have a zune ive got an ipod just like 99% of the other people.

i wonder if hed sue if you installed windows on an ext2 partition with the apropreate drivers....

No, but everyone would be asking how you did it.:P

ddrichardson
March 18th, 2009, 01:51 AM
Linux "community" like everybody else must respect the laws. Why linux community is more special that others? We are all the same.

A desire for DRM reform does NOT mean I am currently breaking the law - it means that I don't agree with the law and am perfectly entitled to say so. DRM attempts to criminalise those who are following the law, not those who break it.


Now, if Microsoft sue something from Linux or a distro there are 2 ways:

1. prove they are wrong. that's the hardest process. personally, instead going for that option, i will try first to analyze the problems again AND maybe i can avoid them.No you have that the wrong way round, they need to prove the infringement. Although in practice the prohibitive cost of fighting suit means that a threat is often enough.


2. give them right and support the punishments.You do know that this is a civil matter, in most countries any way. There is no punishment with exception of punitive damages.

bakedbeans4life
March 18th, 2009, 01:57 AM
Linux "community" like everybody else must respect the laws. Why linux community is more special that others? We are all the same.

Now, if Microsoft sue something from Linux or a distro there are 2 ways:

1. prove they are wrong. that's the hardest process. personally, instead going for that option, i will try first to analyze the problems again AND maybe i can avoid them.

2. give them right and support the punishments.

Seriously, there is no way how you can challenge Microsoft if you don't have right.

In the end, if you really need a patent for your distro, damn buy it and move over.

So what it boils down to is money, Microsoft has more of it so they are in the right, even if they have nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

What is right and wrong is deemed by what you can afford, not by what you can prove. The true wrights and wrongs do not even enter into the equation.

I can see why you support Microsoft amidst this legal wrangle.

"We are all the same." really?!

linuxisevolution
March 18th, 2009, 02:46 AM
So what it boils down to is money, Microsoft has more of it so they are in the right, even if they have nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

What is right and wrong is deemed by what you can afford, not by what you can prove. The true wrights and wrongs do not even enter into the equation.

I can see why you support Microsoft amidst this legal wrangle.

"We are all the same." really?!

OWNED.


Sorry yse, but I have to agree with bakedbeans.

@yse, did you spell your name wrong when you signed up?:P

Giant Speck
March 18th, 2009, 02:47 AM
Do these lawsuits affect me personally?

If not, I'm going to go back to not caring.

ddrichardson
March 18th, 2009, 03:05 AM
Do these lawsuits affect me personally?

If not, I'm going to go back to not caring.All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing, as people insist on attributing to Edmund Burke.

bakedbeans4life
March 18th, 2009, 03:08 AM
OWNED.


Sorry yse, but I have to agree with bakedbeans.

@yse, did you spell your name wrong when you signed up?:P

Don't resort to name or flame calling. Make your point and move on. I have been here before you, I speak from experience. Would you follow my example?

KiwiNZ
March 18th, 2009, 03:36 AM
OWNED.


Sorry yse, but I have to agree with bakedbeans.

@yse, did you spell your name wrong when you signed up?:P

You seem to ignored the previous warning

Thread closed