PDA

View Full Version : Linux infringes Microsoft patents



Laxman_prodigy
March 31st, 2010, 10:35 PM
I don't say that.

Look at this link for an example:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10457989-56.html


A comment on that link was:

1) SMB (file transfer)
2) FAT (file system)

Microsoft holds the patents for these two technologies. Samba is a reverse engineered implementation of SMB as is the the FAT driver. The reason Microsoft is not suing anyone for these patents is because it is better for them for other systems to access Windows. If it was something that would make them lose money, you can be sure: they would sue, as anyone else like IBM, Apple, Oracle, etc would sue as well.


I don't understand. Is linux illegal?

Why do companies like Amazon bow down for example?

donkyhotay
March 31st, 2010, 10:41 PM
This looks almost like the whole novell - SCO mess again. "Linux intrudes on my questionable patents/copyrights/etc... pay us money or we sue". Sure some people/companies get scared and cough up some cash but in the long run, they wasted so much money in lawsuits they're in the middle of chapter 11 bankruptcy. Then there also the debate as to whether software patents are really that legitimate and/or practical. Bill gates himself once stated that software patents are completely evil. Of course that was when he was with a small startup company no one had ever heard of and was fighting against the evil megacorps around then (IBM, AT&T, etc.). Now that he is on the other side of the battle lines and in charge of a giant megacorp he sings a *very* different tune.

koshatnik
March 31st, 2010, 10:52 PM
Patent infringements are used as FUDs. Its marketing crap, nothing more.

There isn't a tech company in the world that isnt infringing some patent or other.

re: Linux, the end user is exempt from prosecution, so who cares? :)

Crunchy the Headcrab
March 31st, 2010, 11:18 PM
Pssh. Microsoft just got in trouble with Windows 7 for using code for booting form usb that was released as Open Source for Linux that they were claiming as their own. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lot more "Linux" stuff that Windows still uses.

rottentree
March 31st, 2010, 11:18 PM
Bill gates himself once stated that software patents are completely evil. Of course that was when he was with a small startup company no one had ever heard of and was fighting against the evil megacorps around then (IBM, AT&T, etc.). Now that he is on the other side of the battle lines and in charge of a giant megacorp he sings a *very* different tune.

As far as I know Bill Gates has stepped down from Microsoft and it's Captain Ballmer who's steering the mothership now.

Austin25
March 31st, 2010, 11:21 PM
We could always march on Microsoft!:D

But seriously, I hate the copywrite system, and it needs to be rethought.

Dayofswords
March 31st, 2010, 11:22 PM
As far as I know Bill Gates has stepped down from Microsoft and it's Captain Ballmer who's steering the mothership now.

still had the tune though when he was the leader

zekopeko
March 31st, 2010, 11:23 PM
I don't say that.

Look at this link for an example:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10457989-56.html


A comment on that link was:

1) SMB (file transfer)
2) FAT (file system)

I don't understand. Is linux illegal?

Why do companies like Amazon bow down for example?

Wow your late to the party.

But anyway to address your concerns.

SMB under the Samba project is legal. They have a deal that EU demanded from MS (not only for Samba but for a lot of their server-client protocols).
So you are covered under that deal (http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1064).

FAT is still potential dangerous but in the Tomtom case MS exposed, I think, 2 patents what were worked around in the FAT driver in the kernel. So for now you are "safe".

I suggest you read up on patents, patent threats etc. Any non-trivial piece of software is infringing some software patents. It is up to the patent owners to demand payment for such use in a civil lawsuit.

On a more general note Linux and large parts of FOSS are protected by OIN (http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php)which is basically a big patent pool created by companies such as Red Hat, Novell, IBM and Sony. So if MS tries to sue them (and Linux by proxy) they will simply counter-sue since MS is infringing their patents. It's a Patent Cold War.

RiceMonster
March 31st, 2010, 11:32 PM
*yawn*

steveneddy
March 31st, 2010, 11:35 PM
Didn't we talk about this last year? And the year before that?

Like was stated before:

*yawn

:roll:

Frak
March 31st, 2010, 11:37 PM
Using FAT as a main means of storage is a bad idea in legal terms. Reverse engineering FAT for interoperability is covered under Fair Use. The latter is being exercised most of the time. Samba is legal (interoperability) and they have an agreement with Microsoft to improve and stay legal.

Frak
March 31st, 2010, 11:39 PM
Pssh. Microsoft just got in trouble with Windows 7 for using code for booting form usb that was released as Open Source for Linux that they were claiming as their own. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lot more "Linux" stuff that Windows still uses.
It was a program that wrote information to a USB flash drive. Besides, Microsoft had little to do with the program as it was developed by a third-party.

Maheriano
March 31st, 2010, 11:41 PM
People don't sue for your using their idea, they sue for you making money off of it. Linux is free and making no money, thus there is nothing to sue for.

spoons
March 31st, 2010, 11:50 PM
People don't sue for your using their idea, they sue for you making money off of it. Linux is free and making no money, thus there is nothing to sue for.

Making no money?

*headdesk*

Frak
March 31st, 2010, 11:56 PM
Making no money?

*headdesk*
Nobody "sells" Linux, they sell Linux + other software precompiled. Linux itself doesn't make a profit. The inclusion and labor makes a profit.

sudoer541
April 1st, 2010, 03:56 AM
If a company does not want anyone to use their technologies, then they should not use them in any way! Even if its reverse engineered, its still ILLEGAL.
If Linux is breaking pattens then congrats to Microsoft for protecting their technologies, if Linux does not break the law let it prove it!...lets be fair.

marshmallow1304
April 1st, 2010, 04:21 AM
If a company does not want anyone to use their technologies, then they should not use them in any way! Even if its reverse engineered, its still ILLEGAL.
If Linux is breaking pattens then congrats to Microsoft for protecting their technologies, if Linux does not break the law let it prove it!...lets be fair.

I think you've placed the burden of proof on the wrong side.

Chronon
April 1st, 2010, 04:31 AM
I think you've placed the burden of proof on the wrong side.

Yep. It was a logic failure.

pastalavista
April 1st, 2010, 05:17 AM
IMO, there should never be patents issued for any kind software! It is just an instruction set for hardware. Copyright might be more appropriate for software (as long as it is completely original, which is always debatable), but patents should be reserved for actual countable, measurable physical inventions and not for new ways to use a pre-existing one.