Microsoft breaks new ground (patent agreement for Linux -not android-)

[Primefalcon]

http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-inks-patent-deal-with-service-provider-using-linux-servers-7000001498/

as the title says this is not some pseudo linux system like android or even a company selling any hardware....

Microsoft has made a company agree to pay money to use Linux Servers in their own infrastructure.....!

edit: added for clarity
Hell even Microsoft's own news doesn't go into much more news

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/Press/2012/Jul12/07-24AmdocsPR.aspx

this seems to be the choice bit however

a license under Microsoft’s patent portfolio covering Amdocs’ use of Linux-based servers in its data centers

[lz1dsb]

It's an interesting world we're living in :)

[Grenage]

That's got to be the vaguest article ever! Some dudes made a deal with some dudes; nobody really knows what the dudes made a deal over, or what the intention of the dudes is. The dudes are well known, so we'd better print it.

It's like Heat Magazine for geeks!

[Primefalcon]

That's got to be the vaguest article ever! Some dudes made a deal with some dudes; nobody really knows what the dudes made a deal over, or what the intention of the dudes is. The dudes are well known, so we'd better print it.

It's like Heat Magazine for geeks!
no one will have a better story, like all the other patent agreements...

microsoft goes to company and says you inringe, if you want to know what patents you infringe, sign this ere non-disclosure

[Primefalcon]

Hell even Microsoft's own news doesn't go into much more news

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/Press/2012/Jul12/07-24AmdocsPR.aspx

this seems to be the choice bit however

a license under Microsoft’s patent portfolio covering Amdocs’ use of Linux-based servers in its data centers

[forrestcupp]

You all need to stop paying your landlords and start sending your rent to me. PM me for my address so you can start sending your checks.

[pqwoerituytrueiwoq]

if you are going to claim patient infringement you should have to specify a dam patent to be infringed upon

[Mikeb85]

if you are going to claim patient infringement you should have to specify a dam patent to be infringed upon

They just like to bully vendors. If anyone actually took them to court MS would most likely lose...

[Primefalcon]

if you are going to claim patient infringement you should have to specify a dam patent to be infringed upon
They demand an NDA (non disclosure agreement) signed before the disclose what patents are infringed....

[KiwiNZ]

if you are going to claim patient infringement you should have to specify a dam patent to be infringed upon

It's a private business agreement, there is no need to make the details public. Are your personal financial arrangements with your Bank etc made public?

[Primefalcon]

In this matter its just unfair business tactics since it wont allow anyone else to modify or to code around it.....

I see a pattern here tbh.... my guess is they're going to extend what they're doing to android to everyone running Linux in a business environment..... so that it'll be cheaper for companies to just run Microsoft Stuff....

And honestly unless something changes here.... I think Linux in the business area such as workstations/servers/super computers may be doomed, at least in the united states

[bobbob94]

It's a private business agreement, there is no need to make the details public. Are your personal financial arrangements with your Bank etc made public?

There's arguably a legitimate public interest in the dealings of a company which still has a huge influence over the vast majority of personal computer use outside of tablets. There really isn't over my bank account. Bit like how some relevant and limited aspects of my bank dealings would be reasonably made public information if I was a government minister...

[Copper Bezel]

If the patent system has to remain in its presently broken state, then yes, the rest of the industry has an interest in knowing which patents are capable of being enforced in which absurd and nonsensical ways by whom. That's roughly contingent on the patent system being broken, but no corporation has anything legitimately to gain by hiding that information, either.

But it's far more troublesome how long the accusing corporation can keep the accused party itself in the dark in these patent trolling disputes, so yeah, that seems like a goddamn pipe dream at this point.

I might consider using commercial software if the vendors didn't pull this ****.

[KiwiNZ]

Both parties will be fully aware of the details. Those outside of the agreement need not know

[Copper Bezel]

In this case, yes, the company being attacked knows. That's not always the case by the time there's a settlement, when the target is small enough for the court battle itself to be an existentially threatening expense.

But more on point, why the hell would you defend this?

[thatguruguy]

It's a private business agreement, there is no need to make the details public. Are your personal financial arrangements with your Bank etc made public?

I don't care about the financial arrangements, actually. However, there's a reason it's called a "patent" system rather than, say, "secret" system. The word "patent" comes from the Latin "patent", which means "open." The idea of the patent system was to both protect innovations while at the same time opening them for public inspection, so that improvements could be made. It is the exact opposite of a trade secret.

The recipe for Coca-Cola, for instance, is a trade secret. It isn't patented; the Coca-Cola Corporation keeps it in a vault. If you were able to reverse-engineer the Coca-Cola formula in order to make your own fizzy drink, you could sell all of the fizzy drink you wanted (as long as you didn't call it Coca-Cola, because the name is trademarked). If you were able somehow to get your hands on the actual Coca-Cola recipe and publish it, however, you'd be liable for damages, because you'd be violating Coca-Cola's trade secret. Whereas patents are only valid for a set period of time (e.g., 20 years in the U.S.) a trade secret can last forever, as long as the holder of the trade secret makes sure not to divulge it.

This isn't a trade secret issue, however, it's a patent issue. It strikes me that the best way to prevent infringement, if that is the actual goal, is to state what patents are being violated, so people stop violating them. After all, no secrets would have to be revealed, because patents are public documents.

Patent trolls rely upon the fact that patents take money and expertise to search, the patents themselves can be somewhat ambiguous, and patent litigation is extremely expensive. Again, if the actual goal is to prevent infringement, it would be useful to know what patents are being infringed.

[vasa1]

...
But more on point, why ... defend this?
Yes. I find certain views consistently expressed a bit perplexing especially in the context of this being ubuntuforums.org and the poster involved. It would be nice if there's some sort of backgrounder especially if there's some forum policy involved or the person concerned is expressing forum policy. Otherwise, a non-forum avatar would not have the same implication.

For example, the views expressed by Florian Müller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_M%C3%BCller) do not confuse me because where he stands is perfectly clear of late to anyone but the most obtuse.

[vasa1]

... However, there's a reason it's called a "patent" system rather than, say, "secret" system. The word "patent" comes from the Latin "patent", which means "open." ...
Thanks for that :)

I'm sure I've used "patently obvious" a few times without realizing ...

[cprofitt]

I don't care about the financial arrangements, actually. However, there's a reason it's called a "patent" system rather than, say, "secret" system. The word "patent" comes from the Latin "patent", which means "open." The idea of the patent system was to both protect innovations while at the same time opening them for public inspection, so that improvements could be made. It is the exact opposite of a trade secret.

Patent trolls rely upon the fact that patents take money and expertise to search, the patents themselves can be somewhat ambiguous, and patent litigation is extremely expensive. Again, if the actual goal is to prevent infringement, it would be useful to know what patents are being infringed.

Exactly.

[KiwiNZ]

In this case, yes, the company being attacked knows. That's not always the case by the time there's a settlement, when the target is small enough for the court battle itself to be an existentially threatening expense.

But more on point, why the hell would you defend this?

Stating what the requirements to disclose does not equate to defense.

To sum up my views on the current state of Patents would probably fracture the Forum COC.

[KiwiNZ]

I don't care about the financial arrangements, actually. However, there's a reason it's called a "patent" system rather than, say, "secret" system. The word "patent" comes from the Latin "patent", which means "open." The idea of the patent system was to both protect innovations while at the same time opening them for public inspection, so that improvements could be made. It is the exact opposite of a trade secret.

The recipe for Coca-Cola, for instance, is a trade secret. It isn't patented; the Coca-Cola Corporation keeps it in a vault. If you were able to reverse-engineer the Coca-Cola formula in order to make your own fizzy drink, you could sell all of the fizzy drink you wanted (as long as you didn't call it Coca-Cola, because the name is trademarked). If you were able somehow to get your hands on the actual Coca-Cola recipe and publish it, however, you'd be liable for damages, because you'd be violating Coca-Cola's trade secret. Whereas patents are only valid for a set period of time (e.g., 20 years in the U.S.) a trade secret can last forever, as long as the holder of the trade secret makes sure not to divulge it.

This isn't a trade secret issue, however, it's a patent issue. It strikes me that the best way to prevent infringement, if that is the actual goal, is to state what patents are being violated, so people stop violating them. After all, no secrets would have to be revealed, because patents are public documents.

Patent trolls rely upon the fact that patents take money and expertise to search, the patents themselves can be somewhat ambiguous, and patent litigation is extremely expensive. Again, if the actual goal is to prevent infringement, it would be useful to know what patents are being infringed.

If it concerned public safety or the public purse open disclosure would be advisable. In this case it is an agreement between two parties, broader disclosure need only be made to the vested parties.

Do I agree? sort of, paying royalties by agreement is the appropriate way to do this under the Patent process thus avoiding litigation.

Should the system change? yes

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Hell even Microsoft's own news doesn't go into much more news


They never do. They wrap these things in NDAs so the community at large is unable to fix these issues or to debate Microsoft's claims. There was some excitement a while back because Barnes & Noble stood out from the pack by holding their own, for a while, but they were in no position to deal with a lengthy legal battle (no matter how right they were) and they eventually settled out of court.

That's how Microsoft's protection racket works: vaguely, and far away from anyone with power to change the situation.

People sometimes bring up the talking point that Microsoft has signed this agreement with a lot of big companies (like Amazon, Xerox, TomTom and Casio), but that's completely missing the problem. It doesn't make any difference how many companies agree with Microsoft here. Linux probably is infringing their patents. That doesn't mean it has to continue.

In short, we need a rich distributor to sue Microsoft for screwing with their customers. Red Hat, anyone?

[Mikeb85]

They never do. They wrap these things in NDAs so the community at large is unable to fix these issues or to debate Microsoft's claims. There was some excitement a while back because Barnes & Noble stood out from the pack by holding their own, for a while, but they were in no position to deal with a lengthy legal battle (no matter how right they were) and they eventually settled out of court.


They didn't just settle out of court, Microsoft bought 20% of B&N...

[Primefalcon]

KiwiNZ I am honestly perplexed.... you sound like you think the patent system is broken....

Yet it sounds like you think there is nothing wrong with hiding what patents are even infringed.... you do realize that Microsoft will do this with every other infrastructure running Linux servers now right? like they have done with android...

And without disclosing which patents are in issue.... theres nothing anyone can do about it.... which in the end on ly discourages anyone from using Linux.... even in area's where Linux is current dominant...

[mastablasta]

they porbbaly disclosed them to the party they they atacked. and they would be disclosed if this thing went to court. but this was settled privatly so... all stayed private.

[vasa1]

... like they have done with android...
...
Let us see with the Nexus. Won't Google be in the front line then?

[Copper Bezel]

KiwiNZ I am honestly perplexed.... you sound like you think the patent system is broken....

No, that makes sense now. My confusion was based in an is / ought problem. Should this be the legal situation? Hell no. But there's no question that it is, which is all KiwiNZ was arguing. KiwiNZ has himself commented in the past that companies should "compete in the market, not the courts," which is why I was confused.

Whether to blame the player or the game is probably beyond the scope of this discussion and, as KiwiNZ points out, possibly the CoC, too. I will say that Google's choice to use patents only defensively makes me far more likely to use their products and services.

[KiwiNZ]

Ok, I hate the patent system as it currently stands. I hate the endless court cases and in particular what Apple is doing. I would like companies to compete with quality and allow the market decide who wins.

However I have no problem with limited patents eg 2 years only and companies making agreements to use patented rights, and I have no issues with these agreements being confidential.

Edit; I hate what Apple is doing so much that I have purchased a Samsung Galaxy S3 to replace my deceased iPhone 4 and I am considering replacing my iMac and iPad3, I will not be purchasing any more Apple products.

[Primefalcon]

Ok, I hate the patent system as it currently stands. I hate the endless court cases and in particular what Apple is doing. I would like companies to compete with quality and allow the market decide who wins.

However I have no problem with limited patents eg 2 years only and companies making agreements to use patented rights, and I have no issues with these agreements being confidential.

Edit; I hate what Apple is doing so much that I have purchased a Samsung Galaxy S3 to replace my deceased iPhone 4 and I am considering replacing my iMac and iPad3, I will not be purchasing any more Apple products.
I agree with you entirely.....

I still don't understand though how you can support what Microsoft are doing or how the are doing it...

As I said you realize they legally now have precedent to demand fee's from anyone running Linux servers in their infrastructure.. And without disclosure.... Linux devs can't do a damn thing about it...

[Grenage]

I always assumed that patents were public, and that's why you see the odd news article with a link to a patent application; is that not the case? Assuming it is the case, I can see the viewpoint that it's nobody's business but the companies involved in the dispute. As insane as I think the patent system is, it really wouldn't be anyone else's business.

There's an option to not sign a NDA; but the carrot was probably more attractive than the whip.

[vexorian]

New ground? Microsoft have been doing this for ages. Ever heard of Novel? Ooh, well of course you didn't. Apparently these sort of deals with Microsoft are a kiss of death.

Android is not some sort of pseudo-Linux. It uses Linux as much as Ubuntu does. I guess this is the reason you all should have listened back when we were insisting to call the OS you use "GNU/Linux", becaus the difference between Ubuntu and Android is the lack of the GNU shell.

[forrestcupp]

Android is not some sort of pseudo-Linux. It uses Linux as much as Ubuntu does. I guess this is the reason you all should have listened back when we were insisting to call the OS you use "GNU/Linux", becaus the difference between Ubuntu and Android is the lack of the GNU shell.
KDE isn't a part of the GNU Project. There are some compilers out there, like icc, that are making it possible to compile everything without being a part of the GNU Project. It's becoming increasingly possible to have a complete Linux distro without having any components at all that are a part of the GNU Project. So why in the world should we be forced to call it GNU/Linux?

You have to remember that just because something uses the GPL license doesn't mean that it's GNU. Even Gnome has talked about removing itself from the GNU Project.

[vexorian]

KDE isn't a part of the GNU Project.

I can't tell the relevance of this.



There are some compilers out there, like icc, that are making it possible to compile everything without being a part of the GNU Project.

It's becoming increasingly possible to have a complete Linux distro without having any components at all that are a part of the GNU Project.

There are things out there that are Linux without GNU. But what I am using right now in Ubuntu is GNU/Linux. The kernel alone does nothing. If I replaced the GNU stuff with something else, then I wouldn't call it GNU/Linux, but I didn't do such a replace.

The fact that, as you mentioned, there is an alternative. Gives me a good reason to specify that I am using GNU/Linux. That's the complete and utter point of my post.

If you manage to get rid of gcc and the shell and of that stuff. Then you can be very proud of not using GNU/Linux. Albeit it sounds like an extremely lame objective. The GNU project is a bunch of stuff that work well, that allowed, Linux to be a viable kernel. That are used by all our developers to develop the DEs we use. And that is perfectly free.

The Linux kernel can be replaced with the *BSDs as easily as you can replace the GNU tools with something else. Your ability to replace something does not make the something go away if you do not replace it.



So why in the world should we be forced to call it GNU/Linux?
No one is forcing you to. You can be as vague and unspecific in your language as you'd like.

[Primefalcon]

Are you using other names Mr Stallman?

Seriously though people calling or not calling it gnu/Linux wouldn't of made a difference here.... fact is... Microsoft think they own Gnu/Linux, Linux or whatever you want to call it.

And the new ground is threatening to sue people for running Linux infrastructure rather than selling anything that has Linux on it....

And Android is more the java crap sitting on top of a modified kernal which is why Android is slow damn slow anyhow

[vexorian]

And Android is more the java crap sitting on top of a modified kernal which is why Android is slow damn slow anyhow

I am betting Android is "damn slow" more because it is running on a portable device than the VM stuff. Mostly because most of the stuff we use for the interface of our beloved ubuntu are also running off interpreted languages. And modifying Kernels is the hobby of any distribution maker.

I don't really use GNU/Linux insistently, but it is more specific and it is correct. And in these Android-times, I think it is an easier way to differentiate between what we used to call Linux and Android's (may I quote) "pseudo-linux" that runs on Java (redacted) . Cause the kernel is the same.

[KiwiNZ]

I use 'Linux' or 'Android' no real confusion with that. If I want to be specific i use ubuntu, or Redhat etc. The GNU/Linux thing is nonsense and I believe to more about egos as opposed to correctness.

[Primefalcon]

I am betting Android is "damn slow" more because it is running on a portable device than the VM stuff.
Actually I run a full Ubuntu install on a netbook which has a 1.6g cpu and 1g of ram which is pretty much what phones have....

and it's not as slow as android is.... I also installed Android on my i386 desktop system, and its also noticeably slow compared to other nix OS's..

So I'd definitely say it's down to the VM

[forrestcupp]

I can't tell the relevance of this.

The relevance is that if I'm using KDE, Xfce, or a lot of other desktop environments that are not part of the GNU Project, there is a lot more that is not GNU than there is that is GNU. There's a chance that Gnome will remove itself from the GNU Project, and then there won't be any major DE players that are a part of it. So if GNU is such a small part compared to the other pieces of the OS, why should it be half of the name?

[sffvba[e0rt]

The relevance is that if I'm using KDE, Xfce, or a lot of other desktop environments that are not part of the GNU Project, there is a lot more that is not GNU than there is that is GNU. There's a chance that Gnome will remove itself from the GNU Project, and then there won't be any major DE players that are a part of it. So if GNU is such a small part compared to the other pieces of the OS, why should it be half of the name?

I am pretty sure that without the GNU applications and libraries etc. you will not have a functional distro.


404

[Primefalcon]

good point about not a lot of gnu
http://pedrocr.pt/images/GNUTotalSplit.png
image from: http://pedrocr.pt/text/how-much-gnu-in-gnu-linux

[vasa1]

... The GNU/Linux thing is nonsense and I believe to more about egos as opposed to correctness.
I feel the part I quoted should read something like:
I believe the GNU/Linux thing is nonsense and more about egos as opposed to correctness.

No offense intended but we shouldn't confuse opinion and fact.

[KiwiNZ]

I feel the part I quoted should read something like:
I believe the GNU/Linux thing is nonsense and more about egos as opposed to correctness.

No offense intended but we shouldn't confuse opinion and fact.

My opinion and that of all UF staff is fact;)

[vasa1]

good point about not a lot of gnu
...
inline image deleted

Other. Nice name for an OS. And then there are people who believe in quality as opposed to quantity.

[vasa1]

My opinion and that of all UF staff is fact;)

I'll get that tattooed in an appropriate place so I don't forget :(

[forrestcupp]

I am pretty sure that without the GNU applications and libraries etc. you will not have a functional distro.


404

Even though it's becoming increasingly possible to do a distro without any GNU, what you're saying is in effect true. But my point is that there are a lot of non-GNU Project things that are required for a functional distro that very heavily outweigh the GNU things that are required. So why does GNU get half of the name?

[Primefalcon]

and why the leading point? why not Linux/gnu since Linux is the lowest level part that interacts with the hardware.....

though going by that term we should have

Linux/KDE/x11/Wayland/pulseaudio/Mozilla/<a thousand other things/gnu

actually since Microsoft contribute to the kernal maybe we should have Microsoft in there too....

/Linux/KDE/Wayland/Mozilla/gnu/Microsoft lol

[sffvba[e0rt]

Even though it's becoming increasingly possible to do a distro without any GNU, what you're saying is in effect true. But my point is that there are a lot of non-GNU Project things that are required for a functional distro that very heavily outweigh the GNU things that are required. So why does GNU get half of the name?

Don't get me wrong... I am all for it being called what ever anybody wants (I find GNU/Linux cumbersome).


404

[vasa1]

Came across this quote for the day:
“He who builds a better mousetrap these days runs into material shortages, patent-infringement suits, work stoppages, collusive bidding, discount discrimination – and taxes.”
Attributed to HE Martz

[grahammechanical]

I wonder if the people running Microsoft are aware that someone else has prior art in this kind of thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group

It gets interesting when you get to the heading Legal battles and onward. This particular company took legal action but refused to specify which particular code was being infringed.

Regards.

[KiwiNZ]

I wonder if the people running Microsoft are aware that someone else has prior art in this kind of thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group

It gets interesting when you get to the heading Legal battles and onward. This particular company took legal action but refused to specify which particular code was being infringed.

Regards.

Just because the terms of the agreement have not been made public does not mean parties to said agreement are unaware of the terms of the agreement. This not the same as SCO.

[vasa1]

I wonder if the people running Microsoft are aware that someone else has prior art in this kind of thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group...

You might get an answer if you read stories about how SCO's running legal costs were provided for.

[vexorian]

I don't go to threads to insistently ask people to call it GNU/Linux, yet when I call it GNU/Linux I am insistently asked to call it Linux. What's up with that?


I use 'Linux' or 'Android' no real confusion with that. If I want to be specific i use ubuntu, or Redhat etc. The GNU/Linux thing is nonsense and I believe to more about egos as opposed to correctness.
Like I said, you can call it whatever you like. But just don't get angry when I or someone come and call it GNU/Linux. It is, afterall more specific than Linux, specially in this thread when at one point we needed a distinction between Linux/Android and Linux/GNU that was not a distinction as offensive as saying "Linux" and "PseudoLinux crap Android uses".

You'll have to admit that the word Linux is also about egos. And perhaps it is worse, because it credits a single person for a kernel that is the work of thousands of developers. The GNU abbreviation is, on the other hand, the name of a group.

Why GNU first? Well not to reply with "Why Linux first?" which I think is the same sort of question people would be asking in an alternate dimension in which the word GNU caught on more than the word Linux. I will instead, from now on name it "Linux/GNU" when I have to differentiate between the conjunction of all the Linux/GNU distributions we love (like Ubuntu, Red Hat and Puppy) and the things that use Linux differently, like Linux/Android. Sure why not.

Regardless of what we call this OS. GNU will remain a key component of it. Probably the one that Canonical will find the hardest to replace in its search for the reinvention of the wheel. Unless they take their search to unbelievable extends and also try to replace Linux.



http://pedrocr.pt/text/how-much-gnu-in-gnu-linux
I guess this settles it, we should call it "Other" from now on.



I am pretty sure that without the GNU applications and libraries etc. you will not have a functional distro.

It might be difficult finding a new Kernel after being unable to compile Linux anymore.

[Primefalcon]

I don't go to threads to insistently ask people to call it GNU/Linux, yet when I call it GNU/Linux I am insistently asked to call it Linux. What's up with that?


Like I said, you can call it whatever you like. But just don't get angry when I or someone come and call it GNU/Linux. It is, afterall more specific than Linux, specially in this thread when at one point we needed a distinction between Linux/Android and Linux/GNU that was not a distinction as offensive as saying "Linux" and "PseudoLinux crap Android uses".

You'll have to admit that the word Linux is also about egos. And perhaps it is worse, because it credits a single person for a kernel that is the work of thousands of developers. The GNU abbreviation is, on the other hand, the name of a group.

Why GNU first? Well not to reply with "Why Linux first?" which I think is the same sort of question people would be asking in an alternate dimension in which the word GNU caught on more than the word Linux. I will instead, from now on name it "Linux/GNU" when I have to differentiate between the conjunction of all the Linux/GNU distributions we love (like Ubuntu, Red Hat and Puppy) and the things that use Linux differently, like Linux/Android. Sure why not.

Regardless of what we call this OS. GNU will remain a key component of it. Probably the one that Canonical will find the hardest to replace in its search for the reinvention of the wheel. Unless they take their search to unbelievable extends and also try to replace Linux.



I guess this settles it, we should call it "Other" from now on.



It might be difficult finding a new Kernel after being unable to compile Linux anymore.
plenty of other compilers out there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compilers#C.2B.2B_compilers and besides....

And it was vextorian who started this whole linux vs gnu thing with this comment:

you all should have listened back when we were insisting to call the OS you use "GNU/Linux", becaus the difference between Ubuntu and Android is the lack of the GNU shell.

And honestly from everything I've saw over the years, it's always the same, the gnu/linux camp yells at us for us just using Linux..... not the other way around....