Good news, possibly
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jacog Oct 12, 2007 1:00 AM EDT |
This could end up being a good indicator for how a suit with Microsoft might go. I am hoping the end result is that the patent itself be declared invalid because it's too general. I mean, multiple desktops?? Come on! They could also perhaps prove prior art. Not sure about dates here, but heck, my Amiga 500 had workspaces too. Also, if the patent is that old... why are they only suing now? I also propose they "fix" it by pure symantics... instead of "multiple workspaces", how about one workspace that's x amount of times bigger than the physical screen. |
| nikkels Oct 12, 2007 2:36 AM EDT |
"""instead of "multiple workspaces", how about one workspace that's x amount of times bigger than the physical screen.""" There is software, less than 10 years old that does this just that for win98 and winxp. Used it.works well.forgot name. |
| jacog Oct 12, 2007 2:49 AM EDT |
I was just poking fun at using different words to describe the same process in a way that it seems to not be infringing on that bogus patent. Anyhoo... if you peeps haven't read about these yet... the infamous Halloween Documents from 1998-ish - they outline Microsoft's strategy against open source. Out of the horse's mouth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents http://www.scripting.com/misc/halloweenMemo.html It's also clear from the opening paragraph on the second link that MS didn't seem to understand exactly what OSS means. Quoting:Open Source Software (OSS) is a development process which promotes rapid creation and deployment of incremental features and bug fixes in an existing code / knowledge base. Yes... and?? |
| jdixon Oct 12, 2007 2:50 AM EDT |
The Tandy Color Computer had multi-user, multi-tasking, multiple screen/desktop (but not multiple monitor) capabilities back in the 1980's. As always, it will depend on how the patent is written. |
| jacog Oct 12, 2007 2:55 AM EDT |
Not to steer off topic, but I just noticed one of the Halloween memos mentions that ordinary FUD tactics cannot be used to fight OSS. But they do it anyway... why? I am guessing that their position on that changed as soon as Linux companies started popping up with shareholders. |
| dinotrac Oct 12, 2007 3:02 AM EDT |
Was reading along, and came to a part that I'm sure will cause most of the visitors to this forum to change their position to one strongly in support of software patents: She provided a paragraph from Justice Alito's concurring opinion -- joined by Justice Thomas -- stating that software should not be patentable. If those nasty old conservative Justices think that way, it must be wrong, right? |
| number6x Oct 12, 2007 3:09 AM EDT |
dino, The current justices are young conservatives. Thomas Jefferson is an old Conservative. :) |
| azerthoth Oct 12, 2007 3:15 AM EDT |
Hey, shouldn't SCO be listed as a defendant as well? That would be funny, Novell and SCO fighting on the same side. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 12, 2007 5:29 AM EDT |
> They could also perhaps prove prior art. Not sure about dates here, but heck, my Amiga 500 had workspaces too. My first experience with multiple screens was Open Look Virtual Window Manager in 1992. So if it's not prior art, it's a precedent of tolerating infringement. Either way, this will be interesting. How many years will this be dragged out, eh? |
| jacog Oct 12, 2007 5:40 AM EDT |
I predict a quick resolution. |
| dinotrac Oct 12, 2007 6:19 AM EDT |
>So if it's not prior art, it's a precedent of tolerating infringement. I believe the patent chain in this case goes back to 1984 PARC patents. Only skimmed, so don't understand the ownership interests. Even so, I think split screens were common movie-making techniques years before that. As split screens are, essentially, two separate movie scenes taking place on the same physical screen with a story implication that the action in one continues even when the other expands to the full screen, it's hard for me to see how multiple desktops can pass the non-obvious requirement. Everybody watches movies, right? |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 12, 2007 6:28 AM EDT |
> I think split screens were common movie-making techniques years before that. Whoa, sudden flashback to Bullet (I think), with some 4 or 6 "open windows" at the same time. Ugh. I'm glad that went out of fashion. |
| dinotrac Oct 12, 2007 6:36 AM EDT |
> Ugh. I'm glad that went out of fashion. Not a "24" fan, eh? Seriously, though, how can virtual desktops not be an obvious solution to people who grew up watching movies? |
| dthacker Oct 12, 2007 7:21 AM EDT |
Multiple workspaces? Is that the desktop? If that's the desktop, shouldn't the suit be against Gnome and KDE? Oh, wait, there's no money there..... |
| dinotrac Oct 12, 2007 7:24 AM EDT |
>If that's the desktop, shouldn't the suit be against Gnome and KDE? Oh, wait, there's no money there..... Actually, everybody in the chain's infringing (that is, if anybody is), including the users. They are indeed going where the money is. |
| tuxchick Oct 12, 2007 8:54 AM EDT |
Quoting: Not a "24" fan, eh? That show is for people who want a crack-like experience without actually smoking any! Must I be the first to suggest that that evil hand of Redmond is in this somewhere? Oh drat, PJ beat me to it. |
| Scott_Ruecker Oct 12, 2007 9:07 AM EDT |
Quoting:I just noticed one of the Halloween memos mentions that ordinary FUD tactics cannot be used to fight OSS. But they do it anyway... why? Because its all they have, there is nothing that works. But they gotta do something.. Scott |
| dinotrac Oct 12, 2007 9:10 AM EDT |
>That show is for people who want a crack-like experience without actually smoking any! Yes, and that's a bad thing how? |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 12, 2007 11:54 AM EDT |
> Not a "24" fan, eh? Nah. Firefly, Heroes, Dirty Jobs. Sometimes The Daily Show and Colbert Report. That's about it. |
| hkwint Oct 13, 2007 2:48 PM EDT |
Well, if after five years of threatening this is the best they have, they have a problem. I hope this will be an extra incentive to declare software patents dead. If not, earlier or later their will be countries with weak IP-laws (which sadly means, not mine) that will have a benefit of being able to use 'US patent infringing' software which is legal in _their_ country, at which moment Ballmer has to do pathetic at the White House again and ask for stronger IP laws, which probably isolates the US government even further if they obey. |
| dinotrac Oct 13, 2007 5:57 PM EDT |
> I hope this will be an extra incentive to declare software patents dead In the US, at least a couple of Supreme Court justices believe that software patents are not allowed by the Constitution. Trouble is, short of a classic meltdown, the other side will be choosing the next Justices, and the other side doesn't tend to choose that kind of justice. |
| azerthoth Oct 13, 2007 6:35 PM EDT |
dino atleast we have the option left open to us for a few years, although they will be in position to replace Vader-Ginsberg (intentional mis-spelling) with someone potentially even more ... that was about to be TOS ... when she decides to crawl back into her coffin. With any hope or luck is if this case is not tossed out in the first round it will take a fast track and be done within 2 years. In the mean time if a cease and desist does happen to come down there are plenty of non-US distros from countries that don't honor the idiocy wrapped up in US IP BS. |
| dinotrac Oct 14, 2007 1:07 AM EDT |
>there are plenty of non-US distros from countries that don't honor the idiocy wrapped up in US IP BS. That's the thing, though. This is not a US problem, but a worldwide one. Individual nations still vary, but that variance is getting smaller over time as treaties harmonize IP policies. I'm afraid what's happening is that the worst ideas are spreading throughout the world - regardless of origin. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 14, 2007 3:09 AM EDT |
Yeah, the US is forcing other countries to succumb to the IP madness trough WIPO treaties and trade agreements. It smells suspiciously like blackmail, if you ask me. |
| jezuch Oct 14, 2007 3:53 AM EDT |
Quoting:Yeah, the US is forcing other countries to succumb to the IP madness trough WIPO treaties and trade agreements. It smells suspiciously like blackmail, if you ask me. Yeah, and lots of smaller countries have a "US fetish" - everything coming from America *must* be good. I'm ashamed to admit that my country behaves this way... |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 14, 2007 7:46 AM EDT |
> It smells suspiciously like blackmail, if you ask me. Read the "agreements", it most certainly is blackmail. The same kind of blackmail that is used inside the US to force individual states to pass "uniform" laws that the Fed's can't figure out how to make seem only a little bit unconstitutional and pass at the Federal level. Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, drinking age laws, uniform drivers license formats, etc. |
| dinotrac Oct 14, 2007 8:20 AM EDT |
> Sander_Marechal Wrong. It goes both ways. A number of changes originated in the EU and made their way to the US. In fact, some of the more odious provisions in the DMCA started out in Europe. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 14, 2007 10:41 AM EDT |
Dino, good point. The Kyoto Protocol comes to mind, Kyoto being most definitely not in the USA. I accidentally caught the sound of Algore's voice saying that he was going to try to organize a "Kyoto2". Gee. I didn't see that coming. |
| jacog Oct 15, 2007 3:14 AM EDT |
Run-on sentence alert: Of course, if there's any way to prove, beyond the circumstantial evidence that currently exists, like the two ex Microsoft losers currently working for the plaintiff's holding company, that Microsoft was behind this lawsuit, then I suspect that would declare the MS-Novell protection racket.. er, agreement... violated. Then, all we need is for Novell to grow some huevos and do a counter-suit. But now I am reaching into the realm of fantasy. |
| dinotrac Oct 15, 2007 4:16 AM EDT |
>Then, all we need is for Novell to grow some huevos and do a counter-suit. Counter-sue for what? Believe it or not, if you wish to escape court sanctions, you really do need a basis to sue. Remember what happened to SCO when they kept refusing to provide specific information in their case? The judge kicked them in the teeth and tossed a good piece of their case. |
| jacog Oct 15, 2007 4:22 AM EDT |
Refer to the first part of my post. I presented a hypothetical. If it could be proven that Microsoft was behind the patent suit, that would make it a breach of contract in the Novell-Microsoft agreement. Now stop being argumentative just for the sake of it - my point is valid. EDIT: And yes, I am in a pissy mood. |
| jdixon Oct 15, 2007 5:36 AM EDT |
> If it could be proven that Microsoft was behind the patent suit, that would make it a breach of contract in the Novell-Microsoft agreement. As I remember it, the agreement only protected Novell USERS from suit, not Novell. Thus, no breach. |
| jacog Oct 15, 2007 5:37 AM EDT |
You are right. Very clever, Microsoft, very clever. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 15, 2007 5:40 AM EDT |
> As I remember it, the agreement only protected Novell USERS from suit, not Novell. Thus, no breach. Oh, that's interesting. I like it. That could so completely piss off Novell that they might never touch Microsoft again. Nor anyone else, for that matter. Microsoft may be doing what will finally isolate themselves completely (as if crushing competition didn't do that already). The Microsoft backing/instigating must never be left out of any discussion of these patent(ly false) claims. |
| jacog Oct 15, 2007 5:48 AM EDT |
I think Red Hat, and all other distros for that matter, should purchase some licensed SLEDs from Novell - just to protect themselves. |
| dinotrac Oct 15, 2007 6:30 AM EDT |
>If it could be proven that Microsoft was behind the patent suit, that would make it a breach of contract in the Novell-Microsoft agreement. What do you mean by "behind the patent suit"? I don't think that anything in the Novell-Microsoft agreement prohibits Microsoft from encouraging others to sue -- so long as Microsoft is not an active participant in the suit. And -- kiddies -- you need to remember that the Novell-Microsoft agreement is a big one with many more provisions than the one that made RMS toss a hairball. |
| jacog Oct 15, 2007 6:34 AM EDT |
Well, it all just goes towards proving that the deal Novell made with Microsoft only lives to serve Microsoft. They're looking more and more like Faust. |
| dinotrac Oct 15, 2007 6:42 AM EDT |
>Well, it all just goes towards proving that the deal Novell made with Microsoft only lives to serve Microsoft. They're looking more and more like Faust. Wrong. It serves Novell, too. Any good agreement serves the purposes of both parties. Surely you didn't expect Microsoft to knowingly sign an agreement that went against its best interests? Ditto for Novell. |
| jacog Oct 15, 2007 6:43 AM EDT |
You are clearly more trusting than I. |
| dinotrac Oct 15, 2007 6:53 AM EDT |
>You are clearly more trusting than I. I sincerely doubt it. |
| tuxchick Oct 15, 2007 8:42 AM EDT |
Quoting: Surely you didn't expect Microsoft to knowingly sign an agreement that went against its best interests? Ditto for Novell. Bad question. Hardly anyone ever acts knowingly against their own interests. But they do it unknowingly all the time. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 15, 2007 8:53 AM EDT |
> Hardly anyone ever acts knowingly against their own interests. But they do it unknowingly all the time. Thus the crime of "fraud". |
| dinotrac Oct 15, 2007 8:59 AM EDT |
>Thus the crime of "fraud". Yes. It is the real reason for written contracts and contract law. If everybody were completely trustworthy and operated in good faith, business could be done the "Texas way" -- with a handshake. A nice big written contract reduces the trust needed between parties by replacing it with reliance on legal enforceability. |
| jdixon Oct 15, 2007 9:03 AM EDT |
> Thus the crime of "fraud". Not necessarily. Fraud requires (warning, IANAL) a knowing effort to deceive. Dino could provide more details. I don't think Microsoft made any attempt to deceive Novell about their agreement. That doesn't mean it was in Novell's best interest. People make stupid agreements/decisions all the time (like my deciding to buy back into Novell at $10/share after selling out at $15/share, for example). That doesn't necessarily mean the other party is guilty of fraud. |
| dinotrac Oct 15, 2007 9:09 AM EDT |
> I don't think Microsoft made any attempt to deceive Novell about their agreement. That doesn't mean it was in Novell's best interest. It's not Microsoft's job to make deal in Novell's best interest. That was the job of the Novell folks, and, clearly, that is what they think they did. So far as I can tell, nobody has come up with any evidence that they failed to do exactly that. |
| jdixon Oct 15, 2007 9:26 AM EDT |
> that is what they think they did. They may even be correct. It will take some time yet to determine that. > So far as I can tell, nobody has come up with any evidence that they failed to do exactly that. I can only speak for myself, but the agreement eliminated Novell's SuSE as a possible distribution for me to consider and/or recommend to people. I doubt that's a serious liability for Novell, but there are probably others who feel the same way. |
| dinotrac Oct 15, 2007 9:41 AM EDT |
>I doubt that's a serious liability for Novell, but there are probably others who feel the same way. I suspect that caught them a bit off-guard, but I doubt very much that users like you and me (I still use SuSE, though I have fired up a couple of other distros for the first time in 7-8 years). They are concerned with the enterprise space, and that's a different bunch of folks. Let's not forget they got nearly half a billion dollars in that deal. That'll cover an awful lot of SuSE Professional users. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!