- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Microsoft Says Open Source Infringes On Patents
|
|
|
Comments (28)
don't...shout...
Shhh! This is a thinking zone!
"On purpose"
You are referring to the original. The messenger has carried the message. Hopefully to be slain.
Hence MS shouts. Why, I wonder?
To quote myself in my original post at Groklaw: "Is there some reason they are shouting? How are we to sleep?"
You are referring to the original. The messenger has carried the message. Hopefully to be slain.
Hence MS shouts. Why, I wonder?
To quote myself in my original post at Groklaw: "Is there some reason they are shouting? How are we to sleep?"
Aladdin, I think Tuxchick is referring to the use of ALL CAPS in the title. I agree it's distracting.
No, I disagree. To change the story title would be...disingenuous at best. Check the story, that is really how it is titled.
The distraction is on purpose by MS (or their ad agency) I feel. The form is intended to distract from the substance, or lack thereof. So far it is doing a good job in this thread.
The substance of their message is to get "more" definite on patent infringement in Open Source. They specifically call out OO.o as infringing.
Sander, if I posted a story by you, I also would not change the title. It is not within my editorial scope as a poster.
The story is FUD, of the most insidious kind. It is the Big Lie. I was hoping to see some challenge to it.
The reference in the June 7th, 2007 story is to a 2 month old story that has been previously talked to death, and well deservedly forgotten about since. They act like it is new, and somehow worth shouting about as a means of their "freedom to innovate." I personally don't see the link, unless it is "freedom to step on FOSS."
The distraction is on purpose by MS (or their ad agency) I feel. The form is intended to distract from the substance, or lack thereof. So far it is doing a good job in this thread.
The substance of their message is to get "more" definite on patent infringement in Open Source. They specifically call out OO.o as infringing.
Sander, if I posted a story by you, I also would not change the title. It is not within my editorial scope as a poster.
The story is FUD, of the most insidious kind. It is the Big Lie. I was hoping to see some challenge to it.
The reference in the June 7th, 2007 story is to a 2 month old story that has been previously talked to death, and well deservedly forgotten about since. They act like it is new, and somehow worth shouting about as a means of their "freedom to innovate." I personally don't see the link, unless it is "freedom to step on FOSS."
We let the caps slide this time, and it is FUD for certain.
But if everything he submitted was like that it would get changed, trust me sander.
I am just giving you a hard time Aladdin.. ;-)
But if everything he submitted was like that it would get changed, trust me sander.
I am just giving you a hard time Aladdin.. ;-)
>The distraction is on purpose by MS (or their ad agency) I feel.
Ummm...If you had checked in the newsletter archives, you would discover that that is simply the style they use for headings. for example:
TECH TIP: MANAGE YOUR COMPUTER AND WEBSITE PASSWORDS THE FIN PULSE
Keep the wording...that's fine. BUT THE FREAKIN' CAPS ARE UNJUSTIFIABLE. We don't use Microsoft's software. We don't have to use their idiot stylings, either.
Ummm...If you had checked in the newsletter archives, you would discover that that is simply the style they use for headings. for example:
TECH TIP: MANAGE YOUR COMPUTER AND WEBSITE PASSWORDS THE FIN PULSE
Keep the wording...that's fine. BUT THE FREAKIN' CAPS ARE UNJUSTIFIABLE. We don't use Microsoft's software. We don't have to use their idiot stylings, either.
>>But if everything he submitted was like that it would get changed...
ok
ok
I should have made it clear I was whining at the story author, not Aladdin_Sane. Of course stories should be posted unchanged- let their annoyingness speak for itself.
Should I change it back then? I changed it before I read this thread. It hurt my eyes.
>Should I change it back then?
No. Microsoft didn't cap it for emphasis, they capped it because that happens to be the style they use for headings in their newsletter. No need to let their idiotic visual values inflict pain on us.
No. Microsoft didn't cap it for emphasis, they capped it because that happens to be the style they use for headings in their newsletter. No need to let their idiotic visual values inflict pain on us.
I think it should be translated into LOLCODE. Hai!
"Acknowledged"?
"On May 13, Microsoft publicly acknowledged that more that 235 of the company’s patents are incorporated into open source software, including Linux and Open Office."
I think the proper word is *alleged*, which means "to assert without proof".
An example of the proper use of the word "acknowledged" would be "Microsoft publicly acknowledged that its patent claims against open source software are pure FUD.
I think the proper word is *alleged*, which means "to assert without proof".
An example of the proper use of the word "acknowledged" would be "Microsoft publicly acknowledged that its patent claims against open source software are pure FUD.
Well it isn't surprising that they'd use the terminology which would make this appear to be a definite truth.
I'm just sick of this whole thing. We say MS has no case and they don't. We say MS can't stop the GNU/Linux community to grow and they can't, but GNU/Linux deserves to free the business world too and this fear they are spreading isn't exactly helping the cause there, not to mention what those ordinary people, not power users, that we are trying to reach, will see the headlines and think:
"Linux is paying Microsoft, they must be guilty"
"Linux is illegal."
"Linux is done, Microsoft is eating them up."
You get the drift.
So how do we stop this? How do we bloody stop them?!? GPLv3 may kill the deals, but the damage has been done. These few companies have in practice already given out admissions of guilt. The basis for fear has been established and GPLv3 can't change that much.
I'm just sick of this whole thing. We say MS has no case and they don't. We say MS can't stop the GNU/Linux community to grow and they can't, but GNU/Linux deserves to free the business world too and this fear they are spreading isn't exactly helping the cause there, not to mention what those ordinary people, not power users, that we are trying to reach, will see the headlines and think:
"Linux is paying Microsoft, they must be guilty"
"Linux is illegal."
"Linux is done, Microsoft is eating them up."
You get the drift.
So how do we stop this? How do we bloody stop them?!? GPLv3 may kill the deals, but the damage has been done. These few companies have in practice already given out admissions of guilt. The basis for fear has been established and GPLv3 can't change that much.
> the damage has been done
I have to agree. Statements like
> These few companies have in practice already given out admissions of guilt.
are extremely damaging to the FOSS community. Never mind that what you have written is flat out wrong. Don't let the facts get in the way of telling a good story to feel pity for yourself, I guess.
I have to agree. Statements like
> These few companies have in practice already given out admissions of guilt.
are extremely damaging to the FOSS community. Never mind that what you have written is flat out wrong. Don't let the facts get in the way of telling a good story to feel pity for yourself, I guess.
>>Never mind that what you have written is flat out wrong.
"It's important for everyone to understand that there is a real problem with Linux patents..."
"There is an overwhelming number of patents being infringed."
--Microsoft VP for Intellectual Property and Licensing
"Novell pays us some money for the right to tell customers that anybody who uses SUSE Linux is appropriately covered. [This] is important to us, because [otherwise] we believe every Linux customer basically has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability."
--Microsoft CEO
"It's a tinderbox...Waterloo is here somewhere."
--Executive director, Software Freedom Law Center
"It allowed [Microsoft] to go out and trumpet that, see, we told you Linux infringed, and these guys are now admitting it."
--Red Hat deputy general counsel
"Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez sat down with Fortune recently to map out their strategy for getting FOSS users to pay royalties."
--FORTUNE Magazine
"It's important for everyone to understand that there is a real problem with Linux patents..."
"There is an overwhelming number of patents being infringed."
--Microsoft VP for Intellectual Property and Licensing
"Novell pays us some money for the right to tell customers that anybody who uses SUSE Linux is appropriately covered. [This] is important to us, because [otherwise] we believe every Linux customer basically has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability."
--Microsoft CEO
"It's a tinderbox...Waterloo is here somewhere."
--Executive director, Software Freedom Law Center
"It allowed [Microsoft] to go out and trumpet that, see, we told you Linux infringed, and these guys are now admitting it."
--Red Hat deputy general counsel
"Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez sat down with Fortune recently to map out their strategy for getting FOSS users to pay royalties."
--FORTUNE Magazine
@ Aladdin: All the Microsoft quotes in the world "implying" that Novell admitted something are meaningless. Novell admitted nothing. They said they admitted nothing. Microsoft said they admitted nothing. The only ones who have spread the Microsoft propaganda are in the FOSS community.
bigg -
I believe I have made just about everyone sick with my addled repetition of this theme, but I believe that FOSS folk have gone beyond letting the enemy set their agenda. I believe that have joined the Microsoft team and don't even know it.
I believe I have made just about everyone sick with my addled repetition of this theme, but I believe that FOSS folk have gone beyond letting the enemy set their agenda. I believe that have joined the Microsoft team and don't even know it.
Ok then if they supposedly fooled us as you seem to believe what makes you think they wouldn't fool ordinary users and businesses twice that?
The answer to that question is the whole point I am making. It doesn't matter what Novell says. Microsoft is succeeding at spreading fear because it has the power to make the biggest headlines.
So if you think that by pointing to that fact is helping spread MS FUD then tell me about the alternative? Is it better just shut up and not warn people that there is something terribly wrong with the perception of GNU/Linux from the outside world, due to MS? How do I tell them that if I am not supposed to reiterate what MS wants them to believe?
Or in other words, how do you tell someone they are being lied to without specifying what the lie was?
You might conclude that your strategy, whatever it is, is just one way to approach the thing, not necessarily the best. You can keep quite, but Microsoft wont.
The answer to that question is the whole point I am making. It doesn't matter what Novell says. Microsoft is succeeding at spreading fear because it has the power to make the biggest headlines.
So if you think that by pointing to that fact is helping spread MS FUD then tell me about the alternative? Is it better just shut up and not warn people that there is something terribly wrong with the perception of GNU/Linux from the outside world, due to MS? How do I tell them that if I am not supposed to reiterate what MS wants them to believe?
Or in other words, how do you tell someone they are being lied to without specifying what the lie was?
You might conclude that your strategy, whatever it is, is just one way to approach the thing, not necessarily the best. You can keep quite, but Microsoft wont.
Quoting:Statements like
> These few companies have in practice already given out admissions of guilt.
are extremely damaging to the FOSS community.
Bigg, I used the term "practically" there for a reason. They can scream and shout how they are not admitting anything yet the painting is on the wall. The biggest reason MS is doing these deals are the implications which they carry, and the implication, no matter how untruthful it is, is that they are admitting something. And that's the only thing mainstream world will see.
And again, how do we fight this perception without specifying the content of what is perceived?
If I tell an unknowing user who reads only the titles that Microsoft is lieing to them about GNU/Linux violating the patents they will ask "but, hasn't Novell/Xandros etc. sort of admitted this by making the deals"?
How do I respond to that? Of course I would say they didn't admit anything, but I also have to explain to them then why did those deals contain the part about patents in the first place? For that I have to explain the FUD game MS is playing: because they want people to perceive all GNU/Linux vendors not partnered with MS as illegal. And this does immediately make MS-Novell style deals as extremely unwise. They gave power to MSs lies, no matter what Novell/Xandros etc. say.
> And again, how do we fight this perception without specifying the content of what is perceived?
By pointing out that if this is true, then Microsoft has a fiscal obligation to their shareholders to seek royalties on those patents, yet they have not done so? None of the agreements to date specify that there are any payments for royalties.
By pointing out that if this is true, then Microsoft has a fiscal obligation to their shareholders to seek royalties on those patents, yet they have not done so? None of the agreements to date specify that there are any payments for royalties.
>then Microsoft has a fiscal obligation to their shareholders to seek royalties on those patents,
Not necessarily. It is a defensible business decision not license your technology, thus keeping it to yourself. Drug companies do that all the time.
However, it is a little harder to explain, if there really is massive infringement, why you don't sue for recovery, or, at least, to force infringers to cease and desist.
Not necessarily. It is a defensible business decision not license your technology, thus keeping it to yourself. Drug companies do that all the time.
However, it is a little harder to explain, if there really is massive infringement, why you don't sue for recovery, or, at least, to force infringers to cease and desist.
Well, jdixon, I could point to that indeed, but the question of why did Novell, Xandros etc. agree to a deal which contains patent protection still remains. Another thing that one might say when said a point you mentioned is that Microsoft isn't seeking royalties yet because they prefer making deals instead. Makes them appear as a good guy, a sort of peace maker.
So again it seems necessary to draw the whole picture, explain the whole FUD strategy, which includes specifying two things:
- What Microsoft wants you to believe.
- What is the truth.
So that one can have the full understanding of what's going on here.
But if we are so afraid of talking about what Microsoft wants them to believe, thinking that somehow not talking about it will make a lie any less dangerous, how can we explain the whole picture?
We are the underdogs here and underdogs when trying to blow a whistle don't hold back. They tell it all without fear. We don't need to filter our words the way Microsoft management does. We speak our minds.
So again it seems necessary to draw the whole picture, explain the whole FUD strategy, which includes specifying two things:
- What Microsoft wants you to believe.
- What is the truth.
So that one can have the full understanding of what's going on here.
But if we are so afraid of talking about what Microsoft wants them to believe, thinking that somehow not talking about it will make a lie any less dangerous, how can we explain the whole picture?
We are the underdogs here and underdogs when trying to blow a whistle don't hold back. They tell it all without fear. We don't need to filter our words the way Microsoft management does. We speak our minds.
> but the question of why did Novell, Xandros etc. agree to a deal which contains patent protection still remains.
Because Microsoft paid them to. Remember, Microsoft is paying them, not the other way around. Also, in Novell's case, their customers undoubtedly do want the protection, and not just for Linux.
> Another thing that one might say when said a point you mentioned is that Microsoft isn't seeking royalties yet because they prefer making deals instead.
But, as Dino points out, they still have an fiscal obligation to stop infringement and/or seek compensation from those unwilling to sign such deals. They have not done so. Why?
The counter to the big lie is to say it's a lie. As often and as loudly as possible. That's what we should be doing.
Because Microsoft paid them to. Remember, Microsoft is paying them, not the other way around. Also, in Novell's case, their customers undoubtedly do want the protection, and not just for Linux.
> Another thing that one might say when said a point you mentioned is that Microsoft isn't seeking royalties yet because they prefer making deals instead.
But, as Dino points out, they still have an fiscal obligation to stop infringement and/or seek compensation from those unwilling to sign such deals. They have not done so. Why?
The counter to the big lie is to say it's a lie. As often and as loudly as possible. That's what we should be doing.
Hmm alright. Yeah we should be saying it's a lie. But didn't I just say that? We have to know which lie we are talking about, that is, the one we are talking to should know what is this lie.
But I think we are mostly on the same level here. The line between repeating Microsoft's FUD and in a way accidentally making it stronger and repeating Microsoft's FUD in order to disprove it may be rather thin, which is why there are these disagreements when it comes to talking about it, I suppose.
If anyone suggests we should be careful I'd agree with that much.
But I think we are mostly on the same level here. The line between repeating Microsoft's FUD and in a way accidentally making it stronger and repeating Microsoft's FUD in order to disprove it may be rather thin, which is why there are these disagreements when it comes to talking about it, I suppose.
If anyone suggests we should be careful I'd agree with that much.
jdixon & Libervis --
I think you're catching on.
Personally, I wonder how much better to approach the Novell deal like this:
1. So now they're paying Linux companies for their PR? Cool. It's still a bunch of crap.
2. Novell - I wish you hadn't done that. It doesn't help. There should be no concern over Microsoft suing anybody because Linux doesn't infringe any patents. At least we were able to improve the GPL as a result. Talk to us next time. We really do care because you're a member of the community and Microsoft is not looking out for your best interests any more than it is looking out for ours.
I think you're catching on.
Personally, I wonder how much better to approach the Novell deal like this:
1. So now they're paying Linux companies for their PR? Cool. It's still a bunch of crap.
2. Novell - I wish you hadn't done that. It doesn't help. There should be no concern over Microsoft suing anybody because Linux doesn't infringe any patents. At least we were able to improve the GPL as a result. Talk to us next time. We really do care because you're a member of the community and Microsoft is not looking out for your best interests any more than it is looking out for ours.
Hmm, is it a quiz? ;) Well I choose number 2. :)
>Hmm, is it a quiz? ;) Well I choose number 2. :)
A good choice, but you are free to take "all of the above"!
A good choice, but you are free to take "all of the above"!
> But didn't I just say that?
Yes, you did. I was merely reiterating the point in a different way.
Yes, you did. I was merely reiterating the point in a different way.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post