"Acknowledged"?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| mdl Jun 09, 2007 5:22 AM EDT |
"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. |
| Libervis Jun 10, 2007 7:35 AM EDT |
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. |
| bigg Jun 10, 2007 9:15 AM EDT |
> 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. |
| Aladdin_Sane Jun 10, 2007 10:21 AM EDT |
>>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 |
| bigg Jun 10, 2007 11:05 AM EDT |
@ 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. |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2007 11:24 AM EDT |
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. |
| Libervis Jun 10, 2007 12:36 PM EDT |
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. |
| Libervis Jun 10, 2007 12:44 PM EDT |
Quoting:Statements like 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. |
| jdixon Jun 10, 2007 1:31 PM EDT |
> 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. |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2007 2:57 PM EDT |
>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. |
| Libervis Jun 10, 2007 3:07 PM EDT |
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. |
| jdixon Jun 10, 2007 4:36 PM EDT |
> 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. |
| Libervis Jun 10, 2007 4:52 PM EDT |
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. |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2007 5:01 PM EDT |
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. |
| Libervis Jun 10, 2007 6:36 PM EDT |
Hmm, is it a quiz? ;) Well I choose number 2. :) |
| dinotrac Jun 10, 2007 6:56 PM EDT |
>Hmm, is it a quiz? ;) Well I choose number 2. :) A good choice, but you are free to take "all of the above"! |
| jdixon Jun 10, 2007 8:14 PM EDT |
> But didn't I just say that? Yes, you did. I was merely reiterating the point in a different way. |
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!