• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Microsoft's Hostile Takeover Of Linux

Hmm the real question appears to be what IBM will do since they are the company in the best position to take on microsoft. Either way if microsoft wish to act they will have to do so fairly soon or the patents will start to expire.
 
Also in the same article:

The free world appears to be uncowed by Microsoft's claims. Its master legal strategist is Eben Moglen, longtime counsel to the Free Software Foundation and the head of the Software Freedom Law Center, which counsels FOSS projects on how to protect themselves from patent aggression. (He's also a professor on leave from Columbia Law School, where he teaches cyberlaw and the history of political economy.)
Click to expand...
Moglen contends that software is a mathematical algorithm and, as such, not patentable.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine.

Hmmm. :)

ETA: I didn't see Geni's post, but that is another interesting twist.
 
My ignorance of computer history is going to show here, but as much as I instinctively don't like Microsoft, I've noticed that Linux and MacIntosh operating systems look very similar to Windows in that they have windows. And the general layout looks the same (Start button at bottom left, desktop with icons, menu across the top, etc.). Is that significant?
 
Tumblehome said:
My ignorance of computer history is going to show here, but as much as I instinctively don't like Microsoft, I've noticed that Linux and MacIntosh operating systems look very similar to Windows in that they have windows. And the general layout looks the same (Start button at bottom left, desktop with icons, menu across the top, etc.). Is that significant?
Click to expand...

Windows was not the first OS to use windows. And only Linux distros that use the KDE window-manager have a similar layout to Windows. I don't see how MS can patent the desktop metaphor.


ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface
 
Last edited:
The most interesting one is going to be media codecs. These may well be inforceable.

Take video. The only video codec I'm pretty sure doesn't infrindge any patents (other than the BBC ones which have be released as free to use) is Dirac and no one has come up with an implementation that really works in real time.

Everything is is either clearly patented (say WMV) or at risk of being caught by a patent (Theora being the most obvious example although the shear age of the codec it is based on should result in it becomeing pretty safe within a few years)
 
Thanks, D'rok. And good link. I should have known Wikipedia would have a thorough history of the GUI. This pretty much says it all:


Augmentation of Human Intellect project at SRI in the 1960s developed the On-Line System (NLS), which incorporated a mouse-driven cursor and multiple windows...inspired, in part, by the memex desk based information machine suggested by Vannevar Bush in 1945.
Click to expand...


I guess that predates Microsoft. :)
 
oh boy...

if this succeeds, expect virus writers come up with new nasty viruses for linux side versions.
 
I have a hard time believing that Microsoft will succeed if it decides to push this.

I'm not a regular user of open-source software but I do believe it must exist to get commercial giants to continue to improve their wares.
 
Most of Microsoft's patents are cranked out without doing any search for prior art or with total disregard for known prior art. Most are for things that should be considered too obvious to patent. Some are so poorly written that it's hard to tell exactly what the patents are supposed to cover.
 
Modified said:
Most of Microsoft's patents are cranked out without doing any search for prior art or with total disregard for known prior art. Most are for things that should be considered too obvious to patent. Some are so poorly written that it's hard to tell exactly what the patents are supposed to cover.
Click to expand...
From my experience I find this to be completely false (that MSFT doesn't look for prior art). Even with a patent system that supports such a process, MSFT does plenty of research before applying for patents. If it turns out that there is prior art, and the Patent Office of all places can't find it, then how can it be MSFTs fault?

II decide to patent something and send it it to the patent office, and they let it through. Who are you to say that it is obvious? Should I have requested your 'expert' opinion when I applied? If it wasn't obvious to me, or to the patent office, then the system seems to be working fine. Perhaps you should apply for a position at the patent office, I hear that they are hiring.

Is it really MSFTs fault that the patent system is the way that it is? You can hate what they're doing, but right now, the government says that they are allowed to. If you want to change that, go right ahead. But you seem to be basing your arguments (as do many other people), on a dislike for Microsoft rather than a real outlook on what is going on here.

EDIT:
Just to make my position clear, I admit to being pro-Microsoft, but also pro-Linux (after all I've used Linux for longer than I've used Windows). Call me an apologist or a fan-boy, but ad hominems don't make me wrong.

I strongly believe that the more options in the market, the better the products will be. Thus I support Linux, and Mac OS in addition to Windows, as long as they are not basing their products off of a patent that they do not have the rights to. This goes for MSFT as well. Unfortunatly/fortunatly (depending on what side you are on), due to the nature of open source, MSFT can easily see if patents are being violated.
 
Last edited:
ZirconBlue said:
. . . by sucking his thumb and clutching his blanket?:p
Click to expand...

By calling Microsoft's bluff.

Having the biggest stack of chips doesn't mean that you won't get ****** cards - it just means you can bully everyone else.
 
First let me say that my associates and I are currently in negotiations with MS regarding a patent application for software functionality for which we have published prior art. They are being a bit weaselly about it, but that is better than what I expected (I expected them to ignore us). Things haven't progressed to the point where I have anything to be angry about yet. I won't mention any details but I will say the patent application is poorly written, even by software patent standards, and that prior art could have been found quite easily with a web search.

opqdan said:
From my experience I find this to be completely false (that MSFT doesn't look for prior art). Even with a patent system that supports such a process, MSFT does plenty of research before applying for patents.
Click to expand...

Your experiences? Have you examined numerous MS patents and patent applications? I have. Software patents in general are mostly crap, but MS is one of the worst offenders.

Here is a rather egregious example: http://www.bluej.org/mrt/?p=21 . MS copied the functionality from another application (BlueJ) to an extent that many would consider copyright violation. Then they filed a patent application that contained absolutely nothing new. The authors of BlueJ might as well have used the same patent application. A simple Google search for prior art by their patent lawyers would have turned up BlueJ with two minutes of effort, but they probably knew the functionality was copied (the patent application "authors" certainly knew, but I'll allow that the lawyers who were the real authors may not have). MS had admitted publicly on several occasions that their intent was to "do BlueJ". Of course when they got caught they withdrew the application.

If it turns out that there is prior art, and the Patent Office of all places can't find it, then how can it be MSFTs fault?
Click to expand...
The patent office doesn't have the resources to do exhaustive searches for prior art. It is the responsibility of the applicant to do a thorough search.

II decide to patent something and send it it to the patent office, and they let it through. Who are you to say that it is obvious? Should I have requested your 'expert' opinion when I applied?
Click to expand...
Yes, for many areas of software I do have a pretty good idea what is obvious and what is not. It would be great if MS would pay for my expert opinion, or anyone else's, before applying for a patent. If there was more downside than upside to submitting a frivolous application, I'm sure they would.

If it wasn't obvious to me, or to the patent office, then the system seems to be working fine. Perhaps you should apply for a position at the patent office, I hear that they are hiring.
Click to expand...
If you really believe that the patent office uses examiners who are experts in the field for each patent they examine, you are deluded. The scope of the software field alone is enormous. To get a good opinion on the novelty of something like the BlueJ functionality, you would need someone who is does research on development/teaching tools on a regular basis. I am the author of such a tool (no, it is not BlueJ) and I am familiar with many, but I would need weeks of research, not just reading about existing tools but also using them, before I would feel confident giving an opinion as to the novelty of that work.

Is it really MSFTs fault that the patent system is the way that it is? You can hate what they're doing, but right now, the government says that they are allowed to.
Click to expand...
It doesn't say they're allowed to. It specifically says that they are not allowed to. It doesn't stop them (or anyone else) most of the time, and that is an investigative/enforcement problem.

If you want to change that, go right ahead.
Click to expand...
It's a difficult situation. While I'd like to have patent protection for truly novel software concepts, I just don't think it's practical. Software patents need to be scrapped.

But you seem to be basing your arguments (as do many other people), on a dislike for Microsoft rather than a real outlook on what is going on here.
Click to expand...
Quite the contrary.

Unfortunatly/fortunatly (depending on what side you are on), due to the nature of open source, MSFT can easily see if patents are being violated.
Click to expand...
Why do you think they won't say which patents are being violated?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom