Microsoft is not the problem
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tracyanne May 21, 2007 4:45 PM EDT |
Quoting:All of this blustering and posturing are signs of desperation, a company that has lost its way and cannot find the way back. |
| vainrveenr May 21, 2007 9:04 PM EDT |
Quoting:There is a saying in the marketing world—the more you mention your competition, the more you show you have nothing.In the world of politics this is officially called "mudslinging". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning for further elaboration on this. |
| Aladdin_Sane May 21, 2007 9:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:Ignore all those sources of conventional wisdom who rarely dig into a story, but simply slap together a Frankensteinian blend of warmed-over press releases and quotes from random people who get quoted just because they answered the phone. Stop mincing words and tell us what you really think. :-) |
| Abe May 22, 2007 8:45 AM EDT |
Quoting:Microsoft is not the problem If Microsoft is not the problem, then who is? MS is creating all of kinds FUD they want to and they are not the problem? You & I might know better because we stay on the know, we analyze, we investigate their claims, but to the layman does not. So how are they not the problem. OK they are not the only problem, but they sure are the biggest problem now. I can't believe this! MS destroyed companies by using pure FUD and trying to do the same with Linux, again, how are they not the problem? MS is scaring IT organization from adopting or even think about adopting Linux, how are they not the problem? Is this for real or did I have a time lapse and beamed off to a different planet? |
| dinotrac May 22, 2007 9:11 AM EDT |
Abe - Microsoft is a nasty and powerful player. Period. If Microsoft were to disappear today, the real problem would still exist and somebody else would take advantage of the fact. As to scaring IT organizations away from Linux, methinks you aren't paying very much attention. Lots of IT organizations are using Linux, and they are using it for more and more things. |
| Abe May 22, 2007 9:25 AM EDT |
Quoting:As to scaring IT organizations away from Linux, methinks you aren't paying very much attention. Lots of IT organizations are using Linux, and they are using it for more and more things. Oh yes I am and very closely too. I know of several organizations that are very concerned about the legal issues that MS keeps threatening with. I can't say more and you can take that statement to the bank. I think you are splitting hairs Dino and taking it very lightly. That is not wise. |
| dinotrac May 22, 2007 9:41 AM EDT |
>I think you are splitting hairs Dino and taking it very lightly. That is not wise. You are very wrong about that. As to the legal issues -- you are right about that. The problem is much bigger than Microsoft. Microsoft just happens to be the face you see. |
| Abe May 22, 2007 9:57 AM EDT |
Quoting:As to the legal issues -- you are right about that. Isn't that what counts? I rather worry than be be sorry. Quoting:The problem is much bigger than Microsoft. Microsoft just happens to be the face you see I agree with that, but MS is the big bully and what counts the most, isn't it? If we make MS fail, I think it would be some what certain to make others fail. |
| dinotrac May 22, 2007 10:58 AM EDT |
>If we make MS fail, I think it would be some what certain to make others fail. Well, that will be true if MS fails because the actual problem (screwed up patent system) is addressed. |
| dcparris May 22, 2007 1:54 PM EDT |
Killing Microsoft would be like pulling up a weed, but leaving the root, or giving a person cough medicine to treat their lung cancer. You have to solve the root problem. Solve the patent mess, and you solve much of the issue involving Microsoft, along with a whole slew of other potential problems. |
| tracyanne May 22, 2007 2:00 PM EDT |
The point is Abe, fix the screwed up patent system you have in the US, and Microsoft as a problem will go away. Get rid of Microsoft and the screwed up patent system just makes it possible for another company to do what Microsoft are doing. So Microsoft are not the problem. But they are also not the problem for another reason. The screwed up patent system is a double edged sword, it can do as much damage to them as they can do to anyone else. This is why they are merely an annoyance. They are big and loud, and they will bluster, and yes they will stop some people/companies from adopting Linux in the short term, because they are big and loud. The best defence against this sort of bluster is 1) take steps to ensure that anything Microsoft does has minimal impact 2) to call their bluff loudly 3) work to change he patent system, even if that means working with Microsoft. One thing that Microsoft's bluster illuminates, other than their desperation, is how screwed the current patent system is. On the other hand there are probably more pertinent reasons why Linux (especially desktop Linux) is not being taken adopted by people in their droves. Five crucial things the Linux community doesn't understand about the average computer user http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=420&tag=nl.rSINGLE |
| beirwin May 22, 2007 2:12 PM EDT |
Carla, You were on a roll here and I loved it! :-) IMHO, Microsoft is indeed part of the problem here. They still have enough clout, not to mention their faults of moola, to tie folks up in court on alleged patent violations. When they do this and at the same time bad mouth Linux instead of concentrating on producing the best and most secure software possible , then I think this is the beginning of the end of their monopoly. It'll take a while, but they're toast. I have confidence that this software patent madness has about reached its peak and saner heads will prevail. |
| dcparris May 22, 2007 2:35 PM EDT |
beirwin: You're definitely more of an optimist than I am. ;-) |
| jdixon May 22, 2007 3:18 PM EDT |
> The point is Abe, fix the screwed up patent system you have in the US, and Microsoft as a problem will go away. Well, no. Microsoft will continue to be a problem, with or without our current patent system. A bully doesn't stop being a bully just because you take his current weapon away from him. I'm not arguing that the software patent problem doesn't need to be fixed (it does), but fixing it will NOT fix Microsoft. They'll find some other way to attack. |
| dinotrac May 22, 2007 3:34 PM EDT |
> but fixing it will NOT fix Microsoft Who cares? Let Microsoft stay broken. Without the patent spectre, they're just a big loud company whose products have fallen on hard times. Let them make noise. After all their grand strategy of Windows everywhere has already failed, and server-room Linux is the reason why. If desktop Linux fades away entirely, leaving Macs as the Unix desktop of choice, Microsoft will still be a sliver of what it had planned to be by now. |
| tracyanne May 22, 2007 4:01 PM EDT |
Quoting:> but fixing it will NOT fix Microsoft I think we're better off working on what it takes to "fix" Desktop Linux, rather than following Microsoft's lead and talking about the opposition. Let concentrate on why Desktop Linux hasn't taken off the way we think it should, and Not all, in fact in my opinion most of it has nothing to do with Microsoft. A lot of it is simple perception. Some of it is things we don't control - CODECs - or have little control over Some of it is silly things like geeky design decisions, that don't resonate with the general public. Some of these can be addressed simply by marketing, or fresh design ideas. Others require different strategies. |
| jrm May 22, 2007 5:05 PM EDT |
> work to change the patent system, even if that means working with Microsoft. Personally, I'd want to have Eben Moglen and Lawrence Lessig involved. You could invite IBM, Sun, and Microsoft. We know that they already agree on some things. Limit the discussion to software patents, and see if they can reach some kind of a consensus on at least a partial solution. Then we lobby for change. I know that's crazy. What's even crazier is to do nothing unless we can all agree on everything. |
| jdixon May 22, 2007 5:42 PM EDT |
> Who cares? > Let Microsoft stay broken. Without the patent spectre, they're just a big loud company whose products have fallen on hard times. Don't underestimate the opposition Dino. The problem with bullies is that they they come after you. Even with patents fixed, Microsoft is still a large company with lots of money and lots of influence. They'll still be a very dangerous enemy and, barring a change in management, they'll still be enemies. |
| dcparris May 22, 2007 6:03 PM EDT |
I think they'd be a lot less dangerous with patents fixed. They might be dangerous, but they would only have their exclusivity agreements left to fight with. |
| bigg May 22, 2007 6:21 PM EDT |
> Five crucial things the Linux community doesn't understand about the average computer user I've heard this misguided argument many times before. We're not going after the average Windows user. We're going after the 0.1% of current Windows users who are most likely to switch to Linux. |
| tracyanne May 22, 2007 6:49 PM EDT |
Quoting:I've heard this misguided argument many times before. We're not going after the average Windows user. We're going after the 0.1% of current Windows users who are most likely to switch to Linux. I think that's a good start, and I think it's achievable as things stand with something like the DELL thing, but to be a success Desktop Linux has got to be something that it's possible for general users to consciously reject based on something other than a bunch of false perceptions and the geekiness factor - things like the colour of the case would be the sort of thing I'd prefer the average computer uses rejecting Desktop Linux on. |
| dinotrac May 22, 2007 7:17 PM EDT |
>Don't underestimate the opposition Dino. I'm not one to underestimate the opposition. The thing is, without the illegitimate crutch of suspect patents, Microsoft ends up having to compete on the basis of its software. Google is pushing them, Apple is growing, and Linux has robbed them of the server room they sought to claim as their own. If Microsoft wins the battle on the basis of its software, I can live with that. That's the way it should be: do something good, reap the rewards. I don't think they can pull it off. OTOH, a lot of people were declaring IBM dead in the 90s, so anything can happen. |
| tuxchick May 22, 2007 7:21 PM EDT |
Declaring MS dead is silly. Look at all the undeads that still walk the earth- SCO, Corel, K-Mart... MS will live on. I would be happy if the silly sods would, like dino said, actually produce something worthwhile, quit trying to kill Linux and the GPL, and quit accelerating global warming with all of their retarded bluster. |
| Abe May 22, 2007 7:49 PM EDT |
Quoting:fix the screwed up patent system you have in the US, and Microsoft as a problem will go away. The patent system will never get fixed in the US. There is too much invested in it already by too many companies it is impossible to get them to agree. Let's be realistic here. MS was bad before they had any patents and they will stay bad even after there are no patents. Let's not be naive, MS flourished by being the big bad bully and they will never change unless their arms are twisted behind their back and tied up. It is in their blood. "Those who don't learn from history, they are bound to repeat it". MS is aware of the danger of using patents but they simply exhausted every other option that was available for them to derail Linux and they are left with none but patents. The danger they see is what is making them hesitant, not because they want to play nice. They simply don't know how. The patent system will not go away but I agree that it badly needs fixing. Again, it is almost impossible to get it fixed to a point where FOSS can be safe. There is too much at stake for many companies. Back to Ubuntu, I anticipate that Mark is paving the road for a deal with MS. I don't see any other reason for his unusual blog. |
| bigg May 22, 2007 8:15 PM EDT |
> I don't see any other reason for his unusual blog. The main point of his blog was that patent trolls, or patent devils, or whatever you wish to call them, are a big problem for Linux. I don't see how a blog like that has any relevance to a deal with MS. He did not say that Microsoft is doing nothing wrong, just that there is a bigger problem. Is it necessary to say that MS is the only problem we face? |
| Libervis May 22, 2007 9:57 PM EDT |
@ AbeQuoting:The patent system will never get fixed in the US. There is too much invested in it already by too many companies it is impossible to get them to agree. Let's be realistic here. I think there really are only two options for the patent system in US, with regards to software patents: getting it fixed (abolishing software patents would be the best fix) or a patent armaggedon. Sooner or later either of these must occur. Cold wars have an end too. Quoting:MS was bad before they had any patents and they will stay bad even after there are no patents. MS also had less opposition before, I believe. GNU/Linux and the whole Free Software ecosystem wasn't as big and attractive as it is today. Quoting:MS is aware of the danger of using patents but they simply exhausted every other option that was available for them to derail Linux and they are left with none but patents. The danger they see is what is making them hesitant, not because they want to play nice. They simply don't know how. Well that's exactly it. They don't know how because there really is no way anymore. Microsoft has reached the corner. This is it. They either try to break in with litigation hence causing a possibly self-destructive open patent war (which might prompt its reform even sooner) or give up to the pressure and join the Free Software economy in a genuine way. GPL and Free Software ecosystem has them cornered. :) We used to say MS will be the last to adopt Free Software. Well, we're here, and they are screaming about it. We didn't even have to take over even the 50% of the desktop market to show that Free Software is simply unstoppable and that it is only a matter of time when it will become a norm. This is because the desktop market is really only one of the segments, and even one which is decreasingly relevant thanks to the internet and an increasingly diverse universe of computing devices. Ordinary people decreasingly think about the OS. They don't care. This means that the choices are left on the industry decision makers which will soon enough have no other viable choice, but to use GNU/Linux. Windows isn't maintainable anymore. So.. we used to say MS will be the last to adopt Free Software. Something tells me that time is nearer than we might think. If they don't, they'll be knocked out from the OS race. It's as simple as that. |
| dinotrac May 23, 2007 2:48 AM EDT |
>Let's not be naive, MS flourished by being the big bad bully Bullies rise and fall. There always have been bullies and there always will be bullies. So what? If you wish to obsess over Microsoft, that is your privilege. Fortunately, others are moving forward. |
| rijelkentaurus May 23, 2007 3:15 AM EDT |
Quoting: If you wish to obsess over Microsoft, that is your privilege. Fortunately, others are moving forward. It really does appear to me that people are moving beyond MS, at least in thought. That is, they'll actually consider Linux or a Mac, and sometimes go with it. Our company has several shops that have given up on MS completely and went Mac. I have a couple with Linux servers because they hate MS as much as I do. Sometimes it seems that the last bastion of MS supporters are the network integrators who work on the servers and workstations for money...they know MS is a great revenue stream just because it needs a lot of TLC to run smoothly. IBM is a big company, but we're not afraid of them. HP is a big company, but we're not afraid of them. Sun is a big company, but we're not afraid of them. MS is a big company, and they better realize now that we're no longer afraid of them. It's in their interest to work with the community at large to implement better standardization and cooperation, in act and not just in talk. They have a lot of money, but they can lose that money, too. The world had to cut IBM down to size once, too...it can do it to MS as well. As it stands, I really don't know if MS has the leadership, spirit and drive to come back from a massive collapse. Sun and IBM both almost succumbed to theirs and they've got innovative products. MS...well, they've got MS software. That should keep the stockholders awake at night. Okay, that's the Wednesday morning spew. Off to work...bye! |
| richo123 May 23, 2007 3:47 AM EDT |
> If you wish to obsess over Microsoft, that is your privilege. Fortunately, others are moving forward. That has always been the Torvalds philosophy. |
| Abe May 23, 2007 6:39 AM EDT |
Quoting:Bullies rise and fall. There always have been bullies and there always will be bullies. So what? That is is exactly the reason for my stance and many others. Exposing and voicing our opinion about what is being worked out by bullies is very important to bring them down. When MS falls and can't threaten anyone no more (hands firmly tied behind their backs), then we will deal with them on equal basis. FOSS does level the playing fields. Quoting:If you wish to obsess over Microsoft, that is your privilege I am not obsessed with them at all, it is just too dangerous to have a bully with so much power and free hands to control everything. You do believe that they are always working on dominating the IT market don't you? I was the biggest critic against Dell, now I see Dell is coming along nicely with FOSS, I give them credit and my stance changed if you haven't notice in my posts. It is not a matter of MS or no MS, it is a matter of FOSS, software freedom, and making sure IT is not dominated and monopolized by any single company or person. I am not against companies, I believe you know that. But I am against companies who want to become filthy rich on the account of others who can be as good or even better in creativity and innovation. So please Dino, don't label me as being obsessed. Or else, I will label you as MS Lackey! You don't want that do you. lol |
| dinotrac May 23, 2007 6:41 AM EDT |
rijel - Exactly. As I described them in the other thread attached to this story: Microsoft reminds me a bit of IBM before its resurgence. Lots of money, lots of power, not enough aim. |
| dinotrac May 23, 2007 6:54 AM EDT |
Abe: > Or else, I will label you as MS Lackey! You don't want that do you. lol Oddly enough, it reminds me of an Abe Lincoln story that I'm very fond of but don't tell well. It goes like this: Lincoln was a tremendous lawyer who knew his way around a jury. In one trial summation he told the jury about a dog he'd seen on the way into the courthouse. "That dog," he said, "was just an ordinary dog. Nothing special about him. Like most dogs, he had a tail. But, I don't want to call it a tail, so Let's call it a leg." Then, scanning the jury, he asks, "So, how many legs did that dog have?" Waiting a second for effect, and letting a couple of hushed "fives" murmur out of the jury, he smiles and says, "No. That dog had four legs. I can call it anything I want, but a tail is still a tail." |
| helios May 23, 2007 9:14 AM EDT |
Ah...then I believe I've found the core of the disagreement. "Microsoft reminds me a bit of IBM before its resurgence. Lots of money, lots of power, not enough aim." Then you would stand in agreement with others that say Microsoft is not overtly or covertly working toward the elimination of GNU/Linux as a competitor to the Desktop Computing Market? |
| rijelkentaurus May 23, 2007 9:26 AM EDT |
Quoting: Then you would stand in agreement with others that say Microsoft is not overtly or covertly working toward the elimination of GNU/Linux as a competitor to the Desktop Computing Market? I would say that MS is not working at eliminating GNU/Linux as much as they are trying to get rid of ODF. Windows doesn't make them a lot of money, it's the enabler that lets them make money off of Office. If they could somehow overcome that blasted ODF standard, I think they'd gladly offer up an Office for Linux just to secure and grow the franchise. Office I think is a $12 billion business a year, they can't afford to lose that. They're also competing a lot against Google in various areas. Their main weapon against Linux is still FUD, because that's cheap. The heavy guns are pointed elsewhere. And they are losing those battles, too. |
| Abe May 23, 2007 10:19 AM EDT |
Quoting:Windows doesn't make them a lot of money, it's the enabler that lets them make money off of Office. How about one third or their revenue? Is that enugh money to be counted as one of the three cows, Office is the 2nd and the rest is everything else MS has to offer. Quoting:If they could somehow overcome that blasted ODF standard ODF didn't exist when MS started fighting FOSS. |
| Abe May 23, 2007 10:44 AM EDT |
Quoting:Oddly enough, it reminds me of an Abe Lincoln story that I'm very fond of but don't tell well. It goes like this: Abe Lincoln is my favorite president and no, I was not named after him. He was intelligent and sencere. My 2nd favorite is crazy Ben (Franklin). He was a scientists, generous and rightful. When he discovered that lightening is electricity and used the lightening rod to protect his home, many companies kept nagging him to let them patent it, although he was broke and in badly in debt, he consistently refused. What a guy. |
| dinotrac May 23, 2007 10:52 AM EDT |
>My 2nd favorite is crazy Ben (Franklin) Second favorite what? Ben Franklin was critical to the formation of the USA, but he was never its president. OTOH, absolutely one of my favorite historical figures. An amazing man, absolutely amazing. Better still - he stayed amazing all his life, even into his 80s. |
| Abe May 23, 2007 11:14 AM EDT |
Quoting:but he was never its president. Absolutely, I didn't intend to say his was but it sure sounded like I did. OK, keeping it in the presidency, my 2nd favorite president is Jefferson. Quoting:Ben Franklin was critical to the formation of the USAHe was a revolutionary and a free spirited bird. Looking at what is happening today with who we have in government and to what government became to, may be, just may be he knew something we don't!!! |
| dinotrac May 23, 2007 12:19 PM EDT |
>Looking at what is happening today What's remarkable to me is that our founding fathers included Ben Franklin, a leader like George Washington, minds like Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Marshall, and so many others. All human beings with human failings and foibles, but what a collection of human beings they were. Then think about the fact that they came out of a population of maybe 3,000,000 people. Then look at the yo-yos we're stuck with today. Sigh. |
| rijelkentaurus May 23, 2007 2:23 PM EDT |
Quoting: How about one third or their revenue? Is that enugh money to be counted as one of the three cows, Office is the 2nd and the rest is everything else MS has to offer. You're right, to be honest, but I should have been a bit clearer...I'm not counting server revenue and licenses. You don't run Office on a server unless you're a fool. I was really meaning the Windows desktop. It's in MS's interest to let the pirates run rampant with it (or was until they tried to make $$ with a lot of DRM). |
| Abe May 24, 2007 5:48 AM EDT |
Quoting:but what a collection of human beings they were. Yes indeed. Sometimes I tend to thing they were God's sent. What they left us is what made this country great, not the armies not the arsenals. Some wealth helped. But the question is, are we going to be able to preserve them? I don't think there is a lack of good people like them, it is because there are too many crooks around that are leaving no chance to anyone else. Will there be a similar revolution again? I doubt it, otherwise it would be devastating. |
| hkwint May 25, 2007 2:38 AM EDT |
Quoting:If Microsoft were to disappear today, the real problem would still exist... Dino, you (and some others) really don't get it, do you? Microsoft is the _single largest_ proponent of software patents at this moment. If you read the stories I wrote about software patents (for example, "Software patents in the Banana union"), or if you would read the FFII (ffii.org) site from time to time you would have known. If Microsoft didn't exist anymore, the lobby of the BSA and VSI would come to an end immediately. Then, the balance of BSA and VSI (Taylor Wessing, which even has employers working in the European parliament) against FFII, EFF (and FSF, but they are not focused at patents, the first two are the real opponents) would be gone, and probably so would software patents. If Microsoft wouldn't have 'bought' Ireland an Luxembourg, software patents _surely_ wouldn't be valid in Europe. Because, and _only_ because of Microsoft, it still is unsure these days. Maybe IBM would also need to disappear, but they are not pushing hard for software patents in Europe, nor have they in the past, at least not that I'm aware of. So, you really can't say software patents are a problem and Microsoft is only a part of it. Saying Microsoft is a problem, and software patents are part of it would be far more near to the thruth. |
| dinotrac May 25, 2007 3:55 AM EDT |
>Dino, you (and some others) really don't get it, do you? News flash: it is possible to see things differently and still get it. >Microsoft is the _single largest_ proponent of software patents at this moment So what. For that matter, what does it mean? They talk and make a lot of noise? What about the IBMs and Oracles of this world? I don't see them lobbying hard for the abolition of software patents. I see them spending a ton of money to build their own portfolios. If that's not a form of advocacy, I don't know what is. >So, you really can't say software patents are a problem and Microsoft is only a part of it. I did say that, so, obviously, I can. >Saying Microsoft is a problem, and software patents are part of it would be far more near to the thruth. Only on Bizarro world. |
| dcparris May 25, 2007 7:11 AM EDT |
Hans, Dino didn't raise the argument that MS was not a threat - only that MS is also megatively affected by the legal system like the rest of us. I don't think Microsoft started the whole patent thing. If so, they have definitely shot themselves in the foot. Yes, MS talks a lot of junk. But they are also subject to the patent laws, like the rest of us. If you solve the patent law problem, you automatically eliminate MS' biggest nuke - the patent infringement claims. They can't claim patent infringement if we remove the software patents, now can they? |
| Abe May 25, 2007 8:02 AM EDT |
Quoting:If you solve the patent law problem, you automatically eliminate MS' biggest nuke - the patent infringement claims. They can't claim patent infringement if we remove the software patents, now can they? That is a huge big IF though If MS had as many patents as other companies like IBM, you can bet and be assured that MS will never try to fix it. It is obvious and they definitely know that their patents against FOSS are weak. Like Shuttleworth said, MS is suffering from patents and we only have to see how much money it had to fetch out to resolve law suits they couldn't win. But MS does do their assessment carefully. Before infringing on a patent, they look at the bottom line. If the penalties are not as near as the revenue they gain from infringing, they go ahead and infringe anyway and pay the penalty since it is going to be offset by the huge revenue. I know, I know, I didn't agree with his blog, but that was because he is blaming the patent system soley. What I disagree with him on is that, he is removing any blame from MS. To put it in perspective, it is like removing the blame of some one who used a gun to kill another. My question is, do you blame the gun or its availability for the killing or do you blame the person him/her self??? Well, are you going to remove the gun from the decent citizens who were give the right to own a gun? Or are you going to make sure that that person doesn't kill any one else? Shuttleworth have a business objects in his blog, and time will tell what it is. In my opinion, Shuttleworth is looking for a good deal with MS to expand his business. I am sure there must have been a "gentlemen's" agreement with Michael Dell before they made the deal to distribute Ubuntu. I could be wrong, but time will tell. |
| dinotrac May 25, 2007 8:30 AM EDT |
>I know, I know, I didn't agree with his blog, but that was because he is blaming the patent system soley. The patent system being the root of the problem doesn't mean that Microsoft isn't a nasty player, it just means that the patent system is the root of the problem. So long as the means exists to extort and profit, people will rush into extort and profit. Microsoft is far from the worst in this category. There are companies who buy up patents solely for the purpose of extorting money from others who can be convinced that a jury might find them to be infringing. Lots of them pay up because the extortion is cheaper than the risk. |
| Abe May 25, 2007 9:03 AM EDT |
I fully agree with what you said and I wasn't saying that the patent system doesn't need fixing. All what I was saying is we should not forget that MS deserve the blame in using a bad thing to get to their objects. Shuttleworth in his Blog is perceiving MS as victim like us instead of a villan.Quoting:There are companies who buy up patents solely for the purpose of extorting money from others who can be convinced that a jury might find them to be infringing. That could be fixed easily. Make it a law that, a patent have to be implemented by the owner before it can become effective. When a patent is purchased, they must have a use for it, otherwise, they have no right to to claim any damages. |
| dinotrac May 25, 2007 9:17 AM EDT |
>That could be fixed easily. Make it a law that, a patent have to be implemented by the owner before it can become effective. That's already the case. Patents are for inventions -- ie, implemented ideas. >When a patent is purchased, they must have a use for it, otherwise, they have no right to to claim any damages. Bad idea. The notion of intellectual property rights is to provide benefits similar to those surrounding physical property, which includes the right of alienation. IE, inventors should get the full benefit of their invention, which may mean selling its rights to somebody who can market them more effectively. |
| Abe May 25, 2007 10:22 AM EDT |
Quoting:which includes the right of alienation. IE, inventors should get the full benefit of their invention, which may mean selling its rights to somebody who can market them more effectively. That is fine, but what I am saying is to stop alienation for the sake of profiteering without implementation. Doesn't that make sense? In other words, when an entity purchases a patent, they must need it to produce a product, not to just sit on it waiting to sue someone. They still can sue if someone infringes on it as long as it is actively implemented. There must be a way to stop patent profiteering. |
| dinotrac May 25, 2007 10:39 AM EDT |
>In other words, when an entity purchases a patent, they must need it to produce a product, not to just sit on it waiting to sue someone. Fine...but, the problem is this: How do you distinguish that from somebody who wants to make something but can't get financing, partners, whatever? Sometimes the law just isn't good enough to do what we really want from it. |
| Abe May 25, 2007 12:03 PM EDT |
Quoting:How do you distinguish that from somebody who wants to make something but can't get financing, partners, whatever? How about labeling the patent owners. Companies that have or purchased patents that are not related to their line of business or companies that has no business other than buying patents should be easy to identify. Laws are made flexible to suit certain needs, aren't they? Laws are constantly being ammeded, adopted and changed sometimes for no apparent reason. I see lawyers always finding ways to twist laws in all sorts of ways. |
| dinotrac May 25, 2007 1:08 PM EDT |
Abe - > Laws are made flexible to suit certain needs, aren't they? Laws are the result of a collaborative process between a bunch of people who might see some things the same way, but ain't likely to be eye-to-eye on everything. As a result, most laws compromise something you care about. Tis the nature of representative government. The bigger problem is that such a law would run into a million stumbling blocks. First problem, is that patents aren't issued with relation to any business. They are issued with relation to inventions. Who's to say what technology is appropriate for what business? After all, one hallmark of innovation is the ability to use old technology in new ways. For example -- I'm an inventor on a couple of patents (now lapsed) . They cover the automatic routing of telephone traffic to call centers based on routing tables and real-time predictions of agent availability. What kind of business is that related to? My employer at the time was a large retail chain with a catalog division. The patents were sold to IBM along with the division I worked at. IBM used them in a B-to-B long distance business. Different strokes for different folks, but same technology. Second problem is that there is nothing illegitimate about a company that does nothing but buy, sell, and promote patents. There's a company here in Chicago that does something similar. They deal in old products, ie, products that used to be popular but are no longer available. They buy the product rights and then try to get the things made and marketed again. It's easy to see a problem and devise a solution, but sometimes the solution is worse than the problem. |
| Abe May 25, 2007 4:20 PM EDT |
Thanks Dino for your time. I guess I should go back believing in one post when I said that the patent system can not be fixed. I was hesitant when I said that, but now I am more convinced. |
| dinotrac May 25, 2007 7:10 PM EDT |
> I said that the patent system can not be fixed. In a philosophical sense, you are probably right. In fact, I'm not sure the system -- if it were run the way it is supposed to run -- is all that bad. The problem is that, over the last 20 years or so, the PTO has gone bonkers -- handing out patents for software and for business processes, and, for all I know, for the discovery that bread lands butter side down. I have hope that recent Supreme Court decisions will trickle back down and widen into a torrent of correction. |
| hkwint May 26, 2007 3:01 AM EDT |
Quoting:What about the IBMs and Oracles of this world? I don't see them lobbying hard for the abolition of software patents. I see them spending a ton of money to build their own portfolios. If that's not a form of advocacy, I don't know what is. They're silent. It doesn't seem they bought 'countries' and EP-members like Microsoft did. Oracle is in OIN, which means it agreed to not attack Linux. So they're no threat, nor do they actively try to push trough enforceability of software patents as far as I am aware. That's a big difference with Microsoft. It's just stupid: Microsoft pays more money to license software patents of other companies then they earn from it, and still they actively try to make software patents enforceable. Now, as said earlier, I haven't heard of IBM, Red-Hat or Novell offering free ice-creams to MEP's. I haven't heard of Sony, Oracle or Philips hiring people to act like they were representatives of small and medium business, and tell MEP's software patents are good for SMB. I haven't heard of SAP or Google getting discounts at lobbyist firms, which employed the representatives of juridical committees of large EP parties. I haven't heard of Nike or GM asking the US government to threaten with the WTO taking measures against countries which don't respect IP. I haven't heard of Intel or Motorola becoming the main-sponsors of political meetings in countries, and following that leaders of those countries defending the point of view (pro enforceability of software patents) of those companies, and making countries that had a different point of view shut up. In case you didn't knew, Microsoft _did_ do all this. If you do get this, and chances are big you do, I almost can't imagine how you are sure software patents are the problem instead of Microsoft being the problem. Sure, companies like SAP and IBM are problems too, but that's of a whole different order. Of course USPTO and EPO do earn from software patents and are part of the problem, but that's their job. If software patents wouldn't be enforceable, USPTO and EPO wouldn't make money out of software patents anymore, and they wouldn't be assigne anymore. Of course, Microsoft didn't invent software patents. Neither did Microsoft invent DRM (Intel did), but at this moment they are also one of the large proponent of DRM (Microsoft was the company that took DRM out of the dust after Intel ditched it), and because of the monopoly of Windows the most important company. If they would be against DRM, it would probably be gone within a few months, at least it would be gone from 95% of all PC's worldwide. If they were against software patents, I bet enforceable software patents might as well be gone within a few months, or Oracle and IBM should stop being quiet. But don't forget IBM and Oracle are as much victims of software patents as Microsoft is. |
| dinotrac May 26, 2007 4:02 AM EDT |
>If you do get this, and chances are big you do, I almost can't imagine how you are sure software patents are the problem instead of Microsoft being the problem. You know, it's funny. I take a lot of flak for my sometimes harsh positions towards Richard Stallman. With regard to software patents, he and I agree about as completely as I ever agree with everyone, and yet...I take flak! What the heck is going on here? As to IBM being as big a patent victim as Microsoft? Dream on. IBM has the biggest patent portfolio and best lawyers around. They are king of the hill. |
| Abe May 26, 2007 6:02 AM EDT |
Quoting:But don't forget IBM and Oracle are as much victims of software patents as Microsoft is. Quoting:Dream on. IBM has the biggest patent portfolio and best lawyers around. They are king of the hill. hkwint, In all fairness, one must realize that all companies love their patents. Some, like IBM, their patents bring in a substantial revenue. Others they have patents for protection. The reason most companies are pledging not to sue FOSS is because it doesn't threaten their business and survival as it does with MS. Most of these companies are actually benefiting from FOSS and also helping them to compete against MS. Linux is threatening Windows, OpenOffice & ODF are threatening MS Office. These two are MS's bread and butter and their biggest cash cows. Before FOSS, the majority of companies were at the mercy of MS and they all had better join MS or suffer the consequences. Actually the MS monster was create by many companies who had no choice but to support and endorse MS. FOSS changed all of that and actually, when it becomes main stream with a substantial market share, those companies will flourish and wont feel threatened by MS. They just have to compete and against MS and each others. That is a more comfortable feeling in the long run for them than being under the mercy of MS and having to constantly bow to them. MS helped a great deal in creating its own problems and demise. |
| dinotrac May 26, 2007 8:21 AM EDT |
>Actually the MS monster was create by many companies who had no choice but to support and endorse MS. I disagree about having no choice. It's more like making a choice that comes back to bite you. Before Microsoft was a nasty 800 lb gorilla, IBM was a nasty 800 lb gorilla. Networked pcs offered and alternative to expensive mainframe solutions. Companies used more PC solutions They also went to Unix solutions, albeit at a hefty price differential that couldn't be maintained once PCs grew up. It's why I don't view Microsoft as "the" problem. They are merely the latest incarnation of the problem. |
| hkwint May 27, 2007 2:33 PM EDT |
OK, so our only point of disagreement is if a incarnation of a problem is the problem itself or not. My point of view is, without the incarnation the problem would be gone, and other ones above would say the problem still exists without incarnation, like a smoldering fire. Probably doesn't matter that much. And Dino, don't wail because I agree with you a lot of times, but not this time. Richard Stallman doesn't have anything to do with how I think about patents probably, because we have the FFII for that, which isn't associated with the FSF. My point is, one incarnation doesn't equal every different incarnation of the same problem, every reincarnation is different. For example, you could say France and the US are the same incarnations of the same problems over time, and Google could well be the next incarnation of the current Microsoft incarnation, but that doesn't equal the incarnations. Some incarnation are and behave better / worse than others. |
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!