Yes.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Feb 04, 2008 10:58 AM EDT |
There is a time to put up or shut up. If they had the cards, they would play them. |
| tracyanne Feb 04, 2008 11:14 AM EDT |
Of course they would. |
| softwarejanitor Feb 04, 2008 11:19 AM EDT |
I can't agree more dinotrac... |
| dumper4311 Feb 04, 2008 11:47 AM EDT |
@dino: You're absolutely right, and an ethical company would put up or shut up. But that's not the goal here, as I'm sure you're aware. MS isn't at all interested in the legal issue, this is pure PR. If they can sway an impressionable group of pointy-haired bosses and legal feebs, they've accomplished their ends. |
| Scott_Ruecker Feb 04, 2008 1:32 PM EDT |
EXACTLY!! If Linux were really infringing..they would have made their move by now. Period. |
| dinotrac Feb 04, 2008 2:52 PM EDT |
dumper -- Absolutely, but this is not ethics v not ethics. By now, the whole SCO mess is behind us, not to mention a Supreme Court ruling that throws an awful lot of software patents into question. The ability to sway people with a few vague statements has, ummm, waned. If they really want to use IP as a sales issue, they have reached the point where too many people disbelieve them. Gots to lay the cards down. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 05, 2008 8:08 AM EDT |
Personally, I think Microsoft always knew their patents would not stand up in court against the distributed knowledge of the F/OSS community. |
| Abe Feb 05, 2008 9:46 AM EDT |
Quoting:I think Microsoft always knew their patents would not stand up in court ...If they take it to court, the scary part for Microsoft would be the trouble they would be in when the patents they infringe upon get exposed in the process. Any ways, this is water under the bridge and let us be realistic. Many enterprise know this is nothing more than PR FUD. They still go along with it for various reasons 100% Windows shops know that FOSS is the way to go, but they realize they can't do the switch over night. They need to keep good relations with MS during the transition period without any risk of jeopardizing their business during this period, and until Linux is entrenched in their operations. Besides, worrying about the legal issues on the top of the issues that would surface during a switch over could hamper their effort in getting rid of the strong lock-in they are in. It makes more business sense for them to pay up a small amount for peace of mind and instead of fighting it in court. What counts is that, many enterprises are planing and actively moving to FOSS with or without MS pay up. The real question is, how long this pay up is going to last before they are free without shackles to keep them locked-in. |
| dinotrac Feb 05, 2008 12:50 PM EDT |
>If they take it to court, the scary part for Microsoft would be the trouble they would be in when the patents they infringe upon get exposed in the process. Presuming they do infringe and presuming that such infringement would come out. With Microsoft suing somebody else, I'm not sure how their own transgressions become part of the court case. They just aren't relevant to the question of whether somebody else is infringing Microsoft IP. The big problem is that they risk having patents invalidated by the process. A good patent is worth money. A bad patent is worth money. An invalidated patent is worthless. |
| hkwint Feb 05, 2008 1:35 PM EDT |
Quoting:Gots to lay the cards down. Exactly, they don't know what cards they have. They are like playing poker and betting, without having looked at the cards given to them. They hope their enemies will fold by making the stakes as high as possible. So stating 'If they had cards, they would play them' looks like a misunderstanding to me, as it assumes they know what cards they are having. But they don't know about the enforceability of 90%+ of their patents, and neither do USPTO or EPO know. What would you do if you had two cards but didn't know which ones, play the cards you have? Or, after seeing people are scared of you, not play them, bluff and hope your enemies fold? |
| tracyanne Feb 05, 2008 2:26 PM EDT |
Quoting:Or, after seeing people are scared of you, not play them, bluff and hope your enemies fold? Of course your opponents have to be playing poker as well. What happens if they a playing chess. |
| NoDough Feb 06, 2008 4:47 AM EDT |
We saw a similar case with Lindows, but dealing with a trademark rather than a patent. Microsoft sued Lindows because they believed the Lindows name infringed their Windows trademark. Lindows went after the trademark seeking to invalidate it with prior art. When it became obvious that Microsoft couldn't win, they ponied up a quick $20million to make the whole thing go away and kept their trademark intact. If anyone challenges one of Microsoft's obviously bogus patents they stand to walk away with no court decision, but pockets full of money. Of course, this assumes that Microsoft decides the patent is worth keeping. |
| dinotrac Feb 06, 2008 7:09 AM EDT |
>If anyone challenges one of Microsoft's obviously bogus patents Technically speaking, that's not going to happen, because it is difficult to establish standing in court on just because you think somebody's patent is invalid. Courts require a case or controversy, and a patent claim doesn't fill the bill. That's especially true because patents are legally presumed to be valid. What is far more likely (and maybe not very likely at all) is that Microsoft would seek to enforce an obviously bogus patent. Then the defendant would have standing to challenge it. |
| Abe Feb 06, 2008 7:48 AM EDT |
Quoting:With Microsoft suing somebody else, I'm not sure how their own transgressions become part of the court case.The defended could ask for code as proof. During the investigative facts finding process (just like what happened with SCO), you never know what the defendant would find. It becomes relevant when the defender counter sues. The question is, is Microsoft willing to take the risk? With the history they have, I don't think so. |
| dinotrac Feb 06, 2008 8:15 AM EDT |
>The defended could ask for code as proof Proof of what? If Microsoft sues you for patent infringement, your code is at issue, not Microsoft's. |
| gus3 Feb 06, 2008 8:18 AM EDT |
> The question is, is Microsoft willing to take the risk? With the history they have, I don't think so. Well, that hasn't stopped the MafiAA yet, AFAICT. |
| dinotrac Feb 06, 2008 9:07 AM EDT |
The MIAA is not Microsoft. The MIAA sues on copyright, not patent. |
| gus3 Feb 06, 2008 9:22 AM EDT |
But they both have an unfavorable track record. When facts are brought into play, their high and lofty arguments fall apart, and the case folds. |
| dinotrac Feb 06, 2008 9:39 AM EDT |
It has nothing to do with high and lofty arguments when you go to court. It is about rules of evidence. To open Microsoft's code, somebody would have to sue them and allege some kind of impropriety. FYI, a counter-suit would do the job because it is a suit by the defendant. |
| Abe Feb 06, 2008 12:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:Proof of what?If MS wants to play this game, don't you think IBM might want to defend its business and jump on it by flashing its patent portfolio? Or may be suing for copyright infringement on its GPLed code? IBM starts a suit and asks for code to prove its point. FSF could start a suit claiming that MS is using GPLed code and ask for code to prove it. Dino, Everything is possible in court, right? |
| dinotrac Feb 06, 2008 2:02 PM EDT |
Abe - >Everything is possible in court, right? The SCO case should have taught you better. You can do a lot of mischief blowing smoke, but, in the end, it comes down to the facts and the law. If you'll recall, the judge threw most of SCO's case out as a sanction for failing to comply with her orders and produce real claims and real evidence. You can try just about anything in court, but it's very painful to get caught at shenanigans. In actions of this magnitude, the lawyers are plentiful enough and good enough on both sides that shenanigans are a bad idea. Doesn't mean somebody won't try. Smart people are more prone to be stupid than stupid people are. It's an ego thing. |
| Abe Feb 06, 2008 5:07 PM EDT |
Quoting:The SCO case should have taught you better.And what makes you think I meant they do a shenanigans job like SCO? All I was referring to is SCO was granted the rights and permissions and look through lot of IBM Linux code, and even some that didn't have anything to do with Linux. What I am saying is, IBM/FSF to find good indication of MS copying and asking for code to find evidence. I don't have any, but all that talk about MS copying on the internet must have a sliver of truth. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Dino, I don't think IBM or FSF are that stupid to do what your are suggesting. Give them a little of credit. |
| dinotrac Feb 06, 2008 5:54 PM EDT |
Abe - I think you are overlooking one very critical fact: SCO sued IBM. IBM's code was at issue. We were talking about cases of Microsoft enforcing it's IP. Now - if IBM or FSF were to sue Microsoft, then, of course, Microsoft's code would be at issue. They would need some reason to believe that Microsoft is infringing on their stuff, a reason that they could place before a court and certify that they have done their due diligence with respect to law and facts. That's not an especially high bar, but it requires more than "Gee...they're Microsoft, they must be stealing something". Making the issue a little touchier is that, in federal court, on IP issues, the loser can be stuck with the winner's legal fees under some circumstances. |
| tuxchick Feb 06, 2008 6:20 PM EDT |
Quoting: "Gee...they're Microsoft, they must be stealing something" Isn't that what you call prima facie evidence? I mean-- duh! :) |
| dinotrac Feb 06, 2008 7:40 PM EDT |
tc - You may have a point. Tell it to the judge. |
| gus3 Feb 06, 2008 9:08 PM EDT |
> Smart people are more prone to be stupid than stupid people are. "People aren't as stupid as Microsoft needs them to be." -- Pamela Jones, Groklaw |
| RJN Feb 20, 2008 6:54 AM EDT |
So the feeling is that Microsoft is bought out by legislators in our government. That Microsoft will eventually trump over Linnux. Get Real!! Part of PR is through bluff and threats and as many people have already stipulated.....If you had "the proof" you would have taken it to court by now. But remember...it's not over until the fat lady sings! Microsoft won a few battles but in no way will they win the war! Recently, the U.S. Army have decided in a multi-billion dollar project in which ALL of their computers will be switched over to Linux (more security?). And as everyone knows, what the Armed Services WANTS they get! And to think that Microsoft will whirl a few tentacles over a few "representatives" in order to get what they want is NOT gonna happen! When 43% of total businesses today are making their switch over to Linux and Mac tells you that the CUSTOMERS STILL dictate and are in control! When Mr. Bill Gates openly admitted that "he could no longer fix the problem of malware" because of its immensity and advised all business to periodically erase and reformat their servers made me laugh! For business to do that is time AND MONEY! Reason number two why more and more businesses are turning to Linux and Mac computers! All Mr.Torvind has to do is to have his partent lawyers inspect and scrutinize the kernel systems of Microsoft to detect if anything has been slightly "modified" (stolen), take it to court and make sure ALL his "kernel" systems are removed from the microsoft Server or computer systems (If that is what has happened!) And last, although this is not Europe, and Microsoft learned their lesson well through a $60 billion lawsuit they lost; All it would take is the combined legal efforts, resources of Linux, IBM, Cisco , Sun Systems to combine their efforts/combination/legal resources in court (like the Europeans) to stop Microsoft dead in their tracks! The U.S. Military and business are usually the predictors of what new technology and changes. The last, is usually the "average home computer user" and Mr. Gates is well aware of that fact! Why do you think his interest in Yahoo is so intense if not fanatical? Yep! the writing is on the wall....and the emergence of Linux is just the beginning! |
| Abe Feb 20, 2008 10:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:Microsoft learned their lesson well through a $60 billion lawsuit they lost;$60 billion? Are you sure about this number? Quoting:Recently, the U.S. Army have decided in a multi-billion dollar project in which ALL of their computers will be switched over to Linux (more security?).Go Army, do you have a link for that? I like to tease some one close and at West Point. |
| tuxtom Feb 20, 2008 10:15 AM EDT |
It's frightening how much our military relies on Windows. If Russia really wanted to we'd be shut down in 5 minutes. |
| jdixon Feb 20, 2008 10:24 AM EDT |
> ...do you have a link for that? I don't think it's actually everything, but it's significant: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/05/us_army_linux_integr... |
| Steven_Rosenber Feb 20, 2008 1:41 PM EDT |
Don't forget this one from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01... |
| Abe Feb 21, 2008 6:22 AM EDT |
JDixson, Steven, Thanks guys, very informative. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 21, 2008 8:47 AM EDT |
I was working at NASA during the days of Win95. Lots of Macs, lots of Unix machines. Then, suddenly, Win95 everywhere. It turns out that writing "Win95 capable machine" was a line-item on a budget request, where as it took multiple lines to describe what kind of Unix machine, Mac, etc, were wanted. Oh, and the price of course. If it weren't for government, Microsoft's profit margins and sales numbers would be much, much lower. Oh, and what about that "lawsuit" thing? If a suit is being brought by a government, why would that government still use the products of the evil monopolist? Because they're all in bed together, that's why. (and because bureaucracies are astoundingly inefficient, but that's just nit-picking) |
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!