talk talk about about double double talk talk.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Apr 17, 2009 7:41 AM EDT |
Read carefully and what you see is that the FSF real claim is that people will be protected against patents because the GPLV3 prevents protecting people against patents. There's an argument sure to win friends and influence people -- in the absence of patent protection, Microsoft (and others) must actually sue people and we all know that being sued is vastly superior to being protected. Snark aside, the current patent climate -- thanks to recent Supreme Court decisions -- might cause some of those patents to be tossed out if the holders try to enforce them, but... that's a maybe might. The real pitch is this: expose yourself and/or your customers to the risk of patent litigation for the greater good. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 17, 2009 9:19 AM EDT |
It depends dino. Microsoft doesn't want to go to court. They only file lawsuits to get people to settle and sign an agreement. With GPLv3 such an agreement would be bad for Microsoft. |
| dinotrac Apr 17, 2009 11:34 AM EDT |
>With GPLv3 such an agreement would be bad for Microsoft. That presumes that they are not willing to go to court. That is not, however, their history. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 17, 2009 11:59 AM EDT |
History isn't very relevant in this post-Bliski world. I think Microsoft really doesn't want to go to court anymore. They just want to threaten with it. Why else do they always pick small companies that can't afford to go to court? |
| azerthoth Apr 17, 2009 12:18 PM EDT |
Gotta go with dino on this one. Regardless of if MS is willing or not to stay the course and actually go to court and face the possibility of having said patents invalidated is really moot. They run that risk every time they start legal action involving patents. This is more a case of the FSF saying it's all or nothing. You must supply a patent deal that covers all, barring that you have the choice of loosing the use of GPLv3 software or going to court against the accuser. From a strictly business prospective, where is the incentive to switch? Seems to me that this is an increased liability in the short term and probably long term as well. Wasn't this one of the reasons the OSI was started up initially? Because of the differences between philosophy and reality? It's all well and good to say how we think the world should work, but there is a marked difference between should and does or ever will. |
| dinotrac Apr 17, 2009 1:06 PM EDT |
azer -- Yup. Now, if the FSF REALLY wanted to ensure freedom, maybe they can find some people willing to capitalize an indemnity fund that will help fight, or defray the cost of fighting, patent lawsuits brought against users of GPLV3d software. THAT would change the game a bit. |
| hkwint Apr 17, 2009 4:31 PM EDT |
Quoting:in the absence of patent protection, Microsoft (and others) must actually sue people and we all know that being sued is vastly superior to being protected. Yes, that's superior because then Microsoft will be suing consumers of Microsoft technologies for using those technologies meaning the end-consumer finally finds out those dated Microsoft-technologies actually cost them money. Hopefully by then consumers will finally complain and ask why the OEM's such as TomTom are using antique Microsoft technology at all. At least I hope. Right now, those buying CF cards, PNS etc. don't have any clue they pay money to Microsoft because their OEM is lazy. |
| dinotrac Apr 17, 2009 4:52 PM EDT |
Hans -- Not exactly. They'll be suing the providers of that technology, not the consumers -- except, perhaps, the case of very large corporate consumers like a rental car company or something. The real message will be: Don't use Linux and don't use free software. Cheaper and easier just to go with Microsoft. |
| flufferbeer Apr 17, 2009 4:55 PM EDT |
With all this banter on M$ game against the GPL and ultimately FOSS, it seems to me that the M$ borg is trying very hard to force a Catch-22 situation onto the FSF. @Sander, history REMAINS very relevant in this "post-Bliski world". After ignoring FOSS M$ has continued to do the various Embrace and Extinguish methods such as in the whole "Open"XML-standards "vote" and plenty of other examples already ranted upon before around various Linux forums. "Microsoft really doesn't want to go to court anymore. They just want to threaten with it. Why else do they always pick small companies that can't afford to go to court?" One answer is that M$ is trying to pick off as many FOSS-using companies like TomTom as possible. This is a current step --- whether its the THREAT of lawsuits or actually GOING THROUGH with the lawsuits. So in sum, Micro$hifty both wants to both threaten ++AND++ to put legal re$ource$ into fighting FOSS. So @azerthoith the Catch-22 is that somehow through wearing down and nullifying the GPL (v2, v3...) through their legal action or threat of it, the M$ bully lawyers can now try to clamp on the "d*ned if you do, d*ned if you don't" fear into the FSF so that they'll cave. Again to azer.. I vote that the FSF will continue to successfully and _Realistically_ enforce the GPL they already have (as is), and refuse to cave in....now or in the near future ! My 2c |
| azerthoth Apr 17, 2009 5:28 PM EDT |
@fluffer my comments were directed specifically at transitioning from GPLPv2 to GPLv3 from a corporate analysis of the risks involved, as the GPLv3 mitigates the end run on the 'covenant not to sue' and thereby blocking any sideways deals that MS uses to get their money out of people. That the FSF and SFLC can and do proactively process various violations is not the point. I never said that they didnt, however it's not a real catch-22, in that under the GPLv2 a covenant not to sue is not that same as a patent licensing deal. Therefor there is a much larger financial risk for companies to adopt GPLv3. The article was stating that these are an impetus to switch to GPLv3, I think if we look at it from a real world perspective, we will see that the opposite is true. From the 'getting backed in a corner' legal side, any patents not under OIN fall into the disincentive category. As those are the same patents that are going to be used to threaten folks like TomTom, all the GPLv3 would have done is tied their hands tighter and left them with a much reduced avenue of response to defend themselves with. |
| hkwint Apr 17, 2009 6:29 PM EDT |
Quoting:They'll be suing the providers of that technology, not the consumers There goes my last hope for a good show on the internet... Anyway, that would still be better because in that way all TomTom devices in the shops are probably confiscated (Renaults including?!) without TomTom being able to cowardly bail out; but instead they have to face the issue and act. |
| vainrveenr Apr 17, 2009 11:01 PM EDT |
Quoting:One answer is that M$ is trying to pick off as many FOSS-using companies like TomTom as possible. This is a current step --- whether its the THREAT of lawsuits or actually GOING THROUGH with the lawsuits. So in sum, Micro$hifty both wants to both threaten ++AND++ to put legal re$ource$ into fighting FOSS.Just to be a bit more clear, here is the PDF text of actual Microsoft complaint against TomTom, http://media.techflash.com/documents/tomtomComplaint.pdf Carefully note within this that Patent infringement Count 12 and Prayer(s) for Relief articles C and D both specifically assert that TomTom has willfully infringed upon Microsoft's patents. There have even been severe constraints placed onto claims of patent cases involving willful infringement, see 'Willful infringement gets harder to prove in patent cases', http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/08/willful-infr... In light of past legal decisions concerning Microsoft --- such as described at Groklaw's 'Microsoft Litigation' http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107... --- this assertion of TomTom's willful infringement DOES seem overly bold for Microsoft.... even possibly arrogant ?? AAMOF, this direction MS is proceeding -- and now taking into account the infamous Bilski decision, http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081030150903555 -- is easily construed as MS's desperate/extreme legal measures in desperate times for this bigger company. Quoting:This is a current step --- whether its the THREAT of lawsuits or actually GOING THROUGH with the lawsuits. So in sum, Micro$hifty both wants to both threaten ++AND++ to put legal re$ource$ into fighting FOSS.Plausible in light of MS's seemingly desperate measures. yet... Quoting:the Catch-22 is that somehow through wearing down and nullifying the GPL (v2, v3...) through their legal action or threat of it, the M$ bully lawyers can now try to clamp on the "d*ned if you do, d*ned if you don't" fear into the FSF so that they'll cave.Actually, the logic of a Catch-22 is that is does not matter what choices the "victimized" party perecives it has.... they all lead to the same final result. See Wikipedia's Catch-22 (logic), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic) What may in point of fact be occuring instead of a Catch-22 choice is what patent attorney Lawrence B. Ebert writes in his blog 'TomTom denies Microsoft's patent infringement assertions ' http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2009/02/tomtom-denies-microsofts-p... : Quoting:Thus, on the one hand Microsoft (and the Coalition for Patent Fairness) complain to Congress about patent infringement suits, but on the other hand Microsoft has gathered an arsenal of patents to inflict patent infringement suits on others.One would easily estimate that there certainly ARE good choices to be made which effectively mitigate these MS motions to inflict "patent sandwich" traps on IT vendors. And estimate as well, good informed decisions in the Open Source and general IT community that avoid MS's continued legal FUD heaped against similar companies such as TomTom; companies that have adopted and will continue to successfully adopt GPLv3. |
| gus3 Apr 18, 2009 1:27 AM EDT |
@vainrveenr: The allegations of "willful" misconduct is standard language for a lawsuit like this. It's easier to back down from a strong allegation, than to ramp up a previous, weaker allegation. |
| dinotrac Apr 18, 2009 8:25 AM EDT |
gus3 - Yes it is, and it's not that high a standard. It doesn't even mean that you knew that you infringed patents. It means that nobody made you do what you did and that what you did infringed patents. You can see that in the link so kindly provided by V. Note the mentions of negligence and recklessness. Those are terms that fall short in knowing and go to the level of due diligence required by somebody who might be treading into dangerous patent waters. And -- so what? A lawsuit is expensive and disruptive even if you win. Being forced to pay single or treble damages merely affects the point at which you settle, as 95% of civil litigations do. |
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!