What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
87 Comments
- shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -17/+72yeah but it IS the same as what microsoft is accusing linux of...
- dreamlayers, on 10/12/2007, -33/+78This talks about Microsoft infringing on patents. It's not the same as stealing source code.
- rlmorgan, on 10/12/2007, -19/+63Uh, did you actually read the post? They DID steal source code:
As a response to Digital Research's DR-DOS 6.0, which bundled SuperStor disk compression, Microsoft opened negotiations with Stac Electronics, vendor of the most popular DOS disk compression tool, Stacker. Stac was unwilling to meet Microsoft's terms for licensing Stacker and withdrew from the negotiations. In the due diligence process, Stac engineers had shown Microsoft some Stacker source code. However, Microsoft chose to license Vertisoft's DoubleDisk instead of Stacker.[2]
Soon, MS-DOS 6.0 was released, including the Microsoft DoubleSpace disk compression utility program. Stac successfully sued Microsoft for patent infringement regarding the compression algorithm used in DoubleSpace. This resulted in the release of MS-DOS 6.21, which had disk-compression removed. Shortly afterwards came version 6.22, with a new version of the disk compression system, DriveSpace, rewritten to avoid the infringing code.
AND
A bitter fight has broken out between Symantec and Microsoft. Symantec claims that Microsoft stole code from Veritas software. Microsoft say they bought it.
Either way Microsoft's relationship with Symantec and the Veritas brand is tarnished and the big loser could well be Symantec as Microsoft develops products that compete directly with them.
Symantec's director of legal affairs, Michael Shallop, has alleged that Microsoft employed its own programmers to take apart source code from storage virtualisation leader Veritas to which Microsoft was not entitled, and then used the information it gleaned from that code to create storage virtualisation device drivers for Windows 2000, Windows Server 2003, and forthcoming versions of Windows Vista and "Longhorn"... - airstrike, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22@Grub
why would you want to use any of microsoft's source code? - rlmorgan, on 10/12/2007, -14/+25How are you making these huge logical leaps? Where did I say that it was only Microsoft stealing code and poaching software?
As it tends to be, if you start throwing unbased accusations you had better be clean or else it will come back to you. For Microsoft of all companies to accuse someone else of stealing software is, at best, laughable.
Microsoft is casting stones here, my friend. The Linux developers weren't the ones who attacked Microsoft on IP grounds.
And, as a software developer for the past 14 years, I can certainly dispute your claim that every major software firm steals code. Linux is not a "copy" of Unix. Oh yeah, Santa isn't real, either. Sorry to burst your bubble. - count_z, on 10/12/2007, -12/+21@rlmorgan
That Stac thing is STILL patent infringement; Microsoft reversed-engineered Stacker's program and used it to create Disk Doubler. However, the code wasn't important, it was the patent.
You can recode just about anything as to make it look indistinguisable from the original source (hell just change languages), but the patent will still apply.
Also Linux *IS* a copy of Unix (the fact that is uses the same Unix syntax ought to tip you off). It was based on the open-source Minix (created by a Berkley professor who now teaches in Norway... there were some interesting emails between him and Linux over their disagreements over Micro Kernels and Monolithic Kernels).
Most of the patent examples that you site are BS patents (granted Microsoft still infringes), but they are BS all the same.
As for Veritas/Symantec, did you even bother to read it?!? Microsoft licensed the Volume management technology from Veritas (now Symantec), but the complaint is that Microsoft is using it in Longhorn and Vista when it was supposedly only licensed for 2000,2003 and XP.
Microsoft has since filed patents on technologies that Vertias claims are part of their IP. However Microsoft contents that they purchased the IP rights for said technologies.
Posting stuff that you found in a google search without any amount of analysis, doesn't make for a very strong case.
Also a company the size of Microsoft will invariable violate someone's patents. Why? Because you can patent all kinds of rediculous, obvious, stupid things ("One-Click Shopping" anyone?). So, does Linux violate patents? Probably... only because of the number of rediculous patents in the world (I'm sure that someone has managed to patent a program or method for display the characters "Hello World!" on a terminal or computer display device).
More important than who violates what is whether someone can be done about these rediculous patents!
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13"@Grub
why would you want to use any of microsoft's source code?"
Someones gotta fix it.... - jonhohle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11there is something similar about UNIX and Linux, its called POSIX, read about it. Linux developers didn't just arbitrarily rip off ideas from UNIX. They're developing to a standard.
Even MS claimed POSIX compliance when it was required by the government for new computer purchases (they've let their work in that area stagnate, to the point that its a joke).
There's no Unix in Linux. There's no Minix in Linux. There might be some BSD in Linux, but that's free for all (given attribution, of course). - consonance, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Copying code without paying has never mattered - at least to Microsoft. Microsoft's war chest is so gargantuan that paying a few million dollars in penalties and settlements is insignificant, especially when you can make a few million dollars in profit in one day. I suppose it's too much to hope that Microsoft will ever play fair.
- combatchuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7This is why software patents are evil. You can spend years of your life creating a program, only to have it deemed illegal to distribute, possibly even somebody else's property. All because they wrote a program that does something similar, and patented that "method" of doing what your program does. This is a fundamental, terminal flaw in the patent system of the US.
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Even MS claimed POSIX compliance when it was required by the government for new computer purchases (they've let their work in that area stagnate, to the point that its a joke)."
Since the release of Windows Server 2003 R2, Windows now includes an updated POSIX subsystem taken from what was formerly an add-on package, Windows Services for Unix. It implements POSIX.1 and POSIX.2 in full. Now all you have to do to install a complete set of standard POSIX tools, GCC, etc. is select the "Subsystem for Unix-based Applications" from Add/Remove Programs' Windows Components dialog.
The majority of the installed Unix tools are direct ports of the OpenBSD userland. - raptordrew, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Just for the sake of pissing off Apple fanboys, don't forget that Apple has had lawsuits as well!
Apple vs. Microsoft, the lawsuit over the GUI, with Apple claiming Intellectual Property on anything GUI in the Macintosh OS.
"In an odd twist midway through the suit, Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple, claiming Apple had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs. Xerox had invested in Apple and had invited the Macintosh design team to view their GUI computers at the PARC research lab; these visits had been very influential on the development of the Macintosh GUI. Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if Apple v. Microsoft established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple. The Xerox case was dismissed because the three year statute of limitations had passed (i.e. Xerox waited too long to file suit.)" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp.
Also, Apple was sued by Burst for iPod/iTunes copyright infringement - http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/04/17/patent/index.php
Most other lawsuits against Apple have been hardware related; but also of note is the fact that Apple has done some needless suing of other people; I cannot recall the product, but there was one in the past year that had an "i" on the front of the name, and Apple sued because they claimed it "mislead people into thinking it was an iPod related product", even though it looked nothing like it, and was a specialized technology component no normal consumer would see. - sanford42, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9the point of this post, as has been hammered out repeatedly in previous comments, wasn't to say that everyone in the Redmond office should be paraded out in handcuffs for being convicted felons, but to say that if Ballmer is going to accuse Linux of "stealing", he needs to take a look at his company's history first.
Is Microsoft the first and only company with questionable business practices? Nope.
But, their overly-exuberant spokesperson publicly said that Linux is stealing code, without spelling out exactly what code was stolen. And this post just simply does what Ballmer didn't do -- it points out examples. - dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I thought that was kind of the point of this post maninblac1...
This is in direct response to Microsoft casting stones against Linux, claiming it's using MS intellectual property.
Like you say, let he who has no sin cast the first stone... and MS is certainly not sin free yet it's quick to cast stones... isn't it. - WhiskerTheMad, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Every company does this on some level..."
And that makes it okay? - dioscaido, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Not really. You can infringe on IP by imitating the approaches in the patent (i.e. - algorithms). The infringer need not ever have seen the patent holder's code, and there's no reason why there would be any similarities in code.
- twtmc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Windows is BASED off of stolen source code. This is nothing new.
- Hardcase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The Stacker case was also patent infringement. The Symantec case alleges code theft.
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Microsoft and SCO? What about Microsoft and SUSE - and their frankly whacko behaviour in appearing to claim that they somehow can express ownership over Linux and can strike deals with Microsoft not to sue them over what Microsoft (still) claims is their IP - despite the fact that MS has not a scrap of evidence to support this claim?
We all know just how much of a hand MS had in SCO's bogus claims anyway - so now it seems with SCO on the way out, MS has decided to take the fight up on it's own and to offer an almost identical form of indemnity against IP infringement that SCO was offering - except this time they are hiding behind Novel to do it.
What Novel is doing is outrageous - who gave them permission to strike these kinds of deals? Who said they could take the work of thousands upon thousands of countless contributes who gave freely of their own efforts and indemnify their work against anything? It isn't their code, or their right to do this at all.
Again all this is is Microsoft FUD - it says to companies that using Linux is a risky business - and that unless you play ball with Microsoft and use a Microsoft 'certified' version of Linux, that you could be leaving yourself open to potential IP infringement claims from them. So much for Microsoft's main rival in the server space then - namely Red Hat.
Once (or if) Microsoft has sunk Red Hat (and possibly all of Linux too) for good, then I have no doubt they will wash their hands of Novel and of SUSE for good.
As far as I'm concerned, the GPL should be changed in some way to specifically prevent companies or individuals from behaving in this way to begin with. Put a clause in there that says we won't do business with companies that actively support the patenting or use of closed source software.
Anyway, here's an interesting video of what this whole deal is all about. If you are a supporter of OSS and can watch this and not have your blood boil while you do, then I think you may be missing the whole point of what OSS is about:
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/flash_stream.html - rahrens, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Um, and that is supposed to "piss me off" just how?
I am an Apple customer and supporter, and have been for almost twenty years. I have watched Apple through thick and thin, and have taken many opportunities to scold Apple for bad behavior. I have always believed that they make great products, but that doesn't excuse bad behavior.
Same for Microsoft, except that, as a professional help desk technician, I have the opposite opinion of Microsoft's products. They are mediocre, almost good enough, and are generally too complex, even the simple stuff. But one can say the same - whatever their product's utility or quality, it doesn't excuse bad behavior. - yenster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7He didn't even appear to mention one of the most famous incidents of all (which got buried on back pages here in the U.S. due to the 9/11 coverage):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/10/microsoft_winds_up_on_both/
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2118681/microsoft-convicted-software-piracy - cmiller1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10No mention of when Microsoft stole Quicktime code from Apple?
http://www.sonic.net/~sirreal/ms.html
scroll down to (or search for) "An Open Letter to the Computing Community", the original copy is missing, anyone have a link? - curunir, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@pickypg
I'm sick of you MS fanboys going around defending the blantantly organized criminal activities that make up Microsoft's business strategy. They are now going around claiming that Linux is infringing on their "IP", on their "innovation" (as if Microsoft has ever done any innovation on their own).
So the point is that here is this convicted monopolist with a long history of proven infringement on other people's IP throwing around claims that free, open, everybody-can- see-the-source-code-and-trace-it-to-its-origins operating system and applications are STOLEN from them. Complete *****.
Microsoft must be told that they CANNOT do this. Find a way to compete legitimately, that's fine - but don't go throwing around accusations against your competition for doing things without any proof or even specifics at all - especially when the accusations you make are for things that you yourself have been proven to have done over and over. - schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -14/+18http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS7228555922.html
"Yes, there is one key difference. Microsoft, if it actually had anything to show, would likely be relying on patents rather than copyrights, against Linux. However, there's just couple of wee little problems with that approach.
First, let's assume that Microsoft isn't filled with morons. So, instead of threatening to sue customers -- and we all know how well that worked out for SCO, don't we? -- they'll have to sue a big Linux vendor. Let's say, they decide to pick on Red Hat.
Now, as it just so happens, Red Hat isn't the only company that distributed RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux). There's this other company named Oracle, which recently got into the RHEL business. Larry Ellison may call his version "Unbreakable Linux," but Oracle makes no bones about it: Unbreakable Linux is RHEL.
Microsoft might think it could break Red Hat down with a long enough lawsuit, but Oracle? Do the boys in Redmond really want to spend the rest of the next decade locked in battle with Larry Ellison? I don't think so.
Besides, does Microsoft think IBM will stay on the litigation sidelines, if it decides to play the patent card? IBM makes a lot of its billions from Linux, and I can't see Big Blue paying Microsoft off to continue using its favorite operating system." - Gatesophile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The title reminded me of the movie "Antitrust" where the "Microsoft-like" company NURV kills programmers and steals their code.
- kooft, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@count_z
Hate to do it, but this statement is misleading:
"Also Linux *IS* a copy of Unix (the fact that is uses the same Unix syntax ought to tip you off). It was based on the open-source Minix (created by a Berkley professor who now teaches in Norway... there were some interesting emails between him and Linux over their disagreements over Micro Kernels and Monolithic Kernels)."
Linux is just a kernel, not an operating system. Without the GNU utilities (and various other components provided by numerous open source developers) this "Linux" you speak of would just be a neat program that recognizes hardware (hardly useful for doing your taxes though).
A GNU statement (found on Wikipedia) sums it up:
"Versions of GNU using the Linux kernel are often called Linux, after the kernel. The GNU project asks people to call these systems "GNU/Linux."
I would also say that the statement that it *IS* a copy of UNIX is misleading. It is a clone of UNIX. It wasn't derived from UNIX/Minix in any other respect than inspiration. Remember, GNU is a recursive acronym that stands for "GNU's Not UNIX". Don't insult the thousands of programmers that spent hundreds of man-years writing code by attributing their work to Linux Torvalds (which is what you do when you call GNU/Linux Linux). - Kyderdog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5They did Pay (cough... invest) 150 million in not Voting shares of Stock 1997..
You know the one the win fanboys say that Microsoft "Saved" Apple - rincebrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@popfrogs:
http://www.ntfs-3g.org/ - yenster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3...and Xerox PARC stole the GUI and mouse from this guy:
http://www.livinginternet.com/w/wi_engelbart.htm
But hey, thanks for playing--you'll receive a nice home version of our game. - grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The problem behind the problem of patents and copyright is actually quite a simple one to explain. The article doesn't seem to distinguish the two, which makes it IMO less than convincing, however many other comments have addressed that.
The problem that patents were designed to solve is that R&D drives innovation. R&D requires a huge amount of resources. If a company has invested money in R&D to make their product better, it is only fair and reasonable that they are 'reimbursed' (in some form). If there is not some mechanism in place to get a return on investment from R&D, then companies will not spend on it any more than is necessary to keep up with the Jones'. It will be a simple case of every company just copies feature X as soon as it is announced, the original company spending two years of R&D to design it, and others simply spending 6 months to do a copy or even an improvement.
The biggest problem with patents from my perspective isn't the fact that they exist, but rather they are granted to stupid requests, where it is clear that the R&D was one person saying "hey why don't we do this?" and the lawyers figuring out that as no-one does this yet we could apply for a patent and sue if anyone decides on the same thing.
I do not have a problem with for example a company like google files a patent for some pagerank algorithm, but I can not stand the sorts of patents like the Eolas. I mean I bet someone has tried to patent the idea of a balloon that warns you that CAPS LOCK is enabled when entering a password.
So we have gone a bit far with respect to patents. Instead of allowing companies to drive innovation, we are stiffling innovation because someone has already a patent on round wheels so we now have to reinvent them.
More consideration needs to be given to the number of patents awarded, the length of time they are awarded for, and granted patents need reviewing, so they can not be (ab)used to create an artificial monopoly. - Hardcase, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Patents and copyright are two different things. Your college probably offers a class, workshop or seminar on that area of law, geared for CS students.
- kooft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Microsoft, where would you like to 'pay us to let you innovate' today?
- Hardcase, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The code is not patented. The algorithm or method - what the code does - is patented. Just as there's more than one way to skin a cat, there's more than one way to implement an algorithm in software.
- yoyar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5boycott novell.
- Tarnum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A _properly_ selected judge will disagree with you. That's all they need for the next cycle of FUD.
- DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That Quicktime thing happened well before the 150$ million MS "investment".
They did pay, but after the fact, after they were caught. - curunir, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I wish I could delete your posts, too. Shill.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Ballmer's attempt to thwart linux adoption will meet the same fate as SCO's attempt. You can't fight the tide.
- combatchuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Die, spammer!
- grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I suggest you do some reading before mentioning BSD and GPL licenses in the same sentence :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_license
I am going to avoid the term theft because there probably is a distinction that I think is beyond the scope of this. Instead I will refer to 'legal use' of code released under these licences.
Firstly, they are very different licenses with very different goals. I would imagine it would be very difficult or impossible to legally use GPL code in a closed source application. BSD however is quite relaxed about the license of the software that uses it. Both OS X and Windows heavily rely on BSD code, and from what I gather they have both complied with the BSD license which is little more than the tag you have probably already read. - curunir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3But Ballmer (that's Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO - he should be a pretty good representative of the company) claims now that Linux infringes on Microsoft's "IP". The point being - clean up your own house before you start complaining about somebody else's. And when they do this, then YES, Microsoft *IS* the problem. They can't compete with Linux on price because it's free, and they can't use it, put their own name on it, and sell it as proprietary (like they do everything else that compete with them) because it's GPL. So the LIE about it. They make false accusations. They make statements like "oh - everybody running Linux has a liability to us on their balance sheet". That's just wrong. It's just wrong.
- pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2BSD has a "take it and use it for anything as long as you credit us" idealogy that does not exist in GPL.
- BlankMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@pickypg
That's the aspect I was talking about. Did M$ ever give credit for these programs to the authors? I don't recall seeing it anywhere. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that I don't recall M$ saying they weren't the authors of ftp, telnet, etc.. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I agree with everybody who has said there's a difference between patent infringement and copying source code.
Learn it.
And then learn why it's a bad thing to confuse the two. - rlmorgan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6To everyone who is using the argument "these are patent infringments, not code theft", let me ask you this: How does a *software* company infringe on another *software* company's patents or other intellectual property? IT'S THE CODE. They copy or duplicate the code of another product.
Besides, we wouldn't be talking about this today if Microsoft hadn't paid SCO to sue IBM or come out by Ballmer explicitly stating last week that Linux infringes without any proof at all. If they were really serious about the Linux kernel developers infringing upon MS IP, just tell them what it is and they can easily remove it and work around it. But we all know that MS doesn't place nicely like that. - BlankMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@grumpyrain
Isn't there some provision in the BSD (and GPL) license to say where the code came from? Bundling it in with Windows without mentioning M$ never created the programs violates the license. Wouldn't this constitute theft? - pickypg, on 06/01/2009, -0/+1Don't think I ever saw this, but it was entertaining enough to respond to now.
I just want to reiterate the point about Linux certainly infringing on at least one of Microsoft's patents. I honestly don't even believe I have to justify that with an example because of the hundreds of thousands of patents that Microsoft has, and the rate of development of Linux.
I also want to reiterate that I don't blame Linux or even think that people should stop using it (nor did I), but I was simply pointing out that our Patent system is, without a doubt, broken. Too many BS patents are getting through and that was my point that went over your head. You even quoted it, then ignored it.
I cannot help it if you want to remain ignorant and blinded by your love for Linux. Linux is great. Unix is great. But there's nothing wrong with selling a proprietary operating system.
Keep quoting me, but only using snippets... as you can see I may respond eventually, but I really don't care either way. - Hardcase, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8This isn't any more newsworthy than any other major corporation's patent litigation. Every large corporation gets sued for patent infringement. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. And in this particular post, with the exception of the Symantec suit, these are all patent cases. The only case that stands out to me as a pure case of "theft" is the Stac case. But even that smacks of hypocrisy - it's a software patent, and aren't we supposed to be against those? Or is there a Microsoft provision in our philosophy now?
- count_z, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@kooft
Yes you are correct (and I know that "Linux" is just a kernel). However damn EVERYONE calls it Linux rather than GNU/Linux, including most Linux distributions and Linux publications.
So, no calling it Linux doesn't insult any of the developers who contributed to Linux (see? I'm doing it again!)... if they perceive that to be a slight, then tough, 'cuz it ain't.
But you're still right; even though you sound like a copyright lawyer :-) - waterdrop, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Marked as inaccurate.
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is