What is Digg?126 Comments
- ubernoggin, on 02/05/2008, -8/+83Reminds me of how the Linux industry called SCO's bluff, too. Now SCO is fighting to stay alive.
- frontporsche, on 02/05/2008, -11/+67Attention Microsoft:
You have indicated you have a list of patents that we Linux users and/or developers have violated. You don't tell us which patents. This lack of response from you must mean that 1) you no longer care about this, 2) you would like us to continue as we are, and/or 3) you have determined that all those patents aren't really being violated.
Microsoft, let me know if my interpretation is not correct. Further lack of response will be interpreted as agreement with the above. - yetAnotherCroc, on 02/05/2008, -4/+41He is actually finnish. But thanx for the compliment:)
- daftman, on 02/05/2008, -6/+38there are differences. but the core fundamentals are still the same
one is a copyright troll and the other is a patent troll. - atdigg, on 02/05/2008, -3/+28Swedish from Finland, but either way he's no moron.
- LANjackal, on 02/05/2008, -2/+27MS has been bluffing about Linux patents since day one. Anyone with a brain, regardless of OS/ecosystem allegiance, could tell that. This is hardly news.
Even if they do have patents, some of MS' biggest customers are Linux users, and MS can't afford to sue them - schestowitz, on 02/05/2008, -12/+35Good interview, especially this second part. Torvalds' views on patents are very much on target.
- Wacer, on 02/05/2008, -1/+24May I ask what he did to deserve such a title from you? Do you work for Microsoft?
- Spr0k3t, on 02/05/2008, -1/+24it's flamebot... meaning his comments mean exactly *****. Just bury, report, block... eventually he will be banned from Digg.
- capiCrimm, on 02/05/2008, -2/+22one was a puppeteer and the other was a puppet?
- Azerael, on 02/05/2008, -2/+21Why churches? Science would be an infinitely better cause to donate funds to.
- geminitojanus, on 02/05/2008, -0/+17Either that, or it really is pretty much exactly as Torvalds himself says (in the article no less):
"[W]hy I don't think Microsoft really seriously would go after patents is when you're a convicted monopolist in the marketplace you really should not be suing your competitors over patents, I think that most Microsoft lawyers would say, 'You know, let's not do that; that sounds insane'."
In other words, Microsoft's patents are meaningless against OSS. They could sue, but any OSS developer would simply turn to the EFF, the EFF would turn to the EU, and Microsoft would turn red in the face as they tried to somehow explain how suing them WOULDN'T be anticompetitive (which they couldn't do). This is probably why Microsoft feels it okay to patent everything from right clicking to using colored LEDs for user feedback. - StanStutter, on 02/05/2008, -5/+22Torvalds believes that It's really hard to enter the desktop market because people are used to Windows.
Torvalds doesn't think the patent threat is that big of a deal. I'll take his word for it.
He didn't mention anything about smart phones, but he did say that real change will come from entirely new uses of computers. Smart phones and other mobile devices could potential put Linux in everyone's pocket for under $99. - srg13, on 02/05/2008, -1/+17Ummm.. Right, I've never downloaded a windows patch on Linux... It wouldn't do anything useful either.
The patent thing is more about Microsoft claiming that they invented really obvious features that you wouldn't be able to make an OS or window manager about, and trying to scare off people who want to switch their servers, by saying that they'll sue the users... - MSP1, on 02/05/2008, -0/+16Unfortunately big companies see themselves as indispensable. They don't understand that they ought to fade away gracefully when they have past their usefulness so that something more appropriate can replace them. Microsoft and the film and music industries in their current forms all fall into this category and expect us to keep paying them to remain in existence. It's called "Market Failure".
- known, on 02/05/2008, -1/+15Open source software promotes Competition.
Closed source software promotes Collusion. - Remmy, on 02/05/2008, -5/+19I'm a little confused. I thought that if you refused to protect your copyrights, patents, or trademarks, you risked losing them.The whole patent situation smells like a big pile of Marlon Brando excrement to me.
- quail20, on 02/05/2008, -1/+15A patent attorney in the late 90's told me that many small time coders would approach Microsoft to sell their cool bit of code for use in Windows. MS would meet with them and would quickly discover if they'd gone to the trouble to patent it or not. If not, MS would take it without compensating the coder. Just reinforced my idea that most of big business is unethical.
- bobbknight, on 02/05/2008, -2/+13WTF? Over!
- thinktrunk, on 02/05/2008, -7/+18MS really needs to retire... Donate billions to churches, the red cross, and ubuntu. I'm so tired of MS. It's insanity expecting anything sane from MS. My best friend is a programmer, and I've seen what windows encounters have done to him. Not pretty.
- poontangpirate, on 02/05/2008, -3/+14They can patent the paradox. They made the windows window: http://www.geekstir.com/pictures/windows-window/
- RoboDonut, on 02/05/2008, -0/+10I think this is (a poor attempt at) satire...
Maybe. - cantormath, on 02/05/2008, -1/+11I believe Microsoft's bid for yahoo is also a "Marketing" thing and is ment to just attack Google in the same way they have attacked Linux.
- quamis, on 02/05/2008, -1/+10if any part of linux would really be in violation(and MS would tell why and where) then it would be easy to just change that piece of code to behave in a different way, maybe even bringin in new features... so if it would really be in violation, it would be easy to fix... only if anyone would know what and where to fix :).. that is if there really is anything to fix.
- GorfTron, on 02/05/2008, -1/+10Show the code!
- drag, on 02/05/2008, -1/+10""He's not saying Microsoft doesn't have the patents to make and win the cases. He's saying that -- politically -- Microsoft won't go after Linux on the basis of patents.""
The problem with Microsoft and patents is not so much politics is that Microsoft has been sued on numerous occasions for patent violations and never have sued anybody else (although they threaten it). That is in terms of patents Microsoft is more vunerable then any other company.. They have the deep pockets, everybody hates them so they are a easy mark.
In software company vs software company software patents provide a 'MAD' style defense. In the cold war with Russia vs USA we had a 'Mutually Assured Destruction' method of defense. That is if you kill us, we kill you, too. And it's not that we just kill you, we wipe out hte majority of human life on this planet for the next 5 thousand years. There is no effective defense against ICBMs, even in these modern times ICBMs are totally unstoppable. And it works, no large group of people are that suicidal to actually pull the trigger.
Software patents are like that. The way the law is setup, the way these sort of patents work and how the US Congress favors the general idea of patents (and remains totally ignorant on the economy-limiting and innovation-blocking nature of software patents) and how US Courts favor them.. that software patents are the ICBMs of the software industry. So with Microsoft vs IBM (for example) IBM has a ***** of patents and Microsoft has a ***** of patents. If IBM sues Microsoft, Microsoft sues IBM. Both lose.
But, unfortunately for Microsoft, we have patent trolls.
Everyday small/medium/large software companies go out of business. This is the nature of capitalism. So when these companies go out of business they have to liquidate their assests to pay back their investors as much as possible. Software patents are considured assests and so they get sold off to other people.
Well Patent Trolls are mostly dummy corporations made up of lawyers that have larges amount of money backing them up. They purchase these software patents and then turn around and start threatening large software companies like Apple or Microsoft left and right.
Due to the nature of our legal system the act of fighting and _winning_ a software patent battle when your a defendant is almost as expensive as fighting and losing a patent battle. It favors the holder of the patent so much that it's laughable.. it's almost impossible for them to lose.
These 'Patent Trolls' are smart enough laywers that they price the licensing fees for their software patents lower then the cost of their targets winning a battle. And because "Patent Trolls" do not actually produce any software or any product, nor due they actually ever create anything of any value, then they can't be attacked back. Microsoft's arsenal of patent weapons are totally useless against them.
On top of that Linux has defensive patents also. We have some _very_good_ (as in paticularly evil) patents that have been donated by companies like IBM and Novell under a legal contract that if anybody starts suing a member of the "Open Innovation Network" (it's very cheap to join) then those patents are automaticly triggered to destroy the attacker. Sort of like the doomsday device from "Dr. Strangelove"
So if Microsoft was able to actually start suing Linux out of existance everybody they would be attacked back. Also they would piss off the government AND IBM AND Nokia AND the thousands of large corporations (most of them who are also major Microsoft customers) that put large amounts of money and effort into Linux.
It would be open season on Microsoft. Microsoft's billions (more accurateley: Microsoft's investor's billions) will be the target of every patent troll and every two-bit software company in existance. There are entire countries in Europe whose GNP would be dwarfed by the amount of money Microsoft would have to spend on litigation. - akkibaba, on 02/05/2008, -1/+10Troll troll is troll.
- khpmli, on 02/05/2008, -0/+9they just change the code
- cheesegrits, on 02/05/2008, -0/+8
FTC 2002: Hearings on Anti-Competitive Effects of Patents
R. Jordan Greenhall, Chief Executive Officer, Divx Networks, explained at the FTC hearings how wasteful the patent process has become in the software field.
As a small company, one of the biggest risks I face is uncertainty in the marketplace. I can minimize my risk by understanding my competitor's products very well, by understanding my products very well, by understanding what the consumers and customers want. But I've found in the past year that I really can't understand the patent landscape and that I'm sitting with a nuclear bomb on top of my products that could go off at any point and cause me to simply not have a business anymore.
I recently took one of my lead developers, a gentleman who's widely considered a leader in his field -- he sits on both the MPEG and the ITU committees, is deeply involved with the entire intellectual property landscape around digital video -- and asked him to evaluate a particular patent that we've been hearing about in the marketplace.
We did a quick search on the USPTO website, which by the way is very useful, and uncovered no less than 120 patents that claim to be within the general scope of this particular patent, which was widely cited.
The poor guy spent the better part of five days examining all these different patents and came back to me saying, "I haven't the slightest idea whether or not we infringe on these patents, and frankly, they all seem to infringe on one another."
The end result being that I have no idea whether my product infringes on upwards of 120 different patents, all of which are held by large companies who could sue me without thinking about it.
The end result, much like Borland, I have now issued a directive that we reallocate roughly 20 to 35 percent of our developer's resources and sign on two separate law firms to increase our patent portfolio to be able to engage in the patent spew conflict. I think the concept here would be called saber rattling. I need to be able to say, "Yeah, I've got that patented too, so go away and leave me alone."
http://eupat.ffii.org/gasnu/microsoft/ - Phocion55, on 02/05/2008, -1/+9"What if they are in violation?"
The FIRST step would be communicating what those violations ARE....which Microsoft doesn't seem too interested in revealing. - JQP123, on 02/05/2008, -0/+8This only applies to trademarks. A trademark is associated with marketplace identitiy and as such, a valid trademark must be unique. If you allow others to use your trademark, it is no longer unique and thus no longer valid.
- tuxerware, on 02/05/2008, -0/+8what??
- vibrokatana, on 02/05/2008, -0/+7I have this wonderful beach side property in pakistan I bet you would love to buy.
- AnthonyA7, on 02/05/2008, -1/+8Good god. I don't think I've ever felt this giddy after reading a digg comment. :-)
- MrViklund, on 02/05/2008, -3/+10Even a 5 year old child can understand that if Microsoft has patents that Linux violate they would put out a list. Why even say that Linux violate your patents if you won't say which? Microsoft should get a grip in this issue.
Software patents is stupid, lame and just plain wrong. Talk about stopping innovation. - cplusplus, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6Microsoft knows that if the patents are revealed (if there are patents) then Linux will be changed to avoid the patents. So its better for Microsoft (if there are parents) to just try to scare companies about it - hoping they avoid Linux.
- stix213, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6If Microsoft actually wanted the issue of patent infringement resolved, they would make public how Microsoft is being infringed and the OSS community would work diligently to resolve those issues immediately. Linux/OSS users hate the idea of infringing MS's patents any more than MS likes them being infringed.
Since MS is unwilling to divulge how they are being infringed, it is obvious they aren't interested in having any infringement corrected, and they are really interested in holding the idea of Linux/OSS infringement over potential users and corporate sponsors' heads to direct people back to the Windows platform.
I agree with Linus. If MS actually had something we would know the specifics by now. If MS wanted Linux/OSS to stop infringing they would show us how they have been infringed specifically. MS just wants to keep a cloud of uncertainty over Linux/OSS indefinitely in an attempt to slow it's adoption.
Unfortunately I believe MS is actually seeing some results and is partially successful. Fortunately there are a number of organizations that have called MS's bluff already. And I for one am not afraid of MS, and happily run Linux even on my business machine. - diggelicious71, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5finnish-swedish is the correct word. Nationality is finnish, but he speaks finnish and swedish.
- thedreaming1, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4Well said and to the point!
- tech42er, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4Well, that makes me feel better.
- subsistenc3, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4Uh... the linux updates are for linux not windows and are developed by the people behind linux, not Microsoft. And yes, my Linux is full of source codes. That's one of the points of open-source amirite?
- wrlulz, on 02/05/2008, -1/+4lol
especially looking at how M$ stole WinXP design from one of Mandrake Linux KDE skins - flashingcurser, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Best laugh I've had all day. After all, you weren't hiding under the bridge, you are right out in the open.
- baalzebub, on 02/05/2008, -1/+4Linus is a lot more practical ad makes more sense than some of the dirty unwashed hippies of FOSS...
- Marglar, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3hello, my name is sarcasm, have we met?
- tdelet, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Exactly. When you own a patent you own it until it expires and can enfore it with whatever means you wish...whenever you wish. Not like trademarks when if you allow others to use it you can lose protection.
- inactive, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3they keep going on about these 'patent infringements' but wont/can't elaborate on them. maybe i'm just high but couldn't the linux foundation sue microsoft for slander/libel/defamation of character or something of the like at this point? just throwing it out there.
- Waterrat, on 02/05/2008, -2/+5 I agree with this assessment...The money should go to science and universal health care,not to churches.
- Waterrat, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3 Agreed...
- shagg187, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Thank you stating that you stated the obvious, captain obvious!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is