EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS


Novell Releases Poisonware Factory 2.0 (MonoDevelop)

Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell at 4:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Mono strings GNOME

Image contributed by Beranger

Summary: Novell unleashes MonoDevelop 2.0 to destroy the freedom of Free software

Novell and its employees are not learning the lessons of FAT, maybe because they already pay Microsoft for software patents. But to make matters worse, they are trying to spread this disease to everyone else in the Free software world, selling them out in exchange for Microsoft cash.

Novell encourages people to produce applications that depend on Microsoft 'standards' which are riddled with software patents. Removing those applications and infringements would be hard.

Here is yesterday’s press release about Poisonware Factory 2.0.

The Mono(R) project, an open source initiative sponsored by Novell, today announced the availability of MonoDevelop 2.0, an open source integrated development environment for programming with C# and other languages. Developers can also take advantage of Mono 2.4, the latest release of the open source, cross-platform .NET application framework which powers the recently announced SUSE(R) Linux Enterprise Mono Extension. Mono and MonoDevelop together streamline the development process and provide the tools that Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) and corporate developers need to build and deploy .NET applications quickly and efficiently on the platform of their choice.

This is already mentioned in some places, but it should be shunned for obvious reasons.

“I saw that internally inside Microsoft many times when I was told to stay away from supporting Mono in public. They reserve the right to sue”

Robert Scoble, former Microsoft evangelist

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one


  1. Dan O'Brian said,

    March 31, 2009 at 8:33 am


    If Mono is “riddled with software patents” as you say, then why have you had so much trouble finding a single patent that Mono infringes?

    If it’s “riddled” with them, it should be easy!

    Keep spinning Roy, maybe someday you’ll actually convince a gullible person.

  2. Jose_X said,

    March 31, 2009 at 12:50 pm


    I don’t know where Roy got that evidence or if he did not intent to communicate that it had been proven that mono is “riddled with software patents”. That may have been bad language to use.

    Check this out. Lookup “Microsoft API” on freepatentsonline.com http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?query_txt=microsoft%20api&sort=relevance and you get almost 30,000 entries.

    For those that want to find the problem violations, you can start there. Read over each patent carefully. You can’t know if a patent applies unless you read all of its claims. Study every single Microsoft API (or at least the dotnet or mono ones), then work hard to find the points you think overlap. Remember that the language in the patent can be very different from the language in the API documentation (where documentation even exists).

    Or, to simply recognize how realistic it is to generate “patented APIs” and to patent around existing APIs, read this http://boycottnovell.com/2009/02/04/the-api-trap-part-1/ .

    Note that recently an example Red Hat patent that did just the above patenting around a standard/API was brought to boycottnovell’s attention. Red Hat is just getting its toe into the patent waters (in comparison). Surely, Microsoft is likely to have more experience, skill, accumulation of such patents (look at all the secrecy in “fixing” up OOXML in hiding, post the MBR). Surely, Microsoft has a lot more to protect with their patents (monopolies and billions in profits).

    Good luck.

    PS: Here is one link that I suspect covers aspdotnet http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7013469.html . I’m willing to look it over a bit if someone points out the full documentation for aspdotnet. I will note that a quick googling actually produced results for two of the exact names mentioned in claim one of the patent: asynccallback and iasyncresult (within the context of aspdotnet).

    PS2. Roy might be correct that mono is “riddled with software patents”, but it might be best if the language was toned down unless he can produce the specific evidence. Maybe he can. I just pointed to what might be such a patent (for aspdotnet components). Anyone want to *disprove* that that patent doesn’t apply to aspdotnet? Dan, can you disprove that http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7013469.html isn’t infringed by those unlicensed individuals using aspdotnet or some component of it? Can anyone prove that core dotnet (mono) patents aren’t held by trolls and hence are not affected by any Microsoft covenant? [If you read the patent api trap link above, you'll see that, apparently like what Red Hat did, it's relatively too easy to patent around a core protocol to capture use cases that many would eventually want to leverage.]

    PS3: Software patents may be deemed by US courts to be unconstitutional or at least not to apply, but that is a different question. We just saw TomTom and many others cave in to what is likely not a patent that can withstand a court challenge under Bilski.

    Dan O'Brian Reply:


    Firstly, it is irrelevant as to whether or not Mono’s ASP.NET infringes any patents or not, that doesn’t mean the core does. No one is writing ASP.NET apps on Linux, so if Microsoft were to sue over ASP.NET patents, Mono’s ASP.NET implementation could easily be dropped without any problem.

    Secondly, it’s not my responsibility to prove innocence. In the Free World, it is guilt that must be proven, not innocence. The burden of proof is on Roy.

  3. Jose_X said,

    March 31, 2009 at 1:04 pm


    Oops, I participated in a mono conversation but forgot to show this:

    Test drive QtCreator http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/category/qtcreator/

    Parrot 1.0.0 appears to be out http://www.parrot.org/news/2009/Parrot-1.0.0

    http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/ and eclipse http://www.eclipse.org/ and JBOSS http://www.jboss.com/products/devstudio/ and apache http://www.apache.org/

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    How can I add these to posts without it seeming like some sort of ad? Someone else has suggested this.

    Jose_X Reply:

    Put a symbol next to “mono” and have that symbol point to a comment or write-up that you like. The symbol is to serve as the link anchor.

    scared smiley
    light bulb
    dead light bulb

    Hey, how about a page loaded with all applications that don’t use mono. Call it safe(r) apps and link to that + some blurb.

    Jose_X Reply:

    >> Hey, how about a page loaded with all applications

    We can focus on apps that have mono equivalents. We can have information on that app. How to contribute to it. Who is the lead maintainer. A progress report. Homepage. Interviews with the devs. Bugzilla. Outline of the app internals. Artwork. Tutorials.. We can even try to get a distro to be built specifically around any/all of those apps. The community around that app might be willing to suggest other possibilities.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Sometimes I link to a summary of Mono dangers. Is there a tool that scans text off-line (statistically) and adds links to it? Links to Wikipedia for example?

    Jose_X Reply:

    >> Sometimes I link to a summary of Mono dangers.

    But it would be useful to have discussions that don’t mention anything about the mono distraction. Have a special place to focus on other things and without mentioning mono at all or just about.

    >> Is there a tool that scans text off-line (statistically) and adds links to it? Links to Wikipedia for example?

    Depends on how the data is stored.

    XSLT; a looping script to walk the DOM to identify various nodes and then adjust them (any script lanaguage that has DOM support can be used); or maybe even regular expressions.. can work.

    XSLT basically allows you to, with an XSLT parser (eg, Xalan) and a short hand “program”, to find the parts of an XML document and rewrite them. The input is an xml file and the output is anything. [Here the input might be html massaged into xml and the output would be some html.]

    The looping DOM walk might be the easiest if you don’t know XSLT. Again, you look for the nodes you want (eg, BN reply nodes can be identified if they have unique patterns as the id attribute or are a part of special CSS classes), then covert these nodes so that you have the extra anchor links in there. [I'm only familiar with doing this in javascript running on a browser.]

    But regexp might be the easiest of all. These wouldn’t be guaranteed to work (you’d have to look at specifics); however, they might not only be likely to work, they might actually provide for the easiest solution. It depends. A sed command as part of some sort of pipeline or shell loop, or awk, or perl (or anything else) might be used for this.

    Question. What would the data stream fed to the script from the database look like? Ie, what does the database look like?

    Finally, the most important work would be to determine exactly what you want to catch and what you want to convert that into.

    Perhaps start off by describing on the left hand side what you are looking for (and under what context if any) and on the right side how that would be translated. Use English to do this if you want. This table could then be turned into to a proper 2d array that could be used by a perl script as the instructions to test on every BN reply that it was fed. The left side might be what goes into the first part of a substitution operator and the right side might be the corresponding substitution part.

    So, the short of this is to first decide what you want to substitute and how do you want to replace it. Then see what the mysql database looks like (its tables/fields structure). And then write up a “quick” script to do the conversions.

    I’ll help you if you tell me what you want to replace and how and explain what the input from the database will look like.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    I had something simpler in mind: a simple scanner/parser that takes a word like Ubuntu and turns it to a link. This can be done off-line for plain text.

    Jose_X Reply:

    Believe it or not, what you mention is what I had in mind.

    Keep in mind that Ubuntu may have a specific wikipedia entry that may not use the exact work “Ubuntu” (in this case, there probably is no change, but sometimes you have to change). Sometimes the wikipedia entry is a phrase.

    So what are we looking at as input? Many of my comments have hyperlinks added. Would the text being scanned be an html fragment? What would it look like?

    Give one specific case of an input (file) and the desired output (file).

    Jose_X Reply:

    [For cross-ref purposes]

    There was a small related discussion on irc april 1.

    Jose_X Reply:

    To add a little more..

    Forget that “plugin” talk (irc). A simple php page on the server (eg, boycottnovell.com/querypagetoretrievechunkofpostingsforprocessing.php) can just query the database and return the data as the webpage.

    Then you process that webpage at home.

    Then a different php webpage (or part of that page above with a different submit button) can be used to update the data.

    This way all of the query/update is done through the boycottnovell web interface.

    To debug the script (assuming you decide to move forward along this path), you do everything first on a sample database as mentioned on irc.

  4. Gentoo User said,

    March 31, 2009 at 1:23 pm


    it might be best if the language was toned down unless he can produce the specific evidence

    Ha, ha.

  5. Jose_X said,

    March 31, 2009 at 7:02 pm


    >> Secondly, it’s not my responsibility to prove innocence. In the Free World, it is guilt that must be proven, not innocence. The burden of proof is on Roy.

    Yeah, I worded my comment about proving something is safe, badly, but I had already agreed with you that Roy would be less controversial by changing the language.

    It’s about risk management. A lot may not currently be proven, let’s suppose, but people surely know that some courses of action are riskier than others. Isn’t it amazing the mileage Microsoft has gotten out of their stupid FAT patents? They have smarter patents than that. They have huge investments in dotnet.

    On the other hand, any proof Roy and anyone else has, they don’t have to show you. Surely, to take an example, IBM doesn’t reveal all they know in a public forum out of court, especially when it comes to legal information. It’s your choice if you want to ignore risks. You might just get your proof, many times over, on the day where you will be fined up the nose by a court as a confirmation prize.

    >> Firstly, it is irrelevant as to whether or not Mono’s ASP.NET infringes any patents or not, that doesn’t mean the core does. No one is writing ASP.NET apps on Linux, so if Microsoft were to sue over ASP.NET patents, Mono’s ASP.NET implementation could easily be dropped without any problem.

    I used the linked patent as a single example, one I had come across because it was posted on BN months back. The point of that other comment stands. This is about risk management. Microsoft has high revenue streams and levers to protect. They use their patents to fend off those threats (Linux). They control the development of the interfaces to these “standards”.

    Did you read the patent trap link? Did you understand the comment made at the very bottom? The US patent system is pathetic, unfortunately.

    I have heard mono supporters talk of patents on dotnet, btw. Surely, someone besides Microsoft might own those tomorrow and Microsoft’s covenant would be useless. And this is just over the core dotnet patents “we” know about. But did you read the bottom of that patent trap link? The US patent system is pathetic, I know. Even Red Hat pulled off patenting around a standard in ways many are likely to violate.

    Like I said. We should discuss the risks. Personally, I don’t spend time reading patents or studying Microsoft protocols; however, “I pity the fool” that ignores the message.

    Microsoft makes many patents. They don’t use them to defend Linux. Their business is not helped, but is quite threatened by Linux.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    For legal reasons, Microsoft also instructs its employees not to look at prior art when filing for patents.

    Jose_X Reply:

    Imagine that. No one looks at patents! I thought that was their whole point.. to bring trade secrets to the world?

    Of course, if a “trade secret” is good (like closed source), it’s kept as a trade secret by the beggars ordinarily looking for monopoly grant opportunities. If a “trade secret” is pathetic, on the other hand, like a very vague (or even specific) interface spec or product outline, then these are patented in order to tap into the monopoly hand-outs. The leeches get the best of both worlds. Society gets the worst of both worlds.

    So much for the theory that patents encourage valuable trade secrets to be opened up.

    OK, some people do look at patents because patent monopoly hand-outs are so valuable. My bad.

    Jose_X Reply:

    >> I worded my comment about proving something is safe… It’s about risk management.

    Let me use an analogy to help explain what I meant originally.

    In math, you can come up with a conjecture.

    You might hear of a proof for it. Instead, you might hear of a proof that shows it is false. Or you might hear of no proofs and simply have a suspicion one way or the other.

    What I was saying was that absent you being aware of a proof against your point, you might want to go ahead and try to prove you point and thus help move people over to your argument.

    Maybe coming up with a “proof”, one way or the other, ahead of an expensive court trial + appeals, is not something that is easy or cheap to do.

    Dan O'Brian Reply:

    It’s about risk management. A lot may not currently be proven, let’s suppose, but people surely know that some courses of action are riskier than others. Isn’t it amazing the mileage Microsoft has gotten out of their stupid FAT patents? They have smarter patents than that. They have huge investments in dotnet.


    1. that it’s public knowledge that Microsoft was licensing FAT at $0.25 per unit or $250,000 max

    2. there’s a lot more money to be made by enforcing licensing for FAT than for .NET

    3. suing over .NET would drive a lot of developers away

    I’m disinclined to agree. The goal is not to drive people away from Windows or their technologies, it’s to keep people there. If you go suing over .NET then they’ll scare off the .NET developers. One of the things they’ve even started doing lately is opening up their code under the MS-PL. They’ve just released their ASP.NET MVC under MS-PL, for example (which, btw, contains a clause like the GPLv3 meaning that they cannot sue you over those patents).

    On the other hand, any proof Roy and anyone else has, they don’t have to show you. Surely, to take an example, IBM doesn’t reveal all they know in a public forum out of court, especially when it comes to legal information.

    It’s in Roy’s best interest to reveal that information because it’s his goal to get people off of Mono. If he had that information, he’d be screaming it at the top of his lungs.

    Since he isn’t, he obviously has no proof.

    It’s your choice if you want to ignore risks. You might just get your proof, many times over, on the day where you will be fined up the nose by a court as a confirmation prize.

    Just like it could happen simply by using Linux. Yet that doesn’t stop me from using Linux, Mozilla or OpenOffice.

    (XPCOM and UNO are basically just a portable reimplementations of Microsoft’s COM – if you think Microsoft is going to sue over Mono, then you can bet they’d sue over XPCOM and/or UNO).

    Clearly we should all stop using these technologies. </sarcasm>

    Jose: My point is you can’t live your life in fear. Microsoft could have a patent on anything you write or use. So could any other company.

    A number of years ago, Kodak sued Sun over patents that Java infringed: http://news.cnet.com/Sun-settles-Kodaks-Java-suit-for-92-million/2100-1012_3-5401804.html

    Kodak. Who’d a thunk? We both obviously agree that the US patent system is seriously broken.

    You’ve taken the “omg I’m afraid of getting sued and so should you be!” approach, but only when it concerns Microsoft tech you don’t like. When you like or need a particular Microsoft tech, you say it’s “fine”. (E.g. SAMBA, UNO, XPCOM, AJAX, the HTML DOM, ODF (they’ve got patents on parts of ODF 1.1), SSLv3, TLS, DHCP, SASL, LDAP, IPsec, PPOE, IPv6-overIPv4, FTP, HTTP, PPTP, IPP, UPnP, USB, and many more).

    If you really believed what you say, then you’d be having us drop all of those protocols and technologies. We’d have to drop OpenOffice and Mozilla. We’d have to stop printing. We’d have to stop using the interwebs and pretty much any networking at all.

    If Microsoft decided it was worth suing to destroy “Linux”, then there are so many avenues that Mono is the least of our problems.

  6. Jose_X said,

    March 31, 2009 at 7:12 pm


    Roy, one of my comments from a few hours back got caught in that net of yours.

    The link is http://boycottnovell.com/2009/03/31/monodevelop-poison-factory/comment-page-1/#comment-61316

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Yes, link density puts it in the queue. Thanks for adding references that I ought to embed in each such post.

What Else is New

  1. Replacing Patent Sharks/Trolls and the Patent Mafia With 'Icons' Like Thomas Edison

    The popular perceptions of patents and the sobering reality of what patents (more so nowadays) mean to actual inventors who aren't associated with global behemoths such as IBM or Siemens

  2. The Patent Trolls' Lobby is Distorting the Record of CAFC on PTAB

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which deals with appeals from PTAB, has been issuing many decisions in favour of § 101, but those aren't being talked about or emphasised by the patent 'industry'

  3. Japan Demonstrates Sanity on SEP Policy While US Patent Policy is Influenced by Lobbyists

    Japan's commendable response to a classic pattern of patent misuse; US patent policy is still being subjected to never-ending intervention and there is now a lobbyist in charge of antitrust matters and a lawyer in charge of the US patent office (both Trump appointees)

  4. The Patent Microcosm's Embrace of Buzzwords and False Marketing Strives to Make Patent Examiners Redundant and Patent Quality Extremely Low

    Patent maximalists, who are profiting from abundance of low-quality patents (and frivolous lawsuits/legal threats these can entail), are riding the hype wave and participating in the rush to put patent systems at the hands of machines

  5. Today, at 12:30 CET, Bavarian State Parliament Will Speak About EPO Abuses (Updated)

    The politicians of Bavaria are prepared to wrestle with some serious questions about the illegality of the EPO's actions and what that may mean to constitutional aspects of German law

  6. Another Loud Warning From EPO Workers About the Decline of Patent Quality

    Yet more patent quality warnings are being issued by EPO insiders (examiners) who are seeing their senior colleagues vanishing and wonder what will be left of their employer

  7. Links 19/2/2018: Linux 4.16 RC2, Nintendo Switch Now Full-fledged GNU/Linux

    Links for the day

  8. PTAB Continues to Invalidate a Lot of Software Patents and to Stop Patent Examiners From Issuing Them

    Erasure of software patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) carries on unabated in spite of attempts to cause controversy and disdain towards PTAB

  9. The Patent 'Industry' Likes to Mention Berkheimer and Aatrix to Give the Mere Impression of Section 101/Alice Weakness

    Contrary to what patent maximalists keep saying about Berkheimer and Aatrix (two decisions of the Federal Circuit from earlier this month, both dealing with Alice-type challenges), neither actually changed anything in any substantial way

  10. Makan Delrahim is Wrong; Patents Are a Major Antitrust Problem, Sometimes Disguised Using Trolls Somewhere Like the Eastern District of Texas

    Debates and open disagreements over the stance of the lobbyist who is the current United States Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division

  11. Patent Trolls Watch: Microsoft-Connected Intellectual Ventures, Finjan, and Rumour of Technicolor-InterDigital Buyout

    Connections between various patent trolls and some patent troll statistics which have been circulated lately

  12. Software Patents Trickle in After § 101/Alice, But Courts Would Not Honour Them Anyway

    The dawn of § 101/Alice, which in principle eliminates almost every software patent, means that applicants find themselves having to utilise loopholes to fool examiners, but that's unlikely to impress judges (if they ever come to assessing these patents)

  13. In Aatrix v Green Shades the Court is Not Tolerating Software Patents But Merely Inquires/Wonders Whether the Patents at Hand Are Abstract

    Aatrix alleges patent infringement by Green Shades, but whether the patents at hand are abstract or not remains to be seen; this is not what patent maximalists claim it to be ("A Valentine for Software Patent Owners" or "valentine for patentee")

  14. An Indoctrinated Minority is Maintaining the Illusion That Patent Policy is to Blame for All or Most Problems of the United States

    The zealots who want to patent everything under the Sun and sue everyone under the Sun blame nations in the east (where the Sun rises) for all their misfortunes; this has reached somewhat ludicrous levels

  15. Berkheimer Decision is Still Being Spun by the Anti-Section 101/Alice Lobby

    12 days after Berkheimer v HP Inc. the patent maximalists continue to paint this decision as a game changer with regards to patent scope; the reality, however, is that this decision will soon be forgotten about and will have no substantial effect on either PTAB or Alice (because it's about neither of these)

  16. Academic Patent Immunity is Laughable and Academics Are Influenced by Corporate Money (for Steering Patent Agenda)

    Universities appear to have become battlegrounds in the war between practicing entities and a bunch of parasites who make a living out of litigation and patent bubbles

  17. UPC Optimism Languishes Even Among Paid UPC Propagandists Such as IAM

    Even voices which are attempting to give UPC momentum that it clearly lacks admit that things aren't looking well; the UK is not ratifying and Germany make take years to look into constitutional barriers

  18. Bejin Bieneman Props Up the Disgraced Randall Rader for Litigation Agenda

    Randall Rader keeps hanging out with the litigation 'industry' -- the very same 'industry' which he served in a closeted fashion when he was Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit (and vocal proponent of software patents, patent trolls and so on)

  19. With Stambler v Mastercard, Patent Maximalists Are Hoping to Prop Up Software Patents and Damage PTAB

    The patent 'industry' is hoping to persuade the highest US court to weaken the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), for PTAB is making patent lawsuits a lot harder and raises the threshold for patent eligibility

  20. Apple Discovers That Its Patent Disputes Are a Losing Battle Which Only Lawyers Win (Profit From)

    By pouring a lot of money and energy into the 'litigation card' Apple lost focus and it's also losing some key cases, as its patents are simply not strong enough

  21. The Patent Microcosm Takes Berkheimer v HP Out of Context to Pretend PTAB Disregards Fact-Finding Process

    In view or in light of a recent decision (excerpt above), patent maximalists who are afraid of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) try to paint it as inherently unjust and uncaring for facts

  22. Microsoft Has Left RPX, But RPX Now Pays a Microsoft Patent Troll, Intellectual Ventures

    The patent/litigation arms race keeps getting a little more complicated, as the 'arms' are being passed around to new and old entities that do nothing but shake-downs

  23. UPC Has Done Nothing for Europe Except Destruction of the EPO and Imminent Layoffs Due to Lack of Applications and Lowered Value of European Patents

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is merely a distant dream or a fantasy for litigators; to everyone else the UPC lobby has done nothing but damage, including potentially irreparable damage to the European Patent Office, which is declining very sharply

  24. Links 17/2/2018: Mesa 17.3.4, Wine 3.2, Go 1.10

    Links for the day

  25. Patent Trolls Are Thwarted by Judges, But Patent Lawyers View Them as a 'Business' Opportunity

    Patent lawyers are salivating over the idea that trolls may be coming to their state/s; owing to courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) other trolls' software patents get invalidated

  26. Microsoft's Patent Moves: Dominion Harbor, Intellectual Ventures, Intellectual Discovery, NEC and Uber

    A look at some of the latest moves and twists, as patents change hands and there are still signs of Microsoft's 'hidden hand'

  27. Links 15/2/2018: GNOME 3.28 Beta, Rust 1.24

    Links for the day

  28. Bavarian State Parliament Has Upcoming Debate About Issues Which Can Thwart UPC for Good

    An upcoming debate about Battistelli's attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal will open an old can of worms, which serves to show why UPC is a non-starter

  29. The EPO is Being Destroyed and There's Nothing Left to Replace It Except National Patent Offices

    It looks like Battistelli is setting up the European Patent Office (EPO) for mass layoffs; in fact, it looks as though he is so certain that the UPC will materialise that he obsesses over "validation" for mass litigation worldwide, departing from a "model office" that used to lead the world in terms of patent quality and workers' welfare/conditions

  30. IBM is Getting Desperate and Now Suing Microsoft Over Lost Staff, Not Just Suing Everyone Using Patents

    IBM's policy when it comes to patents, not to mention its alignment with patent extremists, gives room for thought if not deep concern; the company rapidly becomes more and more like a troll


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time


Recent Posts