05.15.07
Posted in Intellectual Monopoly, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 7:33 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Microsoft would have us believe that an operating system such as Novell’s SUSE is in fact its own territory. It would have us believe that it invented the GUI, the word processor, the spreadsheet, and the double click (yes, there is a patent on that as well). Have a look at the following musing from a mystified BTL columnist.
What exactly are these patents about? I can look at Ubuntu and say “hey this is Windows-ish.” Is that a patent problem?
Consider the following statement, which teaches us how pointless and ineffective software patents have become.
“I remain convinced that the software patent system is fundamentally broken,” O’Grady said.
Broken or not, “After the KSR decision, software patents are especially vulnerable now,” Jenkins noted.
O’Grady doesn’t believe that Microsoft will sue its own customers, despite the fact that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer left that option open. “I don’t believe, at this point, that users should be concerned,” he said.
This validates our contention that here we have a dog barking, but it will never bite. Ignore the attempts to create fear and stick to practical considerations and logic. Software patents may be there on paper, but they may have become a waste of time and money. The courts reject them. They have recently been tested in court and no-one other than Microsoft defeated them. Is that a shot in the foot? Clearly. Just consider the fact that Microsoft was possibly spearheading the initiative to make software patentable in the first place.
MS are key sponsors of “Voices For Innovation” aimed at MS customers and designed to put a positive spin on software patents and enlist people to lobby on their behalf.
Additionally, have a look at this so-called “innovation panel”.
He [Schramm] will be part of a lineup that includes the Microsoft Corp. CEO Steve Ballmer, 3M CEO George Buckley, UPS Chairman and CEO Michael Eskew, IBM CEO Samuel Palmisano and Wal-Mart Stores Vice Chairman John Menzer.
Where are the small companies? Of course, the giant conveniently exclude them. Have a look at the following very disturbing article.
A report published by an EU task force on intellectual property claims that small businesses benefit from a patent system, despite lacking almost any participation by the small business community.
Instead, the report, titled IPR (intellectual property rights) for competitiveness and innovation, was written up almost entirely by large corporations and the patent industry.
[...]
The report does note objections from the likes of patentfrei.de and Sun Microsystems, which were recorded at some length in the report. But this does not appear to have impacted the conclusion of the report in any way
[...]
Jean-Pierre Laisne, of ObjectWeb, an open source software community, said that he found the report useless: participants were told that all their contributions would be recorded but at the end only those of Business Software Alliance and Microsoft were used.
It has become clear that software patents are nothing but an attempt to stifle a free market. It’s anti capitalist, it is predatory, and it is unacceptable.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, FUD, Microsoft at 7:11 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It is rather pleasing to see that not only Free software advocates but users and companies as well do not care for Microsoft’s latest wave of FUD.
Microsoft’s threat to seek patent royalties from open source software users and vendors is so far provoking more scorn than fear.
Rather than scare companies away from using or distributing open source, the general consensus is that the company’s threats of litigation — outlined in statements Microsoft executives including CEO Steve Ballmer made to Fortune magazine this week — prove it’s the software giant who is afraid of the competitive threat Linux and open-source software pose to its business long term.
We must remind ourselves that this game revolves around fear, not actual danger or threat.
What will Microsoft do about these perceived offenses? Will they go after companies such as Red Hat Inc.? Open source users themselves? Or, as other speculate, is Ballmer bluffing, offering vague threats in lieu of actual evidence, or as a way to spook other open source companies into signing a similar agreement inked by Novell?
Companies must not fear. This is a fear-driven campaign intended to pressure companies to enter relationships they neither desire nor require.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Boycott Novell, Deception, Microsoft at 7:00 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Those who call us fanatic supporters should take a glimpse at the stance taken by a respectable CEO of an Open Source Company.
I decided that I am going to hold an unofficial/offical boycott of Microsoft and it’s [sic] bogus olive branch to open source at both OSBC and on the blog here. I encourage anyone attending or speaking at the event to cancel and I strongly suggest OSBC return the sponsorship funds from both Microsoft and Novell…
Dave, why has it taken you so long to realise that Microsoft and its allies are merely Trojan horse in open source events? Here is one clue and here is another.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Humour, Intellectual Monopoly, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 11:09 am by Shane Coyle
Now, I have already stated that I don’t believe that software, in and of itself, is patentable. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently remarked, "There needs to be a device", and Microsoft’s own attorneys agreed.
MR. OLSON [For Microsoft]: The ’580 patent is a program, as I understand it, that’s married to a computer, has to be married to a computer in order to be patented.
JUSTICE SCALIA: You can’t patent, you know, on-off, on-off code in the abstract, can you?
MR. OLSON: That’s correct, Justice Scalia.
JUSTICE SCALIA: There needs to be a device.
MR. OLSON: An idea or a principle, two plus two equals four can’t be patented. It has to be put together with a machine and made into a usable device.
Much of the AT&T case hinged upon whether software can considered to be a "component" of a patented invention, as was argued against by Microsoft’s attorney:
MR. OLSON: Physical things must be components under 271(f) because they must be supplied from somewhere. Ideas have no physical from. They’re in the air. The words used, “supplied from” tells us that it must be a physical thing combined with. Ideas don’t combine with physical things to make a patented invention. Physical things do.
Apparently, Justice Alito went even further with his concurring opinion [pdf].
I agree with the Court that a component of a machine, whether a shrimp deveiner or a personal computer, must be something physical. Ante, at 9 11. This is because the word "component," when concerning a physical device, is most naturally read to mean a physical part of the device.
…
Furthermore, §271(f) requires that the component be "combined" with other components to form the infringing device, meaning that the component must remain a part of any.
…
For these reasons, I agree with the Court that a set of instructions on how to build an infringing device, or even a template of the device, does not qualify as a component. Ante, at 9 10.
…
Because no physical object originating in the United States was combined with these computers, there was no violation of §271(f). Accordingly, it is irrelevant that the Windows software was not copied onto the foreign-made computers directly from the master disk or from an electronic
transmission that originated in the United States. To be sure, if these computers could not run Windows without inserting and keeping a CD-ROM in the appropriate drive, then the CD-ROMs might be components of the computer. But that is not the case here.
* * *
Because the physical incarnation of code on the Windows CD-ROM supplied from the United States is not a "component" of an infringing device under §271(f), it logically follows that a copy of such a CD-ROM also is not a component. For this reason, I join the Court’s opinion, except for footnote 14.
My favorite part is this "To be sure, if these computers could not run Windows without inserting and keeping a CD-ROM in the appropriate drive, then the CD-ROMs might be components of the computer.".
I actually have to run down to the USPTO right now, since it appears that Live CDs may be patentable… there isn’t any prior art, is there?
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in FUD, Microsoft, Office Suites, OpenOffice, Oracle, Patents, Red Hat at 9:14 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The OpenOffice.org team takes no time to wait and watch, whether it can afford it or not. It retaliates immediately and calls Microsoft’s bluff.
OpenOffice.org today called Microsoft Corp.’s assertion that its open-source application suite violates 45 of its patents “a desperate act.”
A couple of days ago we provided further proof that Microsoft’s own weaknesses led it these acts, which are a last resort — however dead-end they may be.
There is also a theory that this is nothing more than a diversionary tactic. It is intended distract attention from many internal problems such as the recent Longhorn (just renamed “Server 2008″) ‘feature castrataion’, which is rather major, not to mention the poor sales of Windows Vista and Office 2007. Citations were all provided in the link above and they very well support this theory. You may also wish to explore this new article from ComputerWorld.
Red Hat is very calm and, as indicated yesterday, its stock is virtually affected by the recent news. Just in case, Red Hat has posted the following Web page.
The reality is that the community development approach of free and open source code represents a healthy development paradigm, which, when viewed from the perspective of pending lawsuits related to intellectual property, is at least as safe as proprietary software. We are also aware of no patent lawsuit against Linux. Ever. Anywhere.
In addition, the Open Invention Network provides a patent safe harbor for the Linux environment. OIN, of which Red Hat was a founding member, also has an independent patent portfolio to help protect and maintain the pro-competitive effect of this open environment.
Red Hat took a similar approach with its “Unfakeable” campaign when Oracle first struck. Many months later, Red Hat is in a healthy state. Need anyone worry? Certainly not, but one should still respond and react by squashing the fear, the uncertainty, and the doubt. Let us help people realise that there is no real threat, just a perceived one.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in FUD, Microsoft, Patents at 7:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
A day after we had mentioned some possible patent reforms, the following nugget of information showed up in Slashdot:
USPTO Examiner Rejected 1-Click Claims As ‘Obvious’
Faced with a duly unimpressed USPTO examiner who rejected its new 1-Click patent claims as ‘obvious’ and ‘old and well known,’ Amazon has taken the unusual step of requesting an Oral Appeal to plead its case…
With patents being invalidated, it is becoming increasingly clear why Microsoft refuses to be specific about patents, which it only lists in terms of aggregated numbers.
The fact of the matter is, no matter how serious these patent violations are, any patent clearly-worded and not vague in purpose is addressable. It may take some time, effort, and tons of money to make it work; but chances are, it’s doable. So long as Microsoft hasn’t patented the right-mouse context menus, the concept of a desktop, or the word “Office,” the open source can – if the need arises – clear all these issues up and move on ahead.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, OpenOffice, Patents, Samba, Servers at 7:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The nasty things which Jeremy Allison once talked about turn out to be a reality. Behind the scenes, Microsoft is pulling money out of companies that are using GNU/Linux. They do this secretly.
Microsoft currently collects royalties from some companies that use Linux in their computing environments, Gutierrez said. However, he declined to indicate the number, the dollar amount Microsoft receives from those payments, or identify any of the companies by name.
Might this be a form of extortion? ‘Protection money’ that is not even backed by any court decision, but only by threats and saber rattling? Someone ought to discover which companies do this, approach them, and request that they stop these unnecessary payments that become damaging precedence. Without any reasoning, Microsoft makes Linux expensive for companies to acquire and use. Microsoft is making money out of Linux and Free software, which suddenly it believes ought to fill its cash registers.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deals, Free/Libre Software, FUD, Fuji Xerox, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Novell, Patent Covenant, Patents, SCO at 6:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Just to confirm what we have preciated all along, here is a new article from BusinessWeek:
Nevertheless, Microsoft has pursued deals that incorporate similar legal principles. Among these are licensing deals Microsoft struck on Mar. 22 with Fuji Xerox, a joint venture between Fujifilm Holdings (FUJI) and Xerox (XRX); and on Apr. 18 with Samsung. Gutierrez says the arrangements resemble aspects of the Novell agreement. Those companies received licenses from Microsoft for technologies used in Linux and other open-source software contained in products they sell.
Novell cannot argue that its deal was benign. It can no longer pretend that its white flag has had no impact on Microsoft’s future actions, which GPLv3 will put a stop to. Notice this Al Capone-like reference as well:
When it comes to compensating Microsoft for its intellectual property, discussion is less painful than litigation, according to Horatio Gutierrez, Microsoft’s vice-president of intellectual property and licensing. “The alternatives to licensing are alternatives that aren’t very attractive for anyone,” he says.
In a different context, this would be equated to corporal threat. Is Microsoft truly willing to annoy some of its own customers, who use Linux at some level of capacity? As aggressive as Microsoft has become, the world seems somewhat apathetic. FUD will be FUD. Nothing more. We have learned our lesson from SCO.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA