There were many witnesses to what was going on in those days. Jim “Rusty” Lewis, Mike McGraw, Bill Kurtz, and William Westscott to name a few, plus the meetings and presentations we gave to MCI, Pacific Telesys, AT&T and NYEX. We convinced enough people that AT&T, MCI and Pacific Telesys cooperated to allow us to engage in a national video conference durig NAB Convention in 1993 and convince Cincinnati Bell to step out of the way.

I am frankly tired of watching how downplayed our role at McGraw Broadcast and Gemini Group has been when it comes to “converged communications”. This patent defined Convergence.

The patent is an established patented broadcast presentation system and method patent (number 5577042) that is being assigned to the companies listed below.

Abstract for current patent – A broadcast and presentation system for synthesis of diverse data transmission signals and multimedia application subsystems. The system includes a signal processing line for transmitting information signals in multiple formats, a plurality of application subsystems for receiving input information in a predetermined signal format, a switching matrix for receiving input signals from the signal processing line and outputting the signals to the application subsystems that are described in destination and identification information that is embedded in the signal. The system further includes converters if necessary for receiving signals in one format and outputting the signals in another format according to the identification information that is embedded in the signal. The switching matrix may be programmable and controlled by a processor. A method of transmitting information signals includes embedding an information signal with destination and identification information; routing the information signal to a selected destination in accordance with the embedded destination information; and directing the signal to an application subsystem for processing the information signal at the selected destination in accordance with the embedded signal identification information. A method of receiving information signals includes receiving an information signal that has identification information embedded in the signal and routing the information signal to a selected application subsystem that is specified in the embedded identification information.

Current U.S. Class: 370/257 ; 340/2.1; 370/232; 370/468; 379/243 Current International Class: H04L 12/28 (20060101) Current Public References which cited the patent with the patent Number and Title.

1 US7155734 Methods of operating a data broadcast service
2 US7069368 System of co-located computers in a framework including removable function modules for adding modular functionality
3 US7051111 Multiple source proxy management system
4 US7039116 Methods and apparatus for embedding and format conversion of compressed video data
5 US6944826 Method of operating a system of co-located computers and remote human interfaces
6 US6886055 Computer on a card with a remote human interface
7 US6791977 Reclocker circuit and router cell
8 US6788956 Terminal to execute a terminal application
9 US6654616 Wireless area network having flexible backhauls for creating backhaul network
10 US6487330 Optical switch, method of manufacturing same, and optical communication equipment using same
11 US6473858 Method and apparatus for broadcasting data with access control
12 US6370152 Distributed SNMP agent for frame relay switching network
13 US6370155 High density unit shelf network interface card and method
14 US6259672 Method and apparatus for providing delayed communications within a communication system
15 US6229576 Editing system with router for connection to HDTV circuitry
16 US6226038 HDTV editing and effects previsualization using SDTV devices
17 US6226371 Communication system with assembly carrier unit
18 US6160853 Modem concentrator
19 US6016520 Method of viewing at a client viewing station a multiple media title stored at a server and containing a plurality of topics utilizing anticipatory caching
20 US5999966 Control network-directed video conferencing switching system and method
21 US5841969 Single bus architecture supporting subsystems of various criticality levels
22 US5754787 System for electronically publishing objects with header specifying minimum and maximum required transport delivery rates and threshold being amount publisher is willing to pay
23 US5729684 Method and apparatus for heterogeneous multimedia conferencing using multipoint references

> “…This move is designed to drive a wedge between the
> EFF and Linus and stop Linus from ever switching to GPL3.”

Yes, that appears to make sense. This is not the first time pressure is applied using some deal. The Xandros deal had an element of this as well.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070525211117353

“1.9 “Other Excluded Products” means (a) office productivity applications (word processing, spreadsheets, presentation software, etc.) of the Parties that are hosted by or running on a computer acting as a server for a connected client device, and (b) new features and functions in the following categories of products of the Parties, but not to the extent the products embody operating system software or other enabling technologies: (i) video game consoles (e.g., Xbox video game consoles), console games, video game applications designed to run on a computer, and on-line video gaming services (e.g., Xbox live); (ii) business applications designed, marketed and used to meet the data processing requirements of particular business functions, such as accounting, payroll, human resources, project management, personnel performance management, sales management, financial forecasting, financial reporting, customer relationship management, and supply chain management; (iii) mail transfer agents (aka email servers); and (iv) unified communications.”

Remember, one of the main developers behind SAMBA which gives you Windows interoperability resigned from Novell after they made that awful deal in November.

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20050205010415933

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20061221081000710

From the mouth of the company who wants ‘interoperability”—–

“The Free Software movement is dead. Linux doesn’t exist in 2007.” Head of Microsoft’s Linux Labs, Manager Bill Hilf

http://www.bangkokpost.net/090507_Database/09May2007_data05.php

“Pay attention! This is Microsoft’s countermove (or springing the trap)
Authored by: gdeinsta on Thursday, June 07 2007 @ 11:12 AM EDT

Assuming Linux eventually converts to GPL3 this would bar LG from using Linux in their devices. LG is a major, major manufacturer. Linux is being used in more and more appliances, especially phones. There is even an agreement among most of the major phone makers to adopt Linux. That’s why Linux now includes improved real-time support, despite the initial opposition of Linus; it is too important an opportunity to ignore.

Hardware manufacturers aren’t like Linux distributors; the O/S is not a major part of their product. And there are huge capital investments required to become a hardware manufacturer, plus economies of scale, which means that hardware manufacturers don’t just come and go. Brands come and go, but the manufacturers behind them are the same, they just put on different nameplates.

This move is designed to drive a wedge between the EFF and Linus and stop Linus from ever switching to GPL3.”

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20070606120901152&title=Pay%20attention%21%20This%20is%20Microsoft%27s%20countermove%20%28or%20springing%20the%20trap%29&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=581186#c581261

(I think instead of the EFF, he actually meant the FSF)

There may be hope for ODF support in Office, but it won’t be coming from Novell or Microsoft.

Recently, Kevan Barney tried to push off the availability of a VHD file for Microsoft Virtual Server as a Fruit of the collaboration, but I suppose there wasn’t any meat to that assertion after all.

The technical interoperability aspect of these deals is a red herring, the objectionable portion of these deal is precedent they set that the tax being imposed on implementing interoperability is justifiable, the manner in which they willfully circumvent the expressed intent of the GPLv2, and the fact that they amount to enabling a monopolist derive revenue from their only competition in the form of royalties based on spurious and vague claims.

What are the direct consequences if MS continues to snap up vendors? I’m not talking the “religious” implications of such a scenario — I’m talking the day-to-day business of IT guys and managers in the trenches. I’m hearing “this is bad” from all over, and understand completely where that is coming from, but how does it hurt interoperability, which is one of the main concerns of IT managers today?

-jack

Note: I have modified the site’s tagline to “Exploring the reality behind exclusionary deals with Microsoft and their subtle (yet severe) implications”. Hopefully it aligns with our extended scope, which is rooted in the Novell deal.

Still trying to figure out what it is that Microsoft is licensing to these companies, a right to use what? Software in general?