More Patent Threats from Microsoft - Linux

This is a discussion on More Patent Threats from Microsoft - Linux ; "If every effort to license proves not to be fruitful, ultimately we have a responsibility to customers that have licenses and to our shareholders to ensure our intellectual property is respected," he said. [Gutierrez, Microsoft's "top intellectual property lawyer"] Microsoft ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: More Patent Threats from Microsoft

  1. More Patent Threats from Microsoft


    "If every effort to license proves not to be fruitful, ultimately we
    have a responsibility to customers that have licenses and to our
    shareholders to ensure our intellectual property is respected," he
    said. [Gutierrez, Microsoft's "top intellectual property lawyer"]

    Microsoft has, on a number of occasions, asserted that Linux violates
    a ton of Microsoft patents, but Microsoft has never sued a company
    over those claims. [Nor have they ever stated what even one of these
    patents is.]

    Gutierrez said he would like to keep that record intact, noting that
    the Novell deal, in particular, is an example of how working with a
    rival can ultimately benefit both companies. [Yes, Microsoft has a
    great record with "partners", like stabbing them in the back, or is
    it, "cutting off their air hose"?.]


    http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10068367-75.html
    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...81018165715723

  2. Re: More Patent Threats from Microsoft

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu on Saturday 18 October 2008 22:57 : \____

    >
    > "If every effort to license proves not to be fruitful, ultimately we
    > have a responsibility to customers that have licenses and to our
    > shareholders to ensure our intellectual property is respected," he
    > said. [Gutierrez, Microsoft's "top intellectual property lawyer"]
    >
    > Microsoft has, on a number of occasions, asserted that Linux violates
    > a ton of Microsoft patents, but Microsoft has never sued a company
    > over those claims. [Nor have they ever stated what even one of these
    > patents is.]
    >
    > Gutierrez said he would like to keep that record intact, noting that
    > the Novell deal, in particular, is an example of how working with a
    > rival can ultimately benefit both companies. [Yes, Microsoft has a
    > great record with "partners", like stabbing them in the back, or is
    > it, "cutting off their air hose"?.]
    >

    >
    > http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10068367-75.html
    > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...81018165715723


    Microsoft should be "hit with Red Hat of Death lawsuit."

    It's still libeling rivals with laws that it's inventing and lobbying (bribing)
    for, conjoined with bogus and unbacked allegations.

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Florida is bigger than England
    http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.86 0.91 0.95 5/242 6634
    http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkj6e04ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5nfQCdEgwOlASIga hXjdj7luDvWsmt
    SQ8AoIPaPYOoel4C6RDVShrPVfLr4Hzh
    =Zd8n
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  3. Re: More Patent Threats from Microsoft

    On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 00:11:58 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:


    > Microsoft should be "hit with Red Hat of Death lawsuit."


    They should be forced to make good on defective products.
    I doubt you will find much opposition to that.

    > It's still libeling rivals with laws that it's inventing and lobbying (bribing)
    > for, conjoined with bogus and unbacked allegations.


    Gee Roy Schestowitz, that's a perfect description of you and your BN
    operation, amongst your other ventures of course.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  4. Re: More Patent Threats from Microsoft

    In article
    ,
    "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" wrote:

    >
    > Microsoft has, on a number of occasions, asserted that Linux violates
    > a ton of Microsoft patents, but Microsoft has never sued a company
    > over those claims. [Nor have they ever stated what even one of these
    > patents is.]
    >


    The FSF has also stated that Linux violates a ton of Microsoft patents.

    Indeed, that used to be one of the major arguments against software
    patents--that any significant open source project would, completely
    accidently, violate a ton of patents, because the patent office is
    letting patents go through that are not sufficiently non-obvious.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  5. Re: More Patent Threats from Microsoft

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article
    > ,
    > "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Microsoft has, on a number of occasions, asserted that Linux violates
    >> a ton of Microsoft patents, but Microsoft has never sued a company
    >> over those claims. [Nor have they ever stated what even one of these
    >> patents is.]
    >>

    >
    > The FSF has also stated that Linux violates a ton of Microsoft patents.
    >
    > Indeed, that used to be one of the major arguments against software
    > patents--that any significant open source project would, completely
    > accidently, violate a ton of patents, because the patent office is
    > letting patents go through that are not sufficiently non-obvious.
    >


    Can you provide a link?

    --
    The years have been very kind to me.

    It's the weekends that have done all the damage!

  6. Re: More Patent Threats from Microsoft

    nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:

    >
    > "If every effort to license proves not to be fruitful, ultimately we
    > have a responsibility to customers that have licenses and to our
    > shareholders to ensure our intellectual property is respected," he
    > said. [Gutierrez, Microsoft's "top intellectual property lawyer"]



    So what they are saying is that they are not taking their responsibility
    to shareholders seriously now by not sueing?

    They should be sacked by shareholders for saying that and replaced
    with WINDUMMIES prepared to sue and take their shareholder
    responsibilities seriously and sue immediately!!!!

    Any judge seeing these kinds of comments should not allow
    any royalty payments to be processed retrospectively
    because clearly the shareholders haven't appointed parties
    that are interested in preserving shareholder value.



    > Microsoft has, on a number of occasions, asserted that Linux violates
    > a ton of Microsoft patents, but Microsoft has never sued a company
    > over those claims. [Nor have they ever stated what even one of these
    > patents is.]
    >
    > Gutierrez said he would like to keep that record intact, noting that
    > the Novell deal, in particular, is an example of how working with a
    > rival can ultimately benefit both companies. [Yes, Microsoft has a
    > great record with "partners", like stabbing them in the back, or is
    > it, "cutting off their air hose"?.]
    >
    >
    > http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10068367-75.html
    > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...81018165715723



  7. Re: More Patent Threats from Microsoft

    On Oct 19, 3:46 am, SomeBloke wrote:
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    > > In article
    > > ,
    > > "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu" wrote:

    >
    > >>
    > >> Microsoft has, on a number of occasions, asserted that Linux violates
    > >> a ton of Microsoft patents, but Microsoft has never sued a company
    > >> over those claims. [Nor have they ever stated what even one of these
    > >> patents is.]
    > >>

    >
    > > The FSF has also stated that Linux violates a ton of Microsoft patents.

    >
    > > Indeed, that used to be one of the major arguments against software
    > > patents--that any significant open source project would, completely
    > > accidently, violate a ton of patents, because the patent office is
    > > letting patents go through that are not sufficiently non-obvious.

    >
    > Can you provide a link?
    >
    > --
    > The years have been very kind to me.
    >
    > It's the weekends that have done all the damage!


    Tim is right, there was some statement from FSF to this effect---I
    don't have the reference---but the point was that you couldn't do
    anything without "violating" patents. Not just FOSS, of course, it
    applies to anyone writing software. However, it's also true that
    Microsoft has never revealed which patents it is referring to in its
    threats to sue Linux users.

  8. Re: More Patent Threats from Microsoft

    In article
    ,
    "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" wrote:
    > > > The FSF has also stated that Linux violates a ton of Microsoft patents.

    > >
    > > > Indeed, that used to be one of the major arguments against software
    > > > patents--that any significant open source project would, completely
    > > > accidently, violate a ton of patents, because the patent office is
    > > > letting patents go through that are not sufficiently non-obvious.

    > >
    > > Can you provide a link?




    The author of this study is legal director of the Software Freedom Law
    Center. RMS mentioned this in one of his talks on software patents:



    (Although I misspoke slightly--the FSF has not said that Linux *does*
    infringe patents. The study cited above finds 283 issued patents (27
    owned by Microsoft) that on the face of it cover parts of Linux. None
    of these patents have withstood a challenge in court, so they might not
    actually be found valid if challenged, and even if they are found valid,
    it is possible that Linux might be found to not infringe).

    ....
    > Tim is right, there was some statement from FSF to this effect---I
    > don't have the reference---but the point was that you couldn't do
    > anything without "violating" patents. Not just FOSS, of course, it
    > applies to anyone writing software. However, it's also true that
    > Microsoft has never revealed which patents it is referring to in its
    > threats to sue Linux users.


    Yeah, it's not just FOSS. Commercial, proprietary software companies
    are not left out--they get letters from patent owners (or, rather, from
    the law firms representing those owners) much more often than they would
    like, listing specific patents that are allegedly violated.

    When I see some company make noise in the press about some patents of
    theirs that they think broadly cover some area I'm working in, I'm kind
    of relieved, figuring that if they really had something worth making
    real trouble over, they'd be doing so. I figure making noise in the
    press is just for show--make the investors happy, maybe scare their
    competitor's investors a bit.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  9. Re: More Patent Threats from Microsoft

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article
    > ,
    > "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" wrote:
    >> > > The FSF has also stated that Linux violates a ton of Microsoft
    >> > > patents.
    >> >
    >> > > Indeed, that used to be one of the major arguments against software
    >> > > patents--that any significant open source project would, completely
    >> > > accidently, violate a ton of patents, because the patent office is
    >> > > letting patents go through that are not sufficiently non-obvious.
    >> >
    >> > Can you provide a link?

    >
    >
    >
    > The author of this study is legal director of the Software Freedom Law
    > Center. RMS mentioned this in one of his talks on software patents:
    >
    >
    >
    > (Although I misspoke slightly--the FSF has not said that Linux *does*
    > infringe patents. The study cited above finds 283 issued patents (27
    > owned by Microsoft) that on the face of it cover parts of Linux. None
    > of these patents have withstood a challenge in court, so they might not
    > actually be found valid if challenged, and even if they are found valid,
    > it is possible that Linux might be found to not infringe).
    >
    > ...
    >> Tim is right, there was some statement from FSF to this effect---I
    >> don't have the reference---but the point was that you couldn't do
    >> anything without "violating" patents. Not just FOSS, of course, it
    >> applies to anyone writing software. However, it's also true that
    >> Microsoft has never revealed which patents it is referring to in its
    >> threats to sue Linux users.

    >
    > Yeah, it's not just FOSS. Commercial, proprietary software companies
    > are not left out--they get letters from patent owners (or, rather, from
    > the law firms representing those owners) much more often than they would
    > like, listing specific patents that are allegedly violated.
    >
    > When I see some company make noise in the press about some patents of
    > theirs that they think broadly cover some area I'm working in, I'm kind
    > of relieved, figuring that if they really had something worth making
    > real trouble over, they'd be doing so. I figure making noise in the
    > press is just for show--make the investors happy, maybe scare their
    > competitor's investors a bit.
    >


    Thank you for that clarification. I still support the concept of no software
    patents at all. The UK government APPEAR to stand by their opposition to
    them as well. It's about the only policy of theirs I do agree with!

    --
    The years have been very kind to me.

    It's the weekends that have done all the damage!

  10. Re: More Patent Threats from Microsoft

    SomeBloke espoused:
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> In article
    >> ,
    >> "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" wrote:
    >>> > > The FSF has also stated that Linux violates a ton of Microsoft
    >>> > > patents.
    >>> >
    >>> > > Indeed, that used to be one of the major arguments against software
    >>> > > patents--that any significant open source project would, completely
    >>> > > accidently, violate a ton of patents, because the patent office is
    >>> > > letting patents go through that are not sufficiently non-obvious.
    >>> >
    >>> > Can you provide a link?

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> The author of this study is legal director of the Software Freedom Law
    >> Center. RMS mentioned this in one of his talks on software patents:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> (Although I misspoke slightly--the FSF has not said that Linux *does*
    >> infringe patents. The study cited above finds 283 issued patents (27
    >> owned by Microsoft) that on the face of it cover parts of Linux. None
    >> of these patents have withstood a challenge in court, so they might not
    >> actually be found valid if challenged, and even if they are found valid,
    >> it is possible that Linux might be found to not infringe).
    >>
    >> ...
    >>> Tim is right, there was some statement from FSF to this effect---I
    >>> don't have the reference---but the point was that you couldn't do
    >>> anything without "violating" patents. Not just FOSS, of course, it
    >>> applies to anyone writing software. However, it's also true that
    >>> Microsoft has never revealed which patents it is referring to in its
    >>> threats to sue Linux users.

    >>
    >> Yeah, it's not just FOSS. Commercial, proprietary software companies
    >> are not left out--they get letters from patent owners (or, rather, from
    >> the law firms representing those owners) much more often than they would
    >> like, listing specific patents that are allegedly violated.
    >>
    >> When I see some company make noise in the press about some patents of
    >> theirs that they think broadly cover some area I'm working in, I'm kind
    >> of relieved, figuring that if they really had something worth making
    >> real trouble over, they'd be doing so. I figure making noise in the
    >> press is just for show--make the investors happy, maybe scare their
    >> competitor's investors a bit.
    >>

    >
    > Thank you for that clarification. I still support the concept of no software
    > patents at all. The UK government APPEAR to stand by their opposition to
    > them as well. It's about the only policy of theirs I do agree with!
    >


    There was a really bizarre judgement recently here, though, in which
    Nokia tried to claim that software should be patentable. I forget the
    details, but they seemed to have some success, because Judges do not
    grasp the philosophy of mathematics.

    --
    | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |


  11. Re: More Patent Threats from Microsoft

    On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:52:23 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

    > SomeBloke espoused:
    >> Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article
    >>> ,
    >>> "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" wrote:
    >>>> > > The FSF has also stated that Linux violates a ton of Microsoft
    >>>> > > patents.
    >>>> >
    >>>> > > Indeed, that used to be one of the major arguments against
    >>>> > > software patents--that any significant open source project would,
    >>>> > > completely accidently, violate a ton of patents, because the
    >>>> > > patent office is letting patents go through that are not
    >>>> > > sufficiently non-obvious.
    >>>> >
    >>>> > Can you provide a link?
    >>>
    >>> <http://www.osriskmanagement.com/press_releases/

    press_release_080204.pdf>
    >>>
    >>> The author of this study is legal director of the Software Freedom Law
    >>> Center. RMS mentioned this in one of his talks on software patents:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> (Although I misspoke slightly--the FSF has not said that Linux *does*
    >>> infringe patents. The study cited above finds 283 issued patents (27
    >>> owned by Microsoft) that on the face of it cover parts of Linux. None
    >>> of these patents have withstood a challenge in court, so they might
    >>> not actually be found valid if challenged, and even if they are found
    >>> valid, it is possible that Linux might be found to not infringe).
    >>>
    >>> ...
    >>>> Tim is right, there was some statement from FSF to this effect---I
    >>>> don't have the reference---but the point was that you couldn't do
    >>>> anything without "violating" patents. Not just FOSS, of course, it
    >>>> applies to anyone writing software. However, it's also true that
    >>>> Microsoft has never revealed which patents it is referring to in its
    >>>> threats to sue Linux users.
    >>>
    >>> Yeah, it's not just FOSS. Commercial, proprietary software companies
    >>> are not left out--they get letters from patent owners (or, rather,
    >>> from the law firms representing those owners) much more often than
    >>> they would like, listing specific patents that are allegedly violated.
    >>>
    >>> When I see some company make noise in the press about some patents of
    >>> theirs that they think broadly cover some area I'm working in, I'm
    >>> kind of relieved, figuring that if they really had something worth
    >>> making real trouble over, they'd be doing so. I figure making noise
    >>> in the press is just for show--make the investors happy, maybe scare
    >>> their competitor's investors a bit.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Thank you for that clarification. I still support the concept of no
    >> software patents at all. The UK government APPEAR to stand by their
    >> opposition to them as well. It's about the only policy of theirs I do
    >> agree with!
    >>
    >>

    > There was a really bizarre judgement recently here, though, in which
    > Nokia tried to claim that software should be patentable. I forget the
    > details, but they seemed to have some success, because Judges do not
    > grasp the philosophy of mathematics.


    I'm not sure that Judges grasp the philosophy of reality. In my
    (admittedly slim) experience of Judges the finer points of legal
    procedures are their meat and drink. Real life situations seem to pass
    them by. ('Who is Gazza?' anyone!)

    --
    I'm always kind, polite and reasonable...

    except when I'm not.

+ Reply to Thread