[News] Behind Microsoft|Horacio Gutierrez's Attack on GNU/Linux and Why He Should be Sacked - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Behind Microsoft|Horacio Gutierrez's Attack on GNU/Linux and Why He Should be Sacked - Linux ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Microsoft Makes Mockery of Interoperability ,----[ Quote ] | Microsoft needs to get rid of its chief IP lawyer and its patent strategy if | it wants further efforts at interoperability to be taken ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: [News] Behind Microsoft|Horacio Gutierrez's Attack on GNU/Linux and Why He Should be Sacked

  1. [News] Behind Microsoft|Horacio Gutierrez's Attack on GNU/Linux and Why He Should be Sacked

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

    Microsoft Makes Mockery of Interoperability

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft needs to get rid of its chief IP lawyer and its patent strategy if
    | it wants further efforts at interoperability to be taken seriously by open
    | source vendors and users.
    |
    | In at least two interviews with IT publications this week, Horacio Gutierrez
    | reaffirmed that the company intends to try and force open source companies to
    | sign patent licensing deals or face lawsuits.
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | The intellectual property that is trying Gutierrez's patience is not any line
    | of copyrighted code, nor any trademark or trade secret. It's a bunch of
    | patents that Microsoft claims it owns. In the bizarro-world that is US patent
    | law, companies can get government-granted monopolies on procedures that are
    | taught to programmers at high school as if they were some sort of valuable
    | asset.
    `----

    http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/colu...A=SFT&O=google

    Microsoft is approaching critical bloggers again ('Microsoft doubters'):

    A Business Relationship Built At The End Of A Pointy Stick Isn't Much Of A
    Relationship

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Last week, Microsoft was kind enough to invite me to sit down, one-on-one
    | with Horacio Gutierrez, the company's VP and Deputy General Counsel in charge
    | of intellectual property and licensing.
    `----

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...38442601.shtml


    Related:

    A Patent Lie

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft sang a very different tune in 1991. In a memo to his
    | senior executives, Bill Gates wrote, "If people had understood how
    | patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented,
    | and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete
    | standstill today." Mr. Gates worried that "some large company will
    | patent some obvious thing" and use the patent to "take as much of
    | our profits as they want."
    `----

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/09/opinion/09lee.html


    Sun exec accuses Microsoft of 'patent terrorism'

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The efforts of Microsoft to pressure the Linux community over alleged and
    | unspecified patents is akin to "patent terrorism", according to a local
    | executive for Sun Microsystems.
    `----

    http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/softwar...9280437,00.htm


    Microsoft, the art of Corporate Terrorism.

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft, no longer the technological leader in the Computer Desktop
    | market, is taking on a terrorist role in its attempt remain in power
    | at all costs. (see the link to the CNN story below)
    |
    | The tactic is intended to frighten current, and would be, free
    | software users away from products that Microsoft just can't compete
    | with. It's not a new tactic, but for the first time desperation is
    | beginning to show.
    `----

    http://sweetcomputing.com/index.php?...soft_Terrorism


    Convicted Monopolist Terrorizes Software Industry

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | That headline is designed to grab your attention. Sensationalistic as
    | it may be, it also happens to be true, if what you mean by 'terrorize'
    | is to provoke fear.
    |
    | If you've been following the presidential race in the United States,
    | you know the present crop of candidates have been exploiting the fear
    | of the American people as they never have before in the history of
    | the country.
    `----

    http://www.linux.org/news/opinion/ms_threats.html


    Who is the world's biggest patent troll?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | In two consecutive days, The Wall Street Journal presented two different
    | answers. The first is not surprising: Intellectual Ventures, the brainchild
    | of ex-Microsoft executive Nathan Myhrvold. It's now out "to raise as much as
    | $1 billion to help develop and patent inventions, many of them from
    | universities in Asia."
    `----

    http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9...=2547-1_3-0-20


    Playing Microsoft Patent Poker

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | This time though, while Ballmer slinks away to try to con … convince people
    | that Microsoft Unified Communications somehow offers people more than what
    | Cisco's VOIP (voice over IP) been offering customers for years, a patent
    | attack finally launches at Linux. Specifically, IP Innovation, a subsidiary
    | of Acacia Technologies Group, has filed a patent infringement claim against
    | Linux distributors Novell and Red Hat.
    |
    | So was it just timing, or was it something more? Let's take a look at the
    | players.
    `----

    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759...129TX1K0000616
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkkCa/gACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5DmwCfe2HLiR/MWhBthZnAFjxgwZDx
    53wAnj00BFiJv1uNYdMh1nKnVv2iQvTD
    =cHMO
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  2. Re: [Erik is having panic attacks] Behind Microsoft|Horacio Gutierrez's Attack on GNU/Linux and Why He Should be Sacked

    On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 09:29:48 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > Now I'm "dishonest" for merely saying what other people argue.


    I didn't say "dishonest", Roy. I said "Intellectually dishonest". And
    this is another example of you being that.

    Look up the term if you honestly don't know it.

  3. Re: [Roy Schestowitz is Intellectually Dishonest] Behind Microsoft|Horacio Gutierrez's Attack on GNU/Linux and Why He Should be Sacked

    On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:47:11 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > Note the implication that Microsoft requires you to pay in order to have
    > a licensing discussion. Does he have any support for that remarkable
    > notion?


    Not quoted in his article, nor does he provide a reference to the supposed
    source of his quotes either, only that they appeared in some vague
    interviews performed by someone.

    >> "Microsoft publishes every patent that Microsoft gets issued"

    >
    > Even if they didn't, the Patent Office does.


    Precisely.

    >> Nobody wants to do that, though. You know why? Because if you search the
    >> database and find anything, then you're *willfully* infringing, and that
    >> carries treble damages if someone sues you. The open source crowd would

    >
    > Not necessarily. If you have a reasonable belief that you are not
    > infringing a valid patent, and that turns out to be wrong, the
    > infringement won't be willful. For example, if you believe that you
    > know of prior art that would invalidate the patent, then your belief
    > that you are not infringing a valid patent is probably sufficient to
    > save you from willfulness (especially if you get an attorney's opinion
    > that the prior art would invalidate the opinion).


    I don't think that line of reasoning would fly. Have you seen any
    precedent like that?

    The thing is, claiming that you didn't think the patent was valid is prima
    facie evidence that you did in fact willfully infringe. It's like those
    deranged tax dodgers who use all kinds of out of context and wrong evidence
    to prove why they don't have to pay taxes, the very argument proves you did
    so intentionally, regardless of how well your intentions were.

  4. Re: [Roy Schestowitz is Intellectually Dishonest] Behind Microsoft|Horacio Gutierrez's Attack on GNU/Linux and Why He Should be Sacked

    On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:43:18 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:47:11 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> Note the implication that Microsoft requires you to pay in order to have
    >> a licensing discussion. Does he have any support for that remarkable
    >> notion?

    >
    > Not quoted in his article, nor does he provide a reference to the supposed
    > source of his quotes either, only that they appeared in some vague
    > interviews performed by someone.
    >
    >>> "Microsoft publishes every patent that Microsoft gets issued"

    >>
    >> Even if they didn't, the Patent Office does.

    >
    > Precisely.
    >
    >>> Nobody wants to do that, though. You know why? Because if you search the
    >>> database and find anything, then you're *willfully* infringing, and that
    >>> carries treble damages if someone sues you. The open source crowd would

    >>
    >> Not necessarily. If you have a reasonable belief that you are not
    >> infringing a valid patent, and that turns out to be wrong, the
    >> infringement won't be willful. For example, if you believe that you
    >> know of prior art that would invalidate the patent, then your belief
    >> that you are not infringing a valid patent is probably sufficient to
    >> save you from willfulness (especially if you get an attorney's opinion
    >> that the prior art would invalidate the opinion).

    >
    > I don't think that line of reasoning would fly. Have you seen any
    > precedent like that?
    >
    > The thing is, claiming that you didn't think the patent was valid is prima
    > facie evidence that you did in fact willfully infringe. It's like those
    > deranged tax dodgers who use all kinds of out of context and wrong evidence
    > to prove why they don't have to pay taxes, the very argument proves you did
    > so intentionally, regardless of how well your intentions were.


    I also note that I didn't get even a half-serious attempt to discredit my
    argument.

  5. Re: [Roy Schestowitz is Intellectually Dishonest] Behind Microsoft|Horacio Gutierrez's Attack on GNU/Linux and Why He Should be Sacked

    On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:45:01 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:43:18 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:47:11 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> Note the implication that Microsoft requires you to pay in order to have
    >>> a licensing discussion. Does he have any support for that remarkable
    >>> notion?

    >>
    >> Not quoted in his article, nor does he provide a reference to the supposed
    >> source of his quotes either, only that they appeared in some vague
    >> interviews performed by someone.
    >>
    >>>> "Microsoft publishes every patent that Microsoft gets issued"
    >>>
    >>> Even if they didn't, the Patent Office does.

    >>
    >> Precisely.
    >>
    >>>> Nobody wants to do that, though. You know why? Because if you search the
    >>>> database and find anything, then you're *willfully* infringing, and that
    >>>> carries treble damages if someone sues you. The open source crowd would
    >>>
    >>> Not necessarily. If you have a reasonable belief that you are not
    >>> infringing a valid patent, and that turns out to be wrong, the
    >>> infringement won't be willful. For example, if you believe that you
    >>> know of prior art that would invalidate the patent, then your belief
    >>> that you are not infringing a valid patent is probably sufficient to
    >>> save you from willfulness (especially if you get an attorney's opinion
    >>> that the prior art would invalidate the opinion).

    >>
    >> I don't think that line of reasoning would fly. Have you seen any
    >> precedent like that?
    >>
    >> The thing is, claiming that you didn't think the patent was valid is prima
    >> facie evidence that you did in fact willfully infringe. It's like those
    >> deranged tax dodgers who use all kinds of out of context and wrong evidence
    >> to prove why they don't have to pay taxes, the very argument proves you did
    >> so intentionally, regardless of how well your intentions were.

    >
    > I also note that I didn't get even a half-serious attempt to discredit my
    > argument.


    That's because they can't so they move on and make like it never happened.

    --
    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

  6. Re: [Roy Schestowitz is Intellectually Dishonest] Behind Microsoft|Horacio Gutierrez's Attack on GNU/Linux and Why He Should be Sacked

    In article ,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > >> Nobody wants to do that, though. You know why? Because if you search the
    > >> database and find anything, then you're *willfully* infringing, and that
    > >> carries treble damages if someone sues you. The open source crowd would

    > >
    > > Not necessarily. If you have a reasonable belief that you are not
    > > infringing a valid patent, and that turns out to be wrong, the
    > > infringement won't be willful. For example, if you believe that you
    > > know of prior art that would invalidate the patent, then your belief
    > > that you are not infringing a valid patent is probably sufficient to
    > > save you from willfulness (especially if you get an attorney's opinion
    > > that the prior art would invalidate the opinion).

    >
    > I don't think that line of reasoning would fly. Have you seen any
    > precedent like that?


    "In re Seagate", decided in late 2007, overturned the old standard for
    willfulness, because it was too lax--more akin to recklessness than
    willfulness:

    Accordingly, we overrule the standard set out in Underwater Devices
    and hold that proof of willful infringement permitting enhanced
    damages requires at least a showing of objective recklessness.
    Because we abandon the affirmative duty of due care, we also
    reemphasize that there is no affirmative obligation to obtain
    opinion of counsel.

    They go on to say:

    Accordingly, to establish willful infringement, a patentee must show
    by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an
    objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted
    infringement of a valid patent.

    <http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal.../07opinions/M8
    30.pdf>

    > The thing is, claiming that you didn't think the patent was valid is prima
    > facie evidence that you did in fact willfully infringe. It's like those
    > deranged tax dodgers who use all kinds of out of context and wrong evidence
    > to prove why they don't have to pay taxes, the very argument proves you did
    > so intentionally, regardless of how well your intentions were.


    But they are being objectively reckless, because their belief flies in
    the face of pretty much every expert out there. If you are going to
    "infringe" a bogus software patent, where you *know* of prior art that
    was available and should have been disclosed to the patent office, and
    the general consensus of most experts is that the patent is bogus, I
    don't see how it can be objectively reckless to "infringe", and so how
    can it be willful?

    --
    --Tim Smith

  7. Re: [Roy Schestowitz is Intellectually Dishonest] Behind Microsoft|Horacio Gutierrez's Attack on GNU/Linux and Why He Should be Sacked (was: [Erik is having panic attacks] Behind Microsoft|Horacio Gutierrez's Attack on GNU/Linux and Why He Should be

    On 2008-10-26, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    > On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:55:45 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:


    >> So, why slam Roy in your subject rewrite? You admit he didn't write it.
    >>
    >> Yeah, I know. I snipped the part where you said he knows it's deceit,
    >> and that makes him an accomplice. But that's only your opinion.
    >>
    >> Unless you're willing to share your "proof".

    >
    > Roy likes to use weasel words to insinuate a position without actually
    > saying it, then when called on it claims he didn't say that was the case,
    > so he can pretend to justify not issuing a correction.


    Should I consider the assessment of "weaseling" to be an authoritative?

    But I /do/ note that you're stating more opinion rather than answering
    the question or addressing the issue directly.

    > Roy knows how slimy his tatctics are. At least you admit here to removing
    > the context


    Just as I thought. No proof, just more opinion.

    --
    Are you scared of speed? Then try Windows.

  8. [Erik's Knee Jerks Once More] Behind Microsoft|Horacio Gutierrez's Attack on GNU/Linux and Why He Should be Sacked

    On 2008-10-26, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    > On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:43:18 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:


    > I also note that I didn't get even a half-serious attempt to discredit my
    > argument.


    What argument? The "argument" that was a slam at Roy for quoting an
    article? I already went after the slam.

    Or did you mean the content of the quoted article? Who here should be
    in a position to take that up? Who is responsible to meet you head-on?
    I didn't write. I didn't even read more than what was quoted. I might
    not have read /that/ much if you hadn't felt your knee jerking again.


    --
    Dogs crawl under fences. Software crawls under Windows.

  9. Re: [Roy Schestowitz is Intellectually Dishonest] Behind Microsoft|Horacio Gutierrez's Attack on GNU/Linux and Why He Should be Sacked

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Sinister Midget belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On 2008-10-26, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:


    >> Roy likes to use weasel words to insinuate a position without actually
    >> saying it, then when called on it claims he didn't say that was the case,
    >> so he can pretend to justify not issuing a correction.

    >
    > Should I consider the assessment of "weaseling" to be an authoritative?


    Heh heh

    My own take is that, in a hurry to post, pretty much everyone here
    misses some key fact or makes some misstatement.

    In a normal place, follow-on conversation would correct it in a civil
    manner.

    --
    Why did the Roman Empire collapse? What is the Latin for office automation?

  10. Re: [Roy Schestowitz is Intellectually Dishonest] Behind Microsoft|Horacio Gutierrez's Attack on GNU/Linux and Why He Should be Sacked

    On 2008-10-26, Chris Ahlstrom claimed:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Sinister Midget belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-26, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:

    >
    >>> Roy likes to use weasel words to insinuate a position without actually
    >>> saying it, then when called on it claims he didn't say that was the case,
    >>> so he can pretend to justify not issuing a correction.

    >>
    >> Should I consider the assessment of "weaseling" to be an authoritative?

    >
    > Heh heh
    >
    > My own take is that, in a hurry to post, pretty much everyone here
    > misses some key fact or makes some misstatement.
    >
    > In a normal place, follow-on conversation would correct it in a civil
    > manner.


    My problem is the deliberate part. He accuses Roy of something, but he
    works to pick apart what the person was claiming that Roy quoted. He
    offers no proof that Roy knows differently, or should know differently,
    nevermind whether his argument about the other guy's words is all that
    convincing (I haven't bothered to assess it since that's not what I was
    after).

    Later, a post which I also responded to, he goes on to whine that
    nobody took him up on diverting the thread away from his knee-jerk, and
    into the accuracy of the claims made by the article Roy quoted. But my
    problem with it remains that he went after Roy as a liar, when he
    hasn't offered a mote of proof that his claim is accurate.

    Erik won't hesitate to go after similar claims wrt Microsoft, even when
    there is at least circumstantial proof and/or a trail of evidence. Why
    not challenge him on the same behavior when his claims have less
    substance behind them?

    --
    A Windows utility is a virus with seniority.

  11. Re: [Erik is having panic attacks] Behind Microsoft|Horacio Gutierrez's Attack on GNU/Linux and Why He Should be Sacked

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >I didn't say "dishonest", Roy. I said "Intellectually dishonest".


    Idiot.


  12. Re: [Roy Schestowitz is Intellectually Dishonest] Behind Microsoft|Horacio Gutierrez's Attack on GNU/Linux and Why He Should be Sacked

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Firey Bird belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:35:49 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Roy likes to use weasel words to insinuate a position without actually
    >>> saying it, then when called on it claims he didn't say that was the case,
    >>> so he can pretend to justify not issuing a correction.
    >>>
    >>> Roy knows how slimy his tatctics are. At least you admit here to
    >>> removing the context

    >>
    >> He has also gotten smarter by using words like "allegedly, possibly, might
    >> be, could be, etc" to minimize the possibility of being sued for his
    >> statements.
    >>
    >> The bottom line is that he is basically a dishonest slimeball on a paid
    >> mission.
    >>

    > Newspapers routinely use words like "allegedly, possibly, might be, could
    > be, etc". Do you dismiss newspapers as dishonest slimeballs?


    Yes!

    --
    Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.

+ Reply to Thread