Mandriva Won't Pay Microsoft 'Protection Money'
-
That company works mainly in Europe and Africa, where those silly USA patents do not work. Best regards, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
Paul Selormey wrote:
where those silly USA patents do not work.
Microsoft does have EU patents also. For example, Hardware Fingerprinting which is Tolerant to Change (i.e., WPA):
While fingerprinting an installation does not appear to be patented, a tolerant fingerprint is. In the United States, the patent is 6,243,468, "Software Anti-piracy System that Adapts to Hardware Upgrades". In Europe, the patent is EP1452940.[1]
I'd bet there are many more examples. On the other side of the patent issue, Microsoft has 59 outsatnding IP suits in litigation [2]. As far as OpenSoftware, it is not above the law. Regardless of how much the developers choose to ignore it. Jeff [1] http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/InstallationID.asp[^] [2] Microsoft is Rejected on Patents Case[^]
-
Paul Selormey wrote:
where those silly USA patents do not work.
Microsoft does have EU patents also. For example, Hardware Fingerprinting which is Tolerant to Change (i.e., WPA):
While fingerprinting an installation does not appear to be patented, a tolerant fingerprint is. In the United States, the patent is 6,243,468, "Software Anti-piracy System that Adapts to Hardware Upgrades". In Europe, the patent is EP1452940.[1]
I'd bet there are many more examples. On the other side of the patent issue, Microsoft has 59 outsatnding IP suits in litigation [2]. As far as OpenSoftware, it is not above the law. Regardless of how much the developers choose to ignore it. Jeff [1] http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/InstallationID.asp[^] [2] Microsoft is Rejected on Patents Case[^]
You can actually check out details about the Patent here: http://www.google.com/patents[^]
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson -
Paul Selormey wrote:
where those silly USA patents do not work.
Microsoft does have EU patents also. For example, Hardware Fingerprinting which is Tolerant to Change (i.e., WPA):
While fingerprinting an installation does not appear to be patented, a tolerant fingerprint is. In the United States, the patent is 6,243,468, "Software Anti-piracy System that Adapts to Hardware Upgrades". In Europe, the patent is EP1452940.[1]
I'd bet there are many more examples. On the other side of the patent issue, Microsoft has 59 outsatnding IP suits in litigation [2]. As far as OpenSoftware, it is not above the law. Regardless of how much the developers choose to ignore it. Jeff [1] http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/InstallationID.asp[^] [2] Microsoft is Rejected on Patents Case[^]
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
As far as OpenSoftware, it is not above the law. Regardless of how much the developers choose to ignore it.
Sheesh, did you even read the article? These guys aren't ignoring the issue, or their responsibilities under law. They just don't want to sign up for something which is based on FUD. If there is code violating patents, then Microsoft should detail them so developers can re-write if necessary. Microsoft should (and CAN!) compete on quality rather than this bullshit.
-
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
As far as OpenSoftware, it is not above the law. Regardless of how much the developers choose to ignore it.
Sheesh, did you even read the article? These guys aren't ignoring the issue, or their responsibilities under law. They just don't want to sign up for something which is based on FUD. If there is code violating patents, then Microsoft should detail them so developers can re-write if necessary. Microsoft should (and CAN!) compete on quality rather than this bullshit.
Yeah! It seems like a Patent Maffia "Protection" subscription.
-
Paul Selormey wrote:
where those silly USA patents do not work.
Microsoft does have EU patents also. For example, Hardware Fingerprinting which is Tolerant to Change (i.e., WPA):
While fingerprinting an installation does not appear to be patented, a tolerant fingerprint is. In the United States, the patent is 6,243,468, "Software Anti-piracy System that Adapts to Hardware Upgrades". In Europe, the patent is EP1452940.[1]
I'd bet there are many more examples. On the other side of the patent issue, Microsoft has 59 outsatnding IP suits in litigation [2]. As far as OpenSoftware, it is not above the law. Regardless of how much the developers choose to ignore it. Jeff [1] http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/InstallationID.asp[^] [2] Microsoft is Rejected on Patents Case[^]
Microsoft will NEVER pursue OSS developers especially kernel developers over patents. They may state they have 235 patents which we in the Linux and OSS world infringe but they are too scared of ending up like SCO. As far as kernel and OS patents go they may hold some but IBM (who lets face it would back the OSS and Linux users on this one) could probably prove prior art (Code) to a large number of them. As Andrew Tanenbaum has publicly stated, the basis of OS design was nailed by the early seventies! That only leaves the user interface and gui mechanisms. The important question that has to be answered is why Microsoft are so against detailing what patents are infringed. We in the Linux and OSS world have repeatedly asked them to show us the patents so we can rewrite the code so as not to infringe and keep everyone happy. Microsoft has failed to do so, why?? Is it because they do infact have no patents infringed?? I would imagine that as part of the course some patents are infringed. However, I think that like SCO there is a fair amount of bluffing going on. By bluffing and refusing to declare the infringed patents they are able to scare people into these deals (with companies that tend to be in partnerships with Microsoft already). Funny how some former Microsoft employees recently set up a patent troll type company in Texas is it not?? Also interesting that SCO where bankrolled through out their hilarious escapade by a company that Microsoft back. At the end of the day Microsoft have seen a big shit in the last 10 years of everyone saying how great they are to server rooms suddenly being lost to Linux, Ubuntu and the more polished desktop Linux's coming out and people calling Vista (which took 7 years if I recall) rubbish. No wonder their trying to scare people into staying with their products is it?? It’s not like anyone stays with them for their technical prowess
Oh, uh, good question. Now technically speaking, uhh, let's say, put me down as a... 'Whatever'?
-
Paul Selormey wrote:
where those silly USA patents do not work.
Microsoft does have EU patents also. For example, Hardware Fingerprinting which is Tolerant to Change (i.e., WPA):
While fingerprinting an installation does not appear to be patented, a tolerant fingerprint is. In the United States, the patent is 6,243,468, "Software Anti-piracy System that Adapts to Hardware Upgrades". In Europe, the patent is EP1452940.[1]
I'd bet there are many more examples. On the other side of the patent issue, Microsoft has 59 outsatnding IP suits in litigation [2]. As far as OpenSoftware, it is not above the law. Regardless of how much the developers choose to ignore it. Jeff [1] http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/InstallationID.asp[^] [2] Microsoft is Rejected on Patents Case[^]
EP1452940.[1] - just goes to show how easy it is to get a patent that is obvious to anyone ‘practiced in the art’- tried similar technique 15+ years ago. Patents have now become a form of implementing legal extortion and maintaining a monoply rather than a way to reward truly inventive ideas.
-
Microsoft will NEVER pursue OSS developers especially kernel developers over patents. They may state they have 235 patents which we in the Linux and OSS world infringe but they are too scared of ending up like SCO. As far as kernel and OS patents go they may hold some but IBM (who lets face it would back the OSS and Linux users on this one) could probably prove prior art (Code) to a large number of them. As Andrew Tanenbaum has publicly stated, the basis of OS design was nailed by the early seventies! That only leaves the user interface and gui mechanisms. The important question that has to be answered is why Microsoft are so against detailing what patents are infringed. We in the Linux and OSS world have repeatedly asked them to show us the patents so we can rewrite the code so as not to infringe and keep everyone happy. Microsoft has failed to do so, why?? Is it because they do infact have no patents infringed?? I would imagine that as part of the course some patents are infringed. However, I think that like SCO there is a fair amount of bluffing going on. By bluffing and refusing to declare the infringed patents they are able to scare people into these deals (with companies that tend to be in partnerships with Microsoft already). Funny how some former Microsoft employees recently set up a patent troll type company in Texas is it not?? Also interesting that SCO where bankrolled through out their hilarious escapade by a company that Microsoft back. At the end of the day Microsoft have seen a big shit in the last 10 years of everyone saying how great they are to server rooms suddenly being lost to Linux, Ubuntu and the more polished desktop Linux's coming out and people calling Vista (which took 7 years if I recall) rubbish. No wonder their trying to scare people into staying with their products is it?? It’s not like anyone stays with them for their technical prowess
Oh, uh, good question. Now technically speaking, uhh, let's say, put me down as a... 'Whatever'?
Hi Gonzo,
The_Great_Gonzo wrote:
Microsoft will NEVER pursue OSS developers
I don't know that I would make that statement. It is a bit bold.
I would imagine that as part of the course some patents are infringed.
I'm sure it goes both ways. Does the GNU crowd patent anything? Part of the problem is (in the US at least) the difficulty in locating the relevant patent information. This statement is from my own patent research.
The_Great_Gonzo wrote:
some former Microsoft employees recently set up a patent troll type company
Do you have a reference? I'd like to read more.
The_Great_Gonzo wrote:
in Texas
Probably East Texas. Patent Attorneys know East Texas is famous for quick litigation in Patent suits. Jeff
-
Yeah! It seems like a Patent Maffia "Protection" subscription.
Rosko P Coltrane wrote:
Patent Maffia
:)
-
EP1452940.[1] - just goes to show how easy it is to get a patent that is obvious to anyone ‘practiced in the art’- tried similar technique 15+ years ago. Patents have now become a form of implementing legal extortion and maintaining a monoply rather than a way to reward truly inventive ideas.
Hi Bob.
Bob1000 wrote:
just goes to show how easy it is to get a patent
I agree. It exists in the US also. It gets worse in the US (it probably exists in the EU also). The devil is in the deatils. So when reading a patent, pay particular attention to 'Method and Apparatus'. Suppose the patent owner claims they have a great idea based on [Something], which ends up Hashing a result for error detection. Someone else could get a patent based on [Something], using a MAC. They would claim their new idea now supports not only detection using hashing, but also the attributes afforded by a Message Authentication Code. This presumes that [Something] is free game. Then there's the lawyer's use of the term 'advantageously'. This is one of those phrases similar to, 'the exercise is left to the reader'. They try to paint with such a wide brush using the word to cover both Hashing versus Signature. So, because the patent author stated, 'advantageously apply software code to [Something] to achieve a representation of [Something]', he is trying to claim Digital Signatures also. Now, the lawyer who is painting with the roller (it is well beyond a wide brush) will not want to limit himself/herself to just software. So he will use a term which encompasses both hardware and software. I'm following a similarly worded patent case in East Texas against Microsoft. I wrote to the author, asking to license the Intellectual Property. The dialog did not even get off the ground. So I'm hoping the courts favor with Microsoft in this case. A ruling against the holder will weaken the breadth of his claims. Jeff
-
Hi Bob.
Bob1000 wrote:
just goes to show how easy it is to get a patent
I agree. It exists in the US also. It gets worse in the US (it probably exists in the EU also). The devil is in the deatils. So when reading a patent, pay particular attention to 'Method and Apparatus'. Suppose the patent owner claims they have a great idea based on [Something], which ends up Hashing a result for error detection. Someone else could get a patent based on [Something], using a MAC. They would claim their new idea now supports not only detection using hashing, but also the attributes afforded by a Message Authentication Code. This presumes that [Something] is free game. Then there's the lawyer's use of the term 'advantageously'. This is one of those phrases similar to, 'the exercise is left to the reader'. They try to paint with such a wide brush using the word to cover both Hashing versus Signature. So, because the patent author stated, 'advantageously apply software code to [Something] to achieve a representation of [Something]', he is trying to claim Digital Signatures also. Now, the lawyer who is painting with the roller (it is well beyond a wide brush) will not want to limit himself/herself to just software. So he will use a term which encompasses both hardware and software. I'm following a similarly worded patent case in East Texas against Microsoft. I wrote to the author, asking to license the Intellectual Property. The dialog did not even get off the ground. So I'm hoping the courts favor with Microsoft in this case. A ruling against the holder will weaken the breadth of his claims. Jeff
Thanks for the info Jeff, I am watching this one closely and look forward to learning more about it (perhaps another great article other than IDA Pro to understanding the Universe would be very popular and appreciated on CP :-) Yep from what I understand the most effective way to not limit yourself is just to say: apparatus/method/algorithm. But I am still learning and lawyers are like estate agents in my mind. On side note, pretty sure I came across one of the bites in CP News section that advertised that guy/director and web resource behind MS 'true' open-source 'efforts'. If I am not missing something, he claimed that they outlined every single issue in recent campaign to limit the uptake of Linux. I frankly doubt they did, I could not find a single resource out there confirming it, or that they cleared up anything. Regardless, I would imagine their lawyers are well-prepared to hang on to straws and they have plenty of money to lose even if they outright, fail. It is such a disgrace frankly, because so many people give their own time to make sure nothing but free software goes into some of the distros whatsoever. I am also interested in details on how long these claims can be held for? What's the norm, 10 years?
-
Microsoft will NEVER pursue OSS developers especially kernel developers over patents. They may state they have 235 patents which we in the Linux and OSS world infringe but they are too scared of ending up like SCO. As far as kernel and OS patents go they may hold some but IBM (who lets face it would back the OSS and Linux users on this one) could probably prove prior art (Code) to a large number of them. As Andrew Tanenbaum has publicly stated, the basis of OS design was nailed by the early seventies! That only leaves the user interface and gui mechanisms. The important question that has to be answered is why Microsoft are so against detailing what patents are infringed. We in the Linux and OSS world have repeatedly asked them to show us the patents so we can rewrite the code so as not to infringe and keep everyone happy. Microsoft has failed to do so, why?? Is it because they do infact have no patents infringed?? I would imagine that as part of the course some patents are infringed. However, I think that like SCO there is a fair amount of bluffing going on. By bluffing and refusing to declare the infringed patents they are able to scare people into these deals (with companies that tend to be in partnerships with Microsoft already). Funny how some former Microsoft employees recently set up a patent troll type company in Texas is it not?? Also interesting that SCO where bankrolled through out their hilarious escapade by a company that Microsoft back. At the end of the day Microsoft have seen a big shit in the last 10 years of everyone saying how great they are to server rooms suddenly being lost to Linux, Ubuntu and the more polished desktop Linux's coming out and people calling Vista (which took 7 years if I recall) rubbish. No wonder their trying to scare people into staying with their products is it?? It’s not like anyone stays with them for their technical prowess
Oh, uh, good question. Now technically speaking, uhh, let's say, put me down as a... 'Whatever'?
> That only leaves the user interface and gui mechanisms. I've seen a few of those out there before WPF, DirectX 10 etc, the scene graphs and so on and I doubt they can hold their ground either because people did it 10 years ago in well-published research. How they got them is puzzling but hey not everyone has time to read that lawyer is my best, last friend if anyone takes a dollar or few from MSFT cruel and pansy 'mine first', 'VB', 'pay per processor' mentality... (and now on top of it all it is pay the Ring, but we are not a Ring because we never said so, if you want to exist ) -- modified at 8:42 Saturday 24th November, 2007
-
Hi Gonzo,
The_Great_Gonzo wrote:
Microsoft will NEVER pursue OSS developers
I don't know that I would make that statement. It is a bit bold.
I would imagine that as part of the course some patents are infringed.
I'm sure it goes both ways. Does the GNU crowd patent anything? Part of the problem is (in the US at least) the difficulty in locating the relevant patent information. This statement is from my own patent research.
The_Great_Gonzo wrote:
some former Microsoft employees recently set up a patent troll type company
Do you have a reference? I'd like to read more.
The_Great_Gonzo wrote:
in Texas
Probably East Texas. Patent Attorneys know East Texas is famous for quick litigation in Patent suits. Jeff
Actually, it's not too bold to make such a prediction. The answer is clear in Microsoft's history. Microsoft has NEVER initiated a patent lawsuit. Never. I honestly don't think they believe in them. On the other hand, they don't see anything wrong with asking people to voluntarily pay patent licensing fees. I don't think they will ever sue anyone for patent infringement.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
Thanks for the info Jeff, I am watching this one closely and look forward to learning more about it (perhaps another great article other than IDA Pro to understanding the Universe would be very popular and appreciated on CP :-) Yep from what I understand the most effective way to not limit yourself is just to say: apparatus/method/algorithm. But I am still learning and lawyers are like estate agents in my mind. On side note, pretty sure I came across one of the bites in CP News section that advertised that guy/director and web resource behind MS 'true' open-source 'efforts'. If I am not missing something, he claimed that they outlined every single issue in recent campaign to limit the uptake of Linux. I frankly doubt they did, I could not find a single resource out there confirming it, or that they cleared up anything. Regardless, I would imagine their lawyers are well-prepared to hang on to straws and they have plenty of money to lose even if they outright, fail. It is such a disgrace frankly, because so many people give their own time to make sure nothing but free software goes into some of the distros whatsoever. I am also interested in details on how long these claims can be held for? What's the norm, 10 years?
Hi,
User of Users Group wrote:
Thanks for the info Jeff, I am watching this one closely and look forward to learning more about it
You'll have to forgive my ignorance. I'm not sure of what you're asking for.
User of Users Group wrote:
I am also interested in details on how long these claims can be held for? What's the norm, 10 years?
I believe it is 17 years in the US. I also believe there is a mechanism for extending it, but I can't say for sure. I've always been interested in when it expires, not how to extend it :). I know areas of copyrights can be extended. But I believe they extensions must requested. It is the reason works such as Winnie the Pooh and Snow White are not placed in public domain. Disney has a great nuber of these. Jeff
-
Actually, it's not too bold to make such a prediction. The answer is clear in Microsoft's history. Microsoft has NEVER initiated a patent lawsuit. Never. I honestly don't think they believe in them. On the other hand, they don't see anything wrong with asking people to voluntarily pay patent licensing fees. I don't think they will ever sue anyone for patent infringement.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
Hi Erik,
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
Microsoft has NEVER initiated a patent lawsuit.
I'll have to research this (I can't ask you to prove something does not exist :)). To me, it seems counterintuitive. When researching, I'll look for unsolicited suits against a company. This means if Company A is suing Microsoft, I will not count Microsoft's counter suit against Company A (that's the unsolicited part). Jeff
-
Hi Gonzo,
The_Great_Gonzo wrote:
Microsoft will NEVER pursue OSS developers
I don't know that I would make that statement. It is a bit bold.
I would imagine that as part of the course some patents are infringed.
I'm sure it goes both ways. Does the GNU crowd patent anything? Part of the problem is (in the US at least) the difficulty in locating the relevant patent information. This statement is from my own patent research.
The_Great_Gonzo wrote:
some former Microsoft employees recently set up a patent troll type company
Do you have a reference? I'd like to read more.
The_Great_Gonzo wrote:
in Texas
Probably East Texas. Patent Attorneys know East Texas is famous for quick litigation in Patent suits. Jeff
Well I do think that the day Micorsoft takes the route of litigation against OSS developers could be the start of the end for microsoft for many reasons. I would imagine in the same way that the SCO escapade ended up involving lots of different companies then that would as well. You'd end up in IT meltdown and Microsoft itself could come under attack. Plus the PR of the company would take a massive knock. The GNU crowd doesn't really go for patents as it kinda of goes against the idealism's of the OSS world. However, GNU is for taking those companies that think they can take GPL code and release propriatary applications to court for breach of license and in the most recent examples all of been settled out of court and the source for those applications has been suuplied on request. As for the Microsoft trolls Groklaw as ever is your friend, in particular this article.
Oh, uh, good question. Now technically speaking, uhh, let's say, put me down as a... 'Whatever'?
-
Well I do think that the day Micorsoft takes the route of litigation against OSS developers could be the start of the end for microsoft for many reasons. I would imagine in the same way that the SCO escapade ended up involving lots of different companies then that would as well. You'd end up in IT meltdown and Microsoft itself could come under attack. Plus the PR of the company would take a massive knock. The GNU crowd doesn't really go for patents as it kinda of goes against the idealism's of the OSS world. However, GNU is for taking those companies that think they can take GPL code and release propriatary applications to court for breach of license and in the most recent examples all of been settled out of court and the source for those applications has been suuplied on request. As for the Microsoft trolls Groklaw as ever is your friend, in particular this article.
Oh, uh, good question. Now technically speaking, uhh, let's say, put me down as a... 'Whatever'?
Actually, most F/OSS licenses aren't geared towards a world where patents even exist (GPLv3 notwithstanding). They do, however, believe very strongly in the concepts of "copyright" and "license". Philosophically, the argument seems to be "you can't patent an idea and make it stick, but you CAN copyright an implementation of an idea. Copyright and plagiarism seem to be more easily understood (read: enforceable) pretty much anywhere in the world (cf. the Berne Convention and WIPO). What would be interesting is whether some signatory to Berne/WIPO made an argument that actively encouraging copyright violation (as Microsoft certainly did before it became completely dominant, especially in the office-software arena) could be interpreted as abandonment. IANAL, but I remember reading about (apparently) similarly-constructed patent-voiding cases. And whatever happened to the folks who were arguing in court that generic words like "word" and "windows" couldn't be validly trademarked? There was a flurry of breathless articles in the IT press a few years ago, but nothing since MS won the antitrust wars.
-- Jeff Dickey jdickey@seven-sigma.com Seven Sigma Software and Services Phone/SMS: +65 9360 1820 FOAF: http://www.seven-sigma.com/foaf.rdf Yahoo! IM: jeff_dickey ICQ: 8053918 Tencent QQ: 30302349 -- If you can't reach me by any of these, one of us may be permanently offline -- I use and recommend GNU Privacy Guard to authenticate and secure email messages! Public key: Download from public servers - Key ID EBCCBD6C Fingerprint: Fingerprint: EC0A A53B 3FF3 043B 9C11 7006 55A6
-
Hi,
User of Users Group wrote:
Thanks for the info Jeff, I am watching this one closely and look forward to learning more about it
You'll have to forgive my ignorance. I'm not sure of what you're asking for.
User of Users Group wrote:
I am also interested in details on how long these claims can be held for? What's the norm, 10 years?
I believe it is 17 years in the US. I also believe there is a mechanism for extending it, but I can't say for sure. I've always been interested in when it expires, not how to extend it :). I know areas of copyrights can be extended. But I believe they extensions must requested. It is the reason works such as Winnie the Pooh and Snow White are not placed in public domain. Disney has a great nuber of these. Jeff
Thanks for the reply.. nah, I am the ignorant one really, I just though there is an easy way to get up to scratch on the topic but I could understand it is a vast one; perhaps only similar to SD in one area (search, esp when not sure:-). I am only attempting to catch up with a friend who has just started law studies and looking in that area after a decade of making web apps, but there's too little time in a day.. 17 years? wow, talking of serious crime :)
-
Actually, it's not too bold to make such a prediction. The answer is clear in Microsoft's history. Microsoft has NEVER initiated a patent lawsuit. Never. I honestly don't think they believe in them. On the other hand, they don't see anything wrong with asking people to voluntarily pay patent licensing fees. I don't think they will ever sue anyone for patent infringement.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
Hi Erik,
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
Microsoft has NEVER initiated a patent lawsuit.
I finally ran across something on this. See Under EU Pressure, MS to Give Samba a Peek at Its Protocols[^]. From the article:
Microsoft will provide a list of related patents, and while the PFIF won't get to license those patents, the organization and the Samba developers working through it will be able to avoid them as they write code... This means that downstream Samba users can be assured that their Samba usage won't run afoul of Microsoft's patent-lawsuit threats.
Jeff
-
Hi Erik,
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
Microsoft has NEVER initiated a patent lawsuit.
I finally ran across something on this. See Under EU Pressure, MS to Give Samba a Peek at Its Protocols[^]. From the article:
Microsoft will provide a list of related patents, and while the PFIF won't get to license those patents, the organization and the Samba developers working through it will be able to avoid them as they write code... This means that downstream Samba users can be assured that their Samba usage won't run afoul of Microsoft's patent-lawsuit threats.
Jeff
Two things there: First, users can't be assured that their Samba usage won't run afoul of Microsoft (or anyone elses) patents, because it's quite possible that the samba team could implement functionality in a way that violates a different patent that isn't applicable to MS's implementation of SMB. Second, the talk about "lawsuit threats" is conjecture on the part of the author. Microsoft hasn't said they would sue anyone over this either. They've only said that they have Intellectual Property and that those that use it should pay a licensing fee. While many infer a threat of lawsuit in that, again, Microsoft has never initiated a patent lawsuit, and I doubt they ever will. Sure, they want people to voluntarily pay patent license fees, but I don't see them suing anyone (for software patents). Note that I say software patents. I believe Microsoft may have initiated a hardware patent suit once. However, most people, even many of those adamantly against software patents agree that hardware patents are a different story, as they amount to "real" inventions.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
Two things there: First, users can't be assured that their Samba usage won't run afoul of Microsoft (or anyone elses) patents, because it's quite possible that the samba team could implement functionality in a way that violates a different patent that isn't applicable to MS's implementation of SMB. Second, the talk about "lawsuit threats" is conjecture on the part of the author. Microsoft hasn't said they would sue anyone over this either. They've only said that they have Intellectual Property and that those that use it should pay a licensing fee. While many infer a threat of lawsuit in that, again, Microsoft has never initiated a patent lawsuit, and I doubt they ever will. Sure, they want people to voluntarily pay patent license fees, but I don't see them suing anyone (for software patents). Note that I say software patents. I believe Microsoft may have initiated a hardware patent suit once. However, most people, even many of those adamantly against software patents agree that hardware patents are a different story, as they amount to "real" inventions.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
Hi Erik, I hate conceeding a debate...
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
I believe Microsoft may have initiated a hardware patent suit once.
I believe you are correct. August, 2006 against Belkin. But it was filed with the ITC [1], and not down in East Texas (apparently monetary compensation was not an objective). Jeff [1] Not the best reference: U2 Plays At The ITC[^]