I guess they do know about the 235 MS patents their violating...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070628/...microsoft_dc_1

Frank

Frank wrote:

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070628/...microsoft_dc_1
>
> Frank

No they don't as Microsoft has refused to say what patents have been
violated. Microsoft has simply thrown out a number, that has yet to be
confirmed, let alone ruled upon by any authority. Why do you bring this up
in the first place in a Vista support group?

Shake Hands With,
Mr. Happy

Mr. Happy wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070628/...microsoft_dc_1
>>
>>Frank
>
>
> No they don't as Microsoft has refused to say what patents have been
> violated.

Don't think for one min that MS & Red Hat have been having private
meetings concerning the 235 patents in dispute for over a years and that
the Red Hat lawyers don't know exactly which patents are in question.
Just because the general public ( you, me and all the rest) don't know
means nothing.

Microsoft has simply thrown out a number, that has yet to be
> confirmed, let alone ruled upon by any authority.

Novell, Xandros Inc. and Linspire Inc. have already signed royalty
agreements concerning the patents, which is how most patent disputes are
settled. Obviously, there is a huge concern in the linux camp about
these patents especially since these large linux distro companies have
already agreed that there are MS patents that are being abused in linux
distros and that they will now pay patent royalties for their use.
The last resort in settling patents disputes is of course the courts.

Why do you bring this up
> in the first place in a Vista support group?
>

It has been previously brought up in this ng and I thought I'd post the
latest.

> Shake Hands With,
> Mr. Happy


Glad to meet'ya! :-)
Frank
>
>
>
>
>

>
> I don't know what to think over this. Maybe they did violate some
> patents,
> maybe they didn't. But I do find it suspicious that MS has yet to say
> what
> patents have been violated. Why would they need to keep it secret? What
> harm is there in informing the public what patents are involved? If
> patents
> have been violated it's is something that's already been done and not
> something that can be magically hidden after the fact.
>
>

Linux uses the same cursor in it's command window that microsoft uses in
it's command window....


Jeff

GO wrote:

>
> I don't know what to think over this. Maybe they did violate some patents,
> maybe they didn't. But I do find it suspicious that MS has yet to say what
> patents have been violated.

Say to who...me & you? Why? To satisfy all the bleating of the open
sores group? What do they or me or you or anyone other than the
participants have to do with resolving the conflict?


Why would they need to keep it secret?

Well, I don't think it's any kind of a "secret". Proly an agreement
between the participants to keep it confidential while negations are
ongoing. And even after any kind of a settlement is reached, no one, not
directly involved, may ever know the details.


What
> harm is there in informing the public what patents are involved?

Well, the "public" is not involved. It's really none of our business.

If patents
> have been violated it's is something that's already been done and not
> something that can be magically hidden after the fact.

Sure it can. An agreement to settle can and proly will be confidential
with the details only available on a need to know basis.
That means me, you and john q public may never know.
Of course if no settlement is reached, court action is probable and most
details will become public. Unless the judge seals the docs.
Frank
>
>

Mr. Happy wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070628/...microsoft_dc_1
>>
>> Frank
>
> No they don't as Microsoft has refused to say what patents have been
> violated. Microsoft has simply thrown out a number, that has yet to be
> confirmed, let alone ruled upon by any authority. Why do you bring
> this up in the first place in a Vista support group?
>
> Shake Hands With,
> Mr. Happy

I don't know what to think over this. Maybe they did violate some patents,
maybe they didn't. But I do find it suspicious that MS has yet to say what
patents have been violated. Why would they need to keep it secret? What
harm is there in informing the public what patents are involved? If patents
have been violated it's is something that's already been done and not
something that can be magically hidden after the fact.

Jeff wrote:

>
> Linux uses the same cursor in it's command window that microsoft uses in
> it's command window....
>
>
> Jeff

That's funny! :-)
Frank

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 13:21:02 -0700, Frank <> wrote:

>GO wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't know what to think over this. Maybe they did violate some patents,
>> maybe they didn't. But I do find it suspicious that MS has yet to say what
>> patents have been violated.
>
>Say to who...me & you? Why? To satisfy all the bleating of the open
>sores group? What do they or me or you or anyone other than the
>participants have to do with resolving the conflict?
>
>
> Why would they need to keep it secret?

It's no secret most people think you're a fool Frank.

By the way, how is that chain letter scam of yours going?
You know, that "marketing" company you run off your kitchen table.

LOL!

GO wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
>>GO wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't know what to think over this. Maybe they did violate some
>>>patents, maybe they didn't. But I do find it suspicious that MS has
>>>yet to say what patents have been violated.
>>
>>Say to who...me & you? Why? To satisfy all the bleating of the open
>>sores group? What do they or me or you or anyone other than the
>>participants have to do with resolving the conflict?
>
>
> Then why was the story itself ever released? I am guessing that MS does in
> fact have some form of case, otherwise why bother? But I just find it odd
> that they have yet to say which patents have actually been violated. You
> may be right in saying that it's none of my business, or to the public in
> general, but all other patent cases that have made the headlines they've
> actually stated what patent was being violated.
>
>

Yeah I see your point.
I guess we'll just have to wait until some resolution is reached.
Frank

Frank wrote:
> GO wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't know what to think over this. Maybe they did violate some
>> patents, maybe they didn't. But I do find it suspicious that MS has
>> yet to say what patents have been violated.
>
> Say to who...me & you? Why? To satisfy all the bleating of the open
> sores group? What do they or me or you or anyone other than the
> participants have to do with resolving the conflict?

Then why was the story itself ever released? I am guessing that MS does in
fact have some form of case, otherwise why bother? But I just find it odd
that they have yet to say which patents have actually been violated. You
may be right in saying that it's none of my business, or to the public in
general, but all other patent cases that have made the headlines they've
actually stated what patent was being violated.