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

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by Frank, Jul 2, 2007.

  1. Frank

    Frank Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. Frank

    Alias Guest

    Name one patent. Just one. The article you linked most certainly doesn't
    name one. The patent trip on the part of Microsoft only reveals how
    scared Microsoft is of Open Source. Microsoft hates Open Source almost
    as much as it hates its own paying customers.

    Alias
     
    Alias, Jul 2, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Frank

    Frank Guest

    That's not the point bozo. I'm sure Red Hat knows exactly which patents
    are in dispute seeing as how the article refers to them by number and
    that they've had private discussions for over a year concerning them,
    presumably lawyers to lawyers. You can bet your last peso that Red Hat
    knows exactly which patents are in question.
    Your ignorant assumption that..."Microsoft only reveals how scared
    Microsoft is of Open Source', is simply down right stupid as is
    your..."Microsoft hates Open Source almost as much as it hates its own
    paying customers". Especially considering the fact that MS has a patent
    royalty deal with Novell and other linux distros. I guess you didn't
    know that, huh?
    You need to re-read the article cause your comprehension is way off.
    Frank
     
    Frank, Jul 2, 2007
    #3
  4. Frank

    Bill Yanaire Guest

    I'm surprised he just didn't say, "Why not install Ubuntu" !
     
    Bill Yanaire, Jul 2, 2007
    #4
  5. Frank

    Frank Guest

    :-D
    Frank
     
    Frank, Jul 2, 2007
    #5
  6. Frank

    Alias Guest

    You are ASSuming they know.
    You are ASSuming they know. I don't use pesos, btw, in Europe we have
    the euro. You know, the one where you get almost $1.40 for each euro?
    Stupid on the part of Microsoft. Right on, on my part.
    Of course I knew that some lame Linux companies that are on the verge of
    bankruptcy accepted Microsoft's protection racket.
    NO, YOU do.

    No mention of which patents.

    Red Hat has NOT signed a deal.

    From the article:

    "The Free Software Foundation, which authored the General Public License
    and owns rights to much of the code at the heart of Red Hat Enterprise
    Linux, inserted that clause into the agreement in an effort to
    discourage other open-source software developers from signing patent
    deals with Microsoft.

    The authors of that license have said they believe that such patent
    deals will help Microsoft back claims that its intellectual property is
    being violated by code in Linux and other open source software,
    eventually giving the company ammunition to seek billions of dollars in
    license fees from users of open-source software."

    Alias
     
    Alias, Jul 2, 2007
    #6
  7. Frank

    Alias Guest

    I'm *not* surprised that you posted this.

    Alias
     
    Alias, Jul 2, 2007
    #7
  8. Frank, you need to pull real hard and try to get your head out of
    Microsoft's corporate butt. You need some fresh air boy. I mean I've
    seen all kinds of kiss ups to Microsoft, but you've managed to firmly
    shove your head so far up their butt I'm betting you haven't seen
    daylight in years.
     
    Adam Albright, Jul 2, 2007
    #8
  9. Frank

    Bill Yanaire Guest

    Because it's your best solution to any problem?


     
    Bill Yanaire, Jul 2, 2007
    #9
  10. Frank

    Alias Guest

    Au contraire! I just built a ninja machine with XP for gaming.

    Alias
     
    Alias, Jul 2, 2007
    #10
  11. Frank

    Alias Guest

    A true feral cave dweller that Frank.

    Alias
     
    Alias, Jul 2, 2007
    #11
  12. Frank

    Frank Guest

    You're ASSuming they don't. Only an idiot like you would make that
    ASSumption.
    Only a complete fool like you would want to believe that corporate
    attorneys for both parties, who have been meeting for over a year, don't
    know the details of that which they are negotiating.
    Get real!
    You're an excellent example of just how stupid one person can be.
    Oh, btw, that would be an insult to most people but considering your
    level of intelligence its a compliment.
    Linus loser!
    Frank
     
    Frank, Jul 2, 2007
    #12
  13. Frank

    Frank Guest

    Did you just wakeup from your drunken weekend binge?
    Get some sleep.
    Call me later when you've sobered up.
    Frank
     
    Frank, Jul 2, 2007
    #13
  14. Frank

    norm Guest

    Frank, your subject line suggests that the violations are a proven fact.
    Nothing I have read supports that position. So far, ms has only alleged
    violations and no one has admitted to violation or been proven to be
    in violation in a court of law. Accusation is a long way from
    conviction. Conviction has not yet occurred. This situation certainly
    has not played out with any finality.
     
    norm, Jul 3, 2007
    #14
  15. Frank

    Frank Guest

    Well that's not true. Patent disputes don't start in courts; they only
    end up there if the party’s cannot come to an agreement. Patent disputes
    start with a letter of warning of patent infringement from the patent
    holders attorneys’ to the patent infringer. If an appropriate royalty
    payment agreement cannot be reached, then more legal steps are taken
    until they arrive in court…if no agreement can be reached.
    Agreeing to pay royalties for usage amounts to an admission of guilt.
    So in actuality, patent infringements by linux distros has already been
    established.
    The deal is done. Now all that is left is to agree on settlement amounts
    and future royalty payments.
    Frank
     
    Frank, Jul 3, 2007
    #15
  16. Frank pretending to be an attorney. Funny, but not quite as funny as
    Frank pretending he runs a marketing company or is some computer
    expert.
     
    Adam Albright, Jul 3, 2007
    #16
  17. Frank is just blowing smoke like he always does. Some people need to
    act important to feel important. That's Frank.
     
    Adam Albright, Jul 3, 2007
    #17
  18. Frank

    norm Guest

    This article seems to define a different path to be taken in the case of
    patent infringement:
    http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/infringe.htm
    "Infringement of a patent consists of the unauthorized making, using,
    offering for sale or selling any patented invention within the United
    States or United States Territories, or importing into the United States
    of any patented invention during the term of the patent. If a patent is
    infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the appropriate Federal
    court. The patentee may ask the court for an injunction to prevent the
    continuation of the infringement and may also ask the court for an award
    of damages because of the infringement. In such an infringement suit,
    the defendant may raise the question of the validity of the patent,
    which is then decided by the court. The defendant may also aver that
    what is being done does not constitute infringement. Infringement is
    determined primarily by the language of the claims of the patent and, if
    what the defendant is making does not fall within the language of any of
    the claims of the patent, there is no literal infringement.
    Suits for infringement of patents follow the rules of procedure of the
    Federal courts. From the decision of the district court, there is an
    appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Supreme
    Court may thereafter take a case by writ of certiorari. If the United
    States Government infringes a patent, the patentee has a remedy for
    damages in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Government may
    use any patented invention without permission of the patentee, but the
    patentee is entitled to obtain compensation for the use by or for the
    Government.
    The Office has no jurisdiction over questions relating to infringement
    of patents. In examining applications for patent, no determination is
    made as to whether the invention sought to be patented infringes any
    prior patent. An improvement invention may be patentable, but it might
    infringe a prior unexpired patent for the invention improved upon, if
    there is one."

    As I read the above, the legitimate path is through the courts. The
    following article portrays the actual state of affairs to this point,
    and does not seem to come to the same conclusion as you have:
    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index3.htm
     
    norm, Jul 3, 2007
    #18
  19. Frank

    Mr. Happy Guest

    That might be true. But in this case, Microsoft has refused to say what
    patents it is alleging have been violated. I suspect that this is because,
    quite frankly (no pun intended), Microsoft doesn't really want to open this
    whole can of worms. It begs the question as to why it has delayed enforcing
    its patents for so long. It also opens the door to others to jump in and
    seriously start looking at those patents that Microsoft has been
    infringing. Remember, that IBM holds the largest number of patents in the
    software/hardware world than any other corporation in the world. Once a
    wholesale push comes to shove on patents, the patents will probably have
    expired before all the litigation came any where close to resolving all the
    questions.

    Microsoft has succeeded in coming to an arrangement with Novell, that made
    both parties come out look foolish. Two other insignificant and losing
    companies, recently jumped into deals with Microsoft, probably hoping that
    it would somehow turn around their fortunes. The really big players in the
    Linux world from a commercial standpoint, RedHat and Mandriva have both
    rejected any kind of patent deal with Microsoft. The most popular Linux
    desktop distro, Ubuntu has also outright rejected a "deal" with Microsoft
    and essentially to put up or shut up.

    Just the other day GPL3 came into being, and it's adoption by a good many
    open source developers will see the end of any such future patent deals
    with Microsoft and does pretty much null and void Novell's "deal".

    At this point, the whole subject is mute and just so much bullshit, that
    won't really impact where users choose to go with their desktops. Open
    source will not be stopped, nor should it be. It delivers tremendous
    innovation to a growing audience of users, who are only too happy to use
    the software for free and gain the benefits.


    Shake Hands With,
    Mr. Happy
     
    Mr. Happy, Jul 3, 2007
    #19
  20. Frank

    Frank Guest

    The article you referenced is dated May 14th, 2007. The article I
    referenced is dated June 27, 2007.
    Sorry, but most patent infringements are settled out of court. Court is
    the avenue of last resort. Not the first.
    As stated..."As part of their November 2006 business partnership,
    Microsoft agreed not to sue Novell customers for any patent violations
    that might come up as a result of their use of Novell's Linux software."
    So a patent royalty agreement has already been signed by Novell and
    other linux distros that will avoid court action. A royalty agreement is
    currently being pursued between Red Hat and other linux distros.
    Frank
     
    Frank, Jul 3, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.