LWN: Comments on "Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)"

STOP IT PLEASE ~ THERE IS NO DANGER.

KenWPeek — Mon, 28 May 2007 03:06:18 +0000

|
PLEASE STOP ALL OF THIS NONSENSE!

Patent Law, is *NOT* the same as Copyright Law.

The *ONLY* thing the US government grants to the patent holder is: "The exclusive right to market the invention...". In this sentence, "market" is a verb. Let's look up the meaning of "to market" in Black's Law dictionary (use the older dictionary that was available at the time the law was written.) The verb "to market" means: "to sell, or offer for sale, or license the sale of". Also, when a patent is issued, the US Government is automatically granted a perpetual non-exclusive license to the technology for FREE.

If no money changes hands for a product, then the product was *NOT* "sold".

*ALL* distributors of free software that I know of GIVE AWAY FOR FREE the software-- though some of them charge a fee for the media and/or service of burning the FREE software onto a disk.

*NO* "end user" of a patented technology can be sued for "patent infringement", because they are *NOT* selling a product incorporating the patented technology.

Microsoft's assertions of "patent infringement" DO NOT APPLY TO END USERS, PERIOD. AND THAT MEANS CORPORATIONS TOO (which are just "paper persons".)

Microsoft's assertions of patent infringement DO NOT APPLY TO DISTRIBUTORS OF FREE PRODUCTS OF ANY KIND.

The only exception to this is for the non-GPL-type licenses (BSD, MIT, etc.), where the distributor of the software chooses to charge money for the software. Then, and only then may Microsoft's assertions of "patent infringement" apply, and then only if the patents are found to be valid, and only if the software sold uses the patented technology.

As a veteran of patent infringement lawsuits, allow me to explain how this all works.

In order to keep it's patent rights, a patent holder (Microsoft in this case) *MUST* begin proceedings against the alleged "patent infringer". This is called "due diligence", and there is a time limit set forth in case law for this. The clock begins as soon as the patent holder realizes that a patented technology is (possibly) being infringed. If you inform the alleged infringer within six months, you are on solid ground, and longer than that is "questionable" (you better have a good reason!) The proceedings begin by sending a "Cease and Desist" letter to the alleged patent infringer. The letter *MUST* state the specific patent number, and *MUST* state specifically how the person or company is infringing (or is "about to" infringe by offering a product for sale). For software products, this would at least show the product that the alleged infringer is offering for sale, and *HOW* that product allegedly infringes on the patent holder's technology. If this information is not provided, case law holds that the alleged infringer has *NOT* been "noticed" (given sufficient notice) of the infringement, and the process has not yet begun. The patent holder may *NOT* wait until sufficient damages have accrued before beginning to exercise "due diligence", because the court is likely to declare that the alleged patent infringer has been given permission (by "default") due to insufficient notice in a timely manner, and this *CAN* cause the patent to end up in the public domain.

So, let's assume that sufficient notice begins. The two parties may engage in a dialog to further define the alleged infringement, and if the alleged infringer then agrees that they are infringing, they can either decide to stop infringing immediately, or to work out a licensing deal with the patent holder. (The latter is the usual course taken.)

If the alleged infringer does *NOT* agree that infringement is taking place (for various reasons, like: 1) they are not selling anything or offering anything for sale, or 2) they think the patent is not valid due to one or more reasons, or 3) or they believe that their product uses a different technology than what the patent holder is claiming that they are using, etc.) The two parties will now begin court proceedings. This usually begins by the patent holder filing a lawsuit against the alleged infringer, who then in turn usually motions the court for a "show cause" hearing (which is almost always granted.) In this "show cause" hearing, the patent holder *MUST* show proof of the exact product that the alleged infringer *SOLD* (or offers for sale if no sale has yet occurred), and the exact manner and method that the alleged infringement is occurring. If insufficient evidence is provided that shows that clearly shows that infringement is taking place, the judge will dismiss the case, and that is the end of it. If the judge believes that there is sufficient evidence that infringement occurred, then a trial date will be set, and at this time the patent holder usually motions the court for injunctive relief (to stop the alleged infringer from selling the products in question until the matter is resolved in court.) In these kinds of cases, the motion for injunctive relief is usually denied, but the judge will order the alleged infringer to keep accurate record of all sales (in case they lose the case, the infringer will have to surrender all proceeds of any sales.)

So, as you can see from the above, Microsoft would never make it past the "show cause" hearing stage, because no products are being sold, and no there is no intention to sell any products. (Indeed, the GPL forbids the sale of the GPL'd software for any amount of money.)

END-OF-LAWSUIT. GAME OVER.

So (for example) if you download a FREE ISO image of "Ubuntu Linux" from a server in South Africa, burn the ISO image onto a CD, and install the software, Microsoft has no "standing" in court, because: 1) You are an end-user of the product, and you are not selling the product or offering it for sale, and 2) South Africa (wisely) does not recognize "software patents", and so no lawsuit can be filed in that country. In this case, Microsoft is simply left out in the cold, and can do *NOTHING* (without being counter-sued for a "frivolous lawsuit", and THEY would LOSE.)

So, unless you *KNOW* what you are talking about, please quit with all of the "worry talk". It is just scaring everyone, and is only *helping* Microsoft with their "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt" [FUD] campaign.
|

costs

pdundas — Sat, 19 May 2007 22:33:41 +0000

A way to do that might be to make the US Patent Office liable for the legal costs of the successful challenger.

A company which made and defended the invalid patent (if they were shown to be knowingly - rather than, say, negligently - ignoring prior art) could also be liable for consequential loss by the challenger - delay to product launch, etc.

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

lysse — Fri, 18 May 2007 23:59:28 +0000

But the problem I have with you is that you've reduced that to a binary choice. You think your former heroes are wrong, so you attack them without pause or mercy, or necessarily even consideration, making exactly the same accusations in thread after thread, regardless of circumstance. When someone disagrees with your assessment of their faults, you charge them with being an unthinking supporter. That's how you're coming across.

My problem isn't with your opinions; it's with your reduction of the world to a couple of either/or choices, your apparent refusal to consider that there might be shades of grey or perspectives that haven't occurred to you, your tendency to treat your fallen idols in a manner I can only term despicable, and your dismissal of those who criticise you as "one of the faithful", or the like, apparently unaware that all you are dismissing is your own reflection.

So I'll try this once more, and after this I'm done. Listen, and please try to understand. *These people are not my heroes*. (I don't *have* heroes, as such - never have.) Where I think they're wrong, I'll say so; where I think they are right, it's because they are voicing my principles, not because I've adopted theirs; where I don't know enough to comment, I'll (try and) keep my mouth shut. My respect for the goals and actions of the FSF, and for its founder, is premised only on the fact that they seem to value freedom as much as I do, and if I thought that they were faltering in that I'd say so; as I've mentioned, I don't even pay much attention to Groklaw or PJ. If I wanted to put in the effort, I might be able to compile a list of mistakes I think they've made, or of points of disagreement - but *they're just not that important to me*.

It's not about them, or me - it's about *you*. These people are *your* heroes, and your behaviour toward them is that of the celebrity-stalker - irrational, creepy, manipulative, dishonest, self-abasing; ultimately the actions of someone who has no existence of their own. If you have a shred of empathy inside you, or an ounce of insight into your own soul, please consider what I've said, mourn the loss of your role models, and let them pass from your life. Because right now, your obsessions are consuming you; if you don't escape them, there will soon be nothing left... but I fear you have already passed that point. Delight me - prove me wrong.

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

NigelK — Fri, 18 May 2007 13:29:13 +0000

Sigh... no... You just have to accept that the people you respect are wrong sometimes.

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

lysse — Fri, 18 May 2007 13:11:39 +0000

...I've been eaten by a troll, haven't I? Sorry, LWN.

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

NigelK — Fri, 18 May 2007 09:28:45 +0000

As much as I'd like to exchange emails with an angry loon with a bruised ego, poor reading comprehension skills, and the urge to protect FSF-related personalities at any cost, I think I'll pass. I have more important things to do with my life, like clipping my toenails.

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

lysse — Fri, 18 May 2007 05:08:49 +0000

No, actually, I want to expand on that.

You describe me as "one of the faithful". Which is funny, because I don't know the first thing about this case, and I very seldom actually read Groklaw. About the only thing I do know for sure is that you despise the FSF and everyone who has anything to do with them with an almost evangelical fervour; and now I learn that you'll slander anyone who disagrees with you at the drop of a hat.

Fine. Drop me a line at lwn.id@tierveil.co.uk and give me something I can check out, and I'll do the same. Hey, I'm just some clueless nobody; I have nothing to hide. But dammit, you owe me an apology; and I think it's high time you put your cards on the table and told us who NigelK *really* is.

> just because someone has legal training doesn't automatically mean that their stated position is correct.

But it does make their opinion rather more likely to be correct than that of some random layperson, doesn't it? Which is why I asked for your qualifications to speak authoritatively about the US legal system. We already know PJ's. Without such disclosure, the only available conclusion is that the full extent of your qualification to speak on this case is your certainty that anyone criticised on Groklaw must be in the right.

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

lysse — Fri, 18 May 2007 04:53:41 +0000

> One of the faithful speaks... and quickly demonizes the critic, too

Hypocrite.

China

eklitzke — Thu, 17 May 2007 16:58:54 +0000

China does have a patent system. It's just relatively new (~20 years old), and they're much more "practical" about enforcing patents than we are in America.

Those are only the beginning

mmarq — Thu, 17 May 2007 14:44:55 +0000

I've supported "no" softwware patents in Europe for almost a decade.

But another thought is that if OSS is so proficient, an organization to build a vast and good portfolio of patents, prior-art, trivialitys... isnt either a bad idea.

OSS can defeat 'them' at their own game.

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

NigelK — Thu, 17 May 2007 14:30:02 +0000

One of the faithful speaks... and quickly demonizes the critic, too, swiftly distorting the opposing view.

Non-infringing videos on GooTube are irrelevant to Viacom's case. How can they be? Viacom have no claim to them, and neither do they make a claim.

PJ's highlighting the fact that there are non-infringing videos on GooTube, implying that weakens Viacom's case, is a strawman.

And, BTW, just because someone has legal training doesn't automatically mean that their stated position is correct. There are lawyers on both sides of any case.

Armaggedon

lysse — Thu, 17 May 2007 09:20:09 +0000

(To clarify - you don't have to have implemented what you describe in your patent, nor does it have to work; but it must be possible for someone else to build what you are claiming from the details you give in your patent.)

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

lysse — Thu, 17 May 2007 09:15:48 +0000

Please outline your qualifications with regard to American law, with particular reference to why you feel able to state so categorically that PJ - who has many years as a paralegal under her belt, let's not forget - is incorrect in her interpretation of the Google-Verizon case.

(Your tendency to sling personal insults remains contemptible, of course. I'm especially amused by your apparent notion of the FSF as a dangerous secret conspiracy, with puppets and spies lurking in every corner and goals to which no free person in their right mind could possibly subscribe. Hmm... that sounds familiar, actually...)

Armaggedon

lysse — Thu, 17 May 2007 09:05:38 +0000

Actually, that was specifically not supposed to be the case*. Patents were designed to cover implementations - an idea simply could not be patented, only a machine which implemented that idea. A patenter could only patent his particular implementation of a mousetrap; he could never patent the simple idea of a device for trapping mice, nor only a fragment of a device - and that would remain true regardless of whether or not anyone had thought of a device for catching mice before. Likewise, what would be judged infringing is the reuse of that implementation in any context (not just the rodent-trapping domain), not the use of a different design of device to accomplish the same end.

The rot set in when it was successfully argued that a general purpose machine plus a set of parameters (a program) could be a special purpose machine, and thus patentable; somehow over the years, the combination part has been forgotten, and the parameters themselves became patentable - and by extension, the high-level description of an algorithm which is converted into those parameters became patentable too. And therein lies the flaw* - source code cannot be directly executed, and is therefore not "a set of parameters" for a general purpose machine in any meaningful sense. It only becomes one when converted to a directly-executable binary representation. The "machine" in question is "cited computer + binary" (or, at a stretch, "computer + interpreter + script"); substitute a different computer and you need a completely different set of configuration parameters - ie. you've created a completely different machine. By allowing a system of rules that can be converted in a vast number of ways into a set of parameters, patents on software have become extended to cover precisely the "device for catching mice" idea that remains verboten in patents on physical devices.

What would it mean were patents restricted to a particular combination of hardware and object code? Well* - for one thing, source code is restored to "description of algorithm" status, which is generally a Good Thing! For another, it would mean that a separate patent would have to be obtained for each implementation on every kind of processor architecture, virtual machine, interpreter... which would render it trivially circumventable (in the worst case, just write a new VM and publish the two parts separately) and not impede progress in the art in the way that patents do today. And finally, since the particular implementation of object code is by and large determined by the particular implementation of a compiler, it's possible that simply recompiling source code with a different C compiler would be sufficient to be judged non-infringing - but that would almost certainly have to be legally ruled on.

* IANAL, this isn't legal advice, "To Serve Man" is a cookbook. In particular, I would love to hear from some real lawyers about whether this approach might be worth pursuing, whether it's already been shot down, etc.

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

sepreece — Wed, 16 May 2007 13:47:05 +0000

MicroPatent shows 15864 patents applied for by or assigned to Microsoft.

I looked at a small sample (two groups of 50 patents). Based on the titles of the patents, no more than 10% seemed likely to involve anything that might be in the core components of a Linux distirbution (obviously, FLOSS is much broader than that and some of the distributions include large numbers of diverse applications).

Going deeper into the patents probably would find some additional ones that might be of concern, but would also eliminate many of tem as applying to specific inventions that aren't used in Linux.

My guess would be they chose a conservative number - patents they thought were pretty obviously infringed.

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

khim — Wed, 16 May 2007 10:14:35 +0000

You mean 98% of Microsoft's patents cover MS Mouse and MS keyboard ? Hard to believe: Linux distribution (like Debian) include software of all types. Yes, some kinds are not as advanced/professional as MS offerings (yet) but it's quite hard to find anything from MS without at least partial analog in Debian...

Armaggedon

marduk — Wed, 16 May 2007 02:58:50 +0000

Patents cover ideas. You can patent an idea w/o even having an implementation.

Armaggedon

dark — Tue, 15 May 2007 19:38:15 +0000

Fortunately, I think that era is now ending. The tug-of-war between ODF and Microsoft's XML format will be the last great decision between patented and unpatented protocols, and in the future a protocol that excludes free software will simply not be able to dominate the marketplace.

I remember when RSA and - particularly - RC5 were inserted into security protocols almost without thought, often as the only must-support option. These days, any such move would be met with an immediate outcry, and a real justification would have to be given for excluding free software implementations. Linux is pervasive enough that every standards body will have at least one user :)

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

sepreece — Tue, 15 May 2007 15:20:35 +0000

Microsoft's business is broad enough that I would expect their patent portfolio to cover many, many things that have nothing to do with operating systems...

Those are only the beginning

man_ls — Tue, 15 May 2007 14:57:46 +0000

True, but think about our poor colleagues in the US. Why do they have to pay a Microsoft tax when the brave open world has worked out its own operating system from the bottom up?

Besides, after the US take it for granted that software patents are good, and "violating" them is bad, then you can bet it will take little time to have them reenacted here in Europe. We should help strike evil things down at the roots.

mmarq — Tue, 15 May 2007 14:47:24 +0000

"" Patents would make liable not only the distributor, but also the end user. In effect, it would be as illegal to run any libre software without paying Microsoft as it is now to run a bootleg copy of Windows. ""

And how many "user shops" around the world go with illegal windows ? The large majority i'm affraid, specially among the smallest ones in developing countrys. And that is a fellony everywhere. Well most of these patents are only valid in the US... so... no need to be a rebel here.

M$ is after the big money from the big shops and operators, essentially *only* in US.

It's McCarthyism all over again

egoforth — Tue, 15 May 2007 10:36:13 +0000

This is one of the better patent reform suggestions that I've heard. Not that I'm holding out hope for any meaningful change, but it seems fairly straightforward and workable so long as there is some easily identifiable criteria to place blame. The charges could be done on a sliding scale based on the number of claims in a patent that are overturned, so that the costs increase with the amount of neglect.

Take it to your Congress Critter

AnswerGuy — Tue, 15 May 2007 09:17:13 +0000

If this results in any significant number of lost jobs in the U.S. then you can imagine that everyone who loses his or her job ... and every relative of each of them ... and any co-workers who were barely missed by the axe ... and *their* relatives will all be leaning on representatives and senators.

This would be U.S. patent armageddon. It would finally push the matter far enough into the light that Joe Sixpack would raise a stink about it.

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

frankie — Tue, 15 May 2007 08:45:10 +0000

Ack, US software patenting is evil, plain and simple.

Armaggedon

cjl7 — Tue, 15 May 2007 08:39:47 +0000

>There is no way to render ten thousand patents invalid,

Then again common sense must prevail... If "business" is all that matters the scope of our problems are bigger then any violation of patents!? (IMHO)

On a side note, China doesn't acknowledge any patents and they are going to be the worlds biggest market soon. So patents only apply to those who care it seems...

//jonas

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

lewis — Tue, 15 May 2007 05:58:26 +0000

If M$ has been filing patent applications at the rate of over 3,000
per year since 2004 as asserted they must have well over 10,000 by now
and by Ballmers best FUD only 235 are infringed by FOSS?
This is only 2 percent!
Since a RedHat distro plus Open Office tools are more than sufficient to
run a perfectly good business. This implies that 98 percent of M$ patents
cover bells and whistles in their own OS and tools that are essentially
completely irrelevant.

Fascinating!

pr1268 — Tue, 15 May 2007 04:19:35 +0000

Fascinating e-mail and post! Thank you for sharing.

Plus, I really like your analogy of Linux as a "branded" drinking water. Too bad tSCOg and McBride didn't pursue that business strategy (or not!).

Time for a cease-and-desist letter?

tavis — Tue, 15 May 2007 03:00:24 +0000

I'm not suggesting fighting all 235 patents. The point of a cease-and-desist letter would be to force M$ to either tell us what the patents are or to shut up. The FSF and other legal groups (e.g., SFLC) don't necessarily have a business to grind to a halt; or, they could do it on behalf of a developer. They could claim harm by saying that their client's protected speech (of sharing his/her code with DB/Credit Suisse/etc.) has been threatened. Hmm, maybe someone should ask them.....

request for disclosure

stephen_pollei — Tue, 15 May 2007 00:28:22 +0000

Also people have repeatable and publicly been requesting that microsoft identify what patents they think are being infringed
35USC287:
TITLE 35--PATENTS
PART III--PATENTS AND PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS
CHAPTER 29--REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT, AND OTHER ACTIONS
Sec. 287. Limitation on damages and other remedies; marking and notice.

says "(3)(A) In making a determination with respect to the remedy in an 
action brought for infringement under section 271(g), the court shall 
consider-- (i) the good faith demonstrated by the defendant with respect to 
    a request for disclosure, ...
(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the following are evidence of 
good faith:
        (i) a request for disclosure made by the defendant;
        (ii) a response within a reasonable time by the person receiving 
    the request for disclosure; and
        (iii) the submission of the response by the defendant to the 
    manufacturer, or if the manufacturer is not known, to the supplier, 
    of the product to be purchased by the defendant, together with a 
    request for a written statement that the process claimed in any 
    patent disclosed in the response is not used to produce such 
    product.

The failure to perform any acts described in the preceding sentence is 
evidence of absence of good faith unless there are mitigating 
circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include the case in which, due 
to the nature of the product, the number of sources for the product, or 
like commercial circumstances, a request for disclosure is not necessary 
or practicable to avoid infringement.
    (4)(A) For purposes of this subsection, a ``request for disclosure'' 
means a written request made to a person then engaged in the manufacture 
of a product to identify all process patents owned by or licensed to 
that person, as of the time of the request, that the person then 
reasonably believes could be asserted to be infringed under section 
271(g) if that product were imported into, or sold, offered for sale, or 
used in, the United States by an unauthorized person. A request for 
disclosure is further limited to a request--
        (i) which is made by a person regularly engaged in the United 
    States in the sale of the same type of products as those 
    manufactured by the person to whom the request is directed, or which 
    includes facts showing that the person making the request plans to 
    engage in the sale of such products in the United States;
        (ii) which is made by such person before the person's first 
    importation, use, offer for sale, or sale of units of the product 
    produced by an infringing process and before the person had notice 
    of infringement with respect to the product; and
        (iii) which includes a representation by the person making the 
    request that such person will promptly submit the patents identified 
    pursuant to the request to the manufacturer, or if the manufacturer 
    is not known, to the supplier, of the product to be purchased by the 
    person making the request, and will request from that manufacturer 
    or supplier a written statement that none of the processes claimed 
    in those patents is used in the manufacture of the product.

    (B) In the case of a request for disclosure received by a person to 
whom a patent is licensed, that person shall either identify the patent 
or promptly notify the licensor of the request for disclosure. "

so they need to disclose what they claim is being infringed or the remedies they try to obtain might be limited.

Armaggedon scenarios, IANAL

man_ls — Mon, 14 May 2007 23:37:30 +0000

It is not so easy, I fear. Most people are not rebels, nor can you expect them to be.

Patents would make liable not only the distributor, but also the end user. In effect, it would be as illegal to run any libre software without paying Microsoft as it is now to run a bootleg copy of Windows. Mix in a little BSA-like (or RIAA-like, if you want) techniques, to instill the fear of God in businesses and end-users as needed, and voilà! Instant monopoly.

It's crazy, I know, but it would be the net result of recent moves by Microsoft. Their executives must be salivating in their fluorescent-lit offices right now. Probably not even them can imagine the situation going so far; a little FUD is all that is needed to keep customers for a few more years. The moment they start the first lawsuit is where IBM, Red Hat et al retaliate.

Armaggedon in a puff of smoke!

mmarq — Mon, 14 May 2007 23:09:07 +0000

"" Worst possible scenario. Free software in the US effectively disappears. Checkmate. ""

hmmm.. no! *Comercial* Free software in the US will be only for the big boys that pay to M$. About all repositorys, say perhaps 90% of all OSS, from all the independent developers will be lodge outside of US... Many developers will go on even if unemployed... M$ thinks they can cut substancial air out of OSS ( how incredible stupid they are!) but the only thing they get is richer out of the extortion, which after all, money and faul play is a banality expected from them anyway.

**For the end user life will go on as usual... its not even check**

Armaggedon

mmarq — Mon, 14 May 2007 22:43:45 +0000

"" Microsoft full out attack is that Microsoft still feels the desktop market is safe from Linux AND the Linux friends (Novell, IBM, Nokia, etc etc) together probably have more patents then Microsoft does. ""

Their isnt an attack yet, its only a shake down... but MS intention can only mean *full spectrum dominance*, they'll try to cut some deals advantageous to them with Novell, IBM, Nokia, etc etc... on the account of this treath. Users interests and small developers are out !

"" It really depends on how valuable Linux and OSS is to these other large patent holders. Are they willing to stick their own necks out to protect Free software? ""

Dont count too much on that. If the heat gets too intense they will settle with MS. OSS best defence rely on independent organizations like EFF, and the ability to invalidate patents and counter-attack wherever possible.

tolerance

khim — Mon, 14 May 2007 20:57:14 +0000

Not really. Patents are created to better protect inventor. Inventor can be single person and if s/he has no resources to monitor all firms in existence - it's Ok. If someone is using your patented invention without patent - you can collect money for old violations easily. But if you do know about violation and do nothing - you effectively Ok this usage (Rambus DDR patents). You can change patent policy at any time - but again even this way has limitations (see Phillis CD patents for example). In short: once you've declared that you know that someone is violations your patent - better to act quick.

tolerance

khim — Mon, 14 May 2007 20:49:17 +0000

There are differences and there are similarities. You can sit as long as you wish on your patents without losing them - but only if you can cite good reason for doing so (ignorance is good reason). Once you have a list - clock is ticking. After some time old violations can be declared too old, but new ones will be upheld. See Unisys and GIF fiasco: old violations were forgiven easily (Unisys had no real choice due to Doctrine of Latches), but new versions of the same programs required patent license.

If Microsoft's patents are real and valid then each day of delay is costing them money.

tolerance

lmb — Mon, 14 May 2007 20:37:24 +0000

Thanks for clarifying that. It confirms my opinion about the usefulness of patents as they are; they seem to be designed by someone in love with smoke, mirrors and FUD. Sigh.

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

hummassa — Mon, 14 May 2007 20:31:11 +0000

I'm sorry, but I think you are wrong:

> some of Viacom's behaviour stinks, but I don't think GooTube is
> whiter-than-white here, either. This case really is two pigs fighting
> in the mud

no, GooTube is whiter-than-white alright. why? because they are only the
enablers of a _whole_ _awful_ _lot_ of video-communications. Suing them
because some user put up one of Viacom's films is like suing the phone
company if I connect my answering machine to my CD player and put it to
play Metallica. In the latter case, Metallica should/could sue _me_ for
the unauthorized public performance of their work; in the former, Viacom
should/could sue _the_ _user_ for the unauthorized public performance (or
copy) of their work. But GooTube has *absolutely* *nothing* to do with
it. The work of policing all of GooTube to see if users are not
infringing my copyrights is _my_ work, not GooTube's. Period. Once I see
someone doing something murky, I alert GooTube and they put the offending
video down at once. So, yes, they are whiter than white.

tolerance

rfunk — Mon, 14 May 2007 20:12:20 +0000

Patents don't work like that. While trademarks must be protected or else lost, patent
violations may be freely ignored without diminishing your power to enforce when you want
to.

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

b3timmons — Mon, 14 May 2007 19:25:20 +0000

Thanks for the translation. Since a driver against the Microsoft patent threats would be defending free software, I am mystified why anyone would _not_ want the driver to be sympathetic to the organization that promotes free software. Moreover, PJ already has had a warmup with the SCO case and is good at it.

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

salimma — Mon, 14 May 2007 18:51:44 +0000

Unless you're a programmer paid by a US company to work on open source. Getting your job outsourced for legal reason would be much more infuriating than getting your job outsourced for cost reasons.

Armaggedon

AJWM — Mon, 14 May 2007 18:44:46 +0000

> There is no way to render ten thousand patents invalid,

The Supreme Court's recent decision on "obviousness" probably rendered many more than that invalid, or will have when the dust settles. Each one has to be looked at individually, of course, but the "potential for damage" of each one has been greatly reduced.

Patent trolls just suffered a great reduction in their air supply.

LWN: Comments on "Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)"

STOP IT PLEASE ~ THERE IS *NO* DANGER.

costs

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

China

Those are only the beginning

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

Armaggedon

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

Armaggedon

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

Armaggedon

Armaggedon

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

Those are only the beginning

It's McCarthyism all over again

Take it to your Congress Critter

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

Armaggedon

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

Fascinating!

Time for a cease-and-desist letter?

request for disclosure

Armaggedon scenarios, IANAL

Armaggedon in a puff of smoke!

Armaggedon

tolerance

tolerance

tolerance

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

tolerance

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)

Armaggedon

STOP IT PLEASE ~ THERE IS NO DANGER.