What I care about is being called a thief for using gasoline purchased from another company because that company uses the same or similar process to refine the gasoline.
Effectively that's what Microsoft is doing. They are calling me a thief for using Linux on my computer because Linux may have used some of the same processes as Microsoft did. By the way, those same processes were probably copied by Microsoft some years ago (or as recent court rulings have been showing--stolen). Now they are trying to extort those companies they are accusing into giving them IP in exchange, which, by the way, will only indemnify the customers of the company they entered into the IP cross license. So they can just pick up the bat again and swing at another.
Think about this in real life terms. The car uses gasoline (the computer an operating system) so the car is just a pile of metal and plastic without gasoline (computer as well without an OS). So, some dominant Oil company (OS vendor) then decides to call *everyone* that doesn't use their gasoline a thief because you are using the gasoline (for computers an operating system) from another company because that other company may have copied some elements of the refinery process (in the OS some of it's IP), then tries to extort all major companies that use the cars (computers) into giving them some of their profits and some other valuable property (in computers other IP developed by the company). Then they won't even tell you what part of the refinery process was copied so the major companies can determine if there really is a fault or to let the other gas companies change their refinery process to not copy.
I mean, come on, you can't miss that point.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
I found the following in a slashdot.org posting. I'm not claiming it is true but it seems to have quoted some documentation in public archives. I'm reposting it in order to keep it documented for future purposes.
----
In 1991, Microsoft employees launched an exceptionally dastardly plan to kill another competitor, DR DOS. DR DOS sales threatened MS-DOS, the early predecessor to Windows 95 that established Microsoft's operating system monopoly. DR DOS sales were on the rise--they doubled from $15 million in 1990 to $30 million in 1991. They soared again to $15 million in the first quarter of 1992 alone. Then disaster struck.
Microsoft was writing Windows 3.1, an important upgrade to the hugely popular Windows 3.0. In September 1991, a plan was hatched to use this upgrade to kill DR DOS. In an email discovered by the Dept. of Justice, the head of Windows development and Microsoft VP David Cole wrote, "aaronr had some pretty wild ideas after three or so beers--earleh has some too." The plan was to plant code into Windows which would "put competitors on a treadmill" and cause the system to "surely crash at some point shortly later." In order words, Windows would intentionally bomb if it detected DR DOS.
At this time, many computer vendors were considering switching from MS-DOS to the superior, cheaper DR DOS. Microsoft was especially concerned about IBM. Wooing these PC vendors was crucial to the future success of DR DOS, as was the good will of "early-adopters" (i.e., technically savvy users who drive new trends in the computer industry).
These vendors and early-adopters were also the same people who received a Christmas "beta" pre-release of Windows 3.1. They discovered--to their horror--that using DR DOS would cause vague system errors to pop up in Windows 3.1; they dumped DR DOS in droves. By the fourth quarter of 1992, sales of DR DOS had dropped from $15 million to only $1.4 million. The once mighty competitor became a has-been and was sold to Novell and later Caldera.
----
In 1991, Microsoft employees launched an exceptionally dastardly plan to kill another competitor, DR DOS. DR DOS sales threatened MS-DOS, the early predecessor to Windows 95 that established Microsoft's operating system monopoly. DR DOS sales were on the rise--they doubled from $15 million in 1990 to $30 million in 1991. They soared again to $15 million in the first quarter of 1992 alone. Then disaster struck.
Microsoft was writing Windows 3.1, an important upgrade to the hugely popular Windows 3.0. In September 1991, a plan was hatched to use this upgrade to kill DR DOS. In an email discovered by the Dept. of Justice, the head of Windows development and Microsoft VP David Cole wrote, "aaronr had some pretty wild ideas after three or so beers--earleh has some too." The plan was to plant code into Windows which would "put competitors on a treadmill" and cause the system to "surely crash at some point shortly later." In order words, Windows would intentionally bomb if it detected DR DOS.
At this time, many computer vendors were considering switching from MS-DOS to the superior, cheaper DR DOS. Microsoft was especially concerned about IBM. Wooing these PC vendors was crucial to the future success of DR DOS, as was the good will of "early-adopters" (i.e., technically savvy users who drive new trends in the computer industry).
These vendors and early-adopters were also the same people who received a Christmas "beta" pre-release of Windows 3.1. They discovered--to their horror--that using DR DOS would cause vague system errors to pop up in Windows 3.1; they dumped DR DOS in droves. By the fourth quarter of 1992, sales of DR DOS had dropped from $15 million to only $1.4 million. The once mighty competitor became a has-been and was sold to Novell and later Caldera.
Monday, May 14, 2007
You are all criminals
Somehow a post I made on slashdot.org wasn't posted. Maybe the moderators misunderstood it. What I essentially did was the following:
You are all criminals. You are all guilty of theft. Every one of you.
I'm not going to tell you why you are criminals nor what you are guilty of, just suffice it to say that you are.
Then I went on to say that no, I wasn't really claiming everyone is a criminal. I was just writing it that way to demonstrate what Microsoft is claiming.
This is like claiming you have stolen something without claiming what it is. It is about saying you belong in jail for doing so but never proving in a court that you actually stole something or even stating what you stole.
This is the impact of Microsoft's claims. Anyone using Linux has stolen from Microsoft. Microsoft won't tell us what part we have stolen nor what can be done to remedy the issue. They just want you to pay them some money. You can't evaluate what the value of that is you just have to give what they tell you.
In most areas of law to publicly state and to allow something to be printed such as this makes this slanderous. To make such a comment and allow it to be printed and to not correct it makes it libel.
From my reading on the web about this issue everyone appears to agree that this is just FUD meant to influence decision makers. One particularly important decision maker right now is Dell Computers. They are releasing a line of new computers that have Ubuntu (ubuntu.com) installed for the home user. According to Michael Dell's blog he uses Linux on his home computer and Ubuntu is his distro of choice. There are other sizable issues involved here such as the GNU GPL v.3. This document attempts to undo the exploit of a loop hole in the GPL v.2. It even attempts to make it retroactive to the GPL v.2.
You are all criminals. You are all guilty of theft. Every one of you.
I'm not going to tell you why you are criminals nor what you are guilty of, just suffice it to say that you are.
Then I went on to say that no, I wasn't really claiming everyone is a criminal. I was just writing it that way to demonstrate what Microsoft is claiming.
This is like claiming you have stolen something without claiming what it is. It is about saying you belong in jail for doing so but never proving in a court that you actually stole something or even stating what you stole.
This is the impact of Microsoft's claims. Anyone using Linux has stolen from Microsoft. Microsoft won't tell us what part we have stolen nor what can be done to remedy the issue. They just want you to pay them some money. You can't evaluate what the value of that is you just have to give what they tell you.
In most areas of law to publicly state and to allow something to be printed such as this makes this slanderous. To make such a comment and allow it to be printed and to not correct it makes it libel.
From my reading on the web about this issue everyone appears to agree that this is just FUD meant to influence decision makers. One particularly important decision maker right now is Dell Computers. They are releasing a line of new computers that have Ubuntu (ubuntu.com) installed for the home user. According to Michael Dell's blog he uses Linux on his home computer and Ubuntu is his distro of choice. There are other sizable issues involved here such as the GNU GPL v.3. This document attempts to undo the exploit of a loop hole in the GPL v.2. It even attempts to make it retroactive to the GPL v.2.
Somone on Slashdot.org made a comment
Someone on slashdot.org made a comment about what potentially could be infringing. The following comments were in response to that.
---
I do not believe that NTFS and FAT drivers are included in the kernel. I understand any/all of these are additional facilities provided by other parties.
I don't think the amount of money would be enough to shut down any project. As the court has ruled that even tho Microsoft has violated numerous patents they have not been forced to stop using them and this isn't because they agreed to license them.
In the Z4 case they wanted to force Microsoft to cease using it which would have effectively shut down the activation process of Windows. Their attempt at getting an injunction was denied. This has happened numerous times since. It means the courts are forcing Microsoft to pay royalties and to license the product. Microsoft has stated, at least in the Z4 case, they will be modifying their product to not use the infringing IP.
As far as Vista goes. It is actually doing quite poorly overall. We'll see this in the next couple of quarters when all those special circumstances that they managed to get included in their financial statements could no longer apply. Any pro Vista sales numbers are really just being exaggerated to increase the stock value to address festering sores such as: employee benefits, shareholder value, etc. Microsoft is worried horribly about loosing their key players to other companies and the only way they can keep their stock pile of cash and continue to develop is to provide big stock options to the employees. If the stock stays flat as it has been for the past few years employees feel jilted by Microsoft and are more given to find other work.
---
I do not believe that NTFS and FAT drivers are included in the kernel. I understand any/all of these are additional facilities provided by other parties.
I don't think the amount of money would be enough to shut down any project. As the court has ruled that even tho Microsoft has violated numerous patents they have not been forced to stop using them and this isn't because they agreed to license them.
In the Z4 case they wanted to force Microsoft to cease using it which would have effectively shut down the activation process of Windows. Their attempt at getting an injunction was denied. This has happened numerous times since. It means the courts are forcing Microsoft to pay royalties and to license the product. Microsoft has stated, at least in the Z4 case, they will be modifying their product to not use the infringing IP.
As far as Vista goes. It is actually doing quite poorly overall. We'll see this in the next couple of quarters when all those special circumstances that they managed to get included in their financial statements could no longer apply. Any pro Vista sales numbers are really just being exaggerated to increase the stock value to address festering sores such as: employee benefits, shareholder value, etc. Microsoft is worried horribly about loosing their key players to other companies and the only way they can keep their stock pile of cash and continue to develop is to provide big stock options to the employees. If the stock stays flat as it has been for the past few years employees feel jilted by Microsoft and are more given to find other work.
A Few More Comments.
I wanted to make a few more comments regarding Microsoft's claims.
1) The claimed issues are comprised of how much liability? Are we talking a factor of hundreds of dollars per Linux install or are we talking a matter of a few cents to a few dollars per install?
From an individual stand point I'd say to Microsoft to go ahead and sue me. Yes I know that large businesses have larger investments and have a greater potential liability. But overall, I can't see Microsoft suing the vast majority of home users.
2) 235 (238) patents is a pretty small number overall. Considering the complexity of the kernel and of other applications potentially infringing I don't think that there's enough there to turn the thumb screws on any individual or company.
3) How many of those patents were already licensed to the likes of IBM or Sun? It seems pretty empty and stupid to make claims without stating the specifics especially when some or all of those might be covered by someone else. If I recall correctly, SUN entered into an agreement with Microsoft when Sun prevailed against Microsoft in that Open Office was indemnified against IP violations.
4) Of the remaining IP claims how many of them are covered by the likes of the EU anti-trust convictions? I know they are still entitled to their claims but if any/all of those are covered that'll serious reduce the liability of any given company or individual.
5) Why is the Open Source community not standing more firmly in forcing Microsoft to be forthcoming about which IPs are alleged in violation? It would seem that if we all just shut up and told Microsoft to put up they'd have little to hold against us.
1) The claimed issues are comprised of how much liability? Are we talking a factor of hundreds of dollars per Linux install or are we talking a matter of a few cents to a few dollars per install?
From an individual stand point I'd say to Microsoft to go ahead and sue me. Yes I know that large businesses have larger investments and have a greater potential liability. But overall, I can't see Microsoft suing the vast majority of home users.
2) 235 (238) patents is a pretty small number overall. Considering the complexity of the kernel and of other applications potentially infringing I don't think that there's enough there to turn the thumb screws on any individual or company.
3) How many of those patents were already licensed to the likes of IBM or Sun? It seems pretty empty and stupid to make claims without stating the specifics especially when some or all of those might be covered by someone else. If I recall correctly, SUN entered into an agreement with Microsoft when Sun prevailed against Microsoft in that Open Office was indemnified against IP violations.
4) Of the remaining IP claims how many of them are covered by the likes of the EU anti-trust convictions? I know they are still entitled to their claims but if any/all of those are covered that'll serious reduce the liability of any given company or individual.
5) Why is the Open Source community not standing more firmly in forcing Microsoft to be forthcoming about which IPs are alleged in violation? It would seem that if we all just shut up and told Microsoft to put up they'd have little to hold against us.
Massive FUD
This isn't a battle where the parties remain at odds over which patents each other violate. This only plays into Microsoft's hands and allows them to use FUD against the community. With FUD they will keep big corporates from investing in Linux. With the latest near absolute victory against SCO, IBM probably doesn't have much taste to further battle another company like Microsoft. I'm pretty sure IBM will stay mute until it is absolutely necessary.
Let's bear in mind here that these words from Ballmer are mostly baseless unless they state specifically which patents are violated. You can't claim that you were harmed without telling the parties where they are harming you. If you do you have very little solid ground to stand on. I'm sure any jury deciding damages would mitigate them due to how Microsoft claims problems but tells no one what the problems are or what they need to do to resolve them.
Let's also bear in mind that Microsoft has lost nearly 100% of its patent lawsuits over the history of their legal affairs. Recent losses are pretty sizable affairs totaling in billions of dollars. Microsoft is also a convicted monopolist in more than one country and they have participated in some very nasty anti-competitive practices which have harmed the consumer (individuals, as well as businesses). By the very nature of this harm they have harmed the development of software and harmed the economy. Granted some of that last sentence is my own conjecture, but there's good cause to believe that if the money they have stockpiled in the banks of a few people had been distributed to a greater number of people that money would have been used to further the economy in more beneficial way.
Let's also keep in mind that Microsoft lost the lawsuit against a company called Z4 and it was upheld on appeal, regarding the violation of Z4's IP for online activation. In fact, they were found to have participated in numerous acts of misconduct during the trial, as noted by the Judge. He clearly stated in his ruling, when he awarded Z4 an additional $25 million in special damages above and beyond the normal punitive damages, that Microsoft had acted with such misconduct because they felt Z4 was incapable of defending its own IP.
The IP they stole from Z4 was the technology used to perform the activation of XP over the internet. This equates to essentially stealing the technology which they used to keep you from stealing their software. That's pretty atrocious if you ask me.
They have consistently operated in a malformed way and to this day they continue to spy on you with their hidden technology called Windows Genuine Advantage Notification. This same technology (and more) is incorporated into Vista. It is being done without the consumer's knowledge and is the equivalent of them coming into your home (because your computer is an extension of your home) in order to search it. No company does this nor should be allowed to do this, and just because it is done in a hidden way makes it no less a violation of your privacy. It's the equivalent of a hidden camera. No one would allow the Police authorities to place a hidden camera in your home and certainly would not agree to do that without the oversight of a court and Judge. This is the equivalent of allowing Walmart to enter your home to search it in order to determine if you have stolen any of their goods just because you are a regular shopper at Walmart.
So, they are not on the up and up and they should not be trusted in this matter. This commentary from their lead attorney is not being done in good faith and none of these claims have ever been proven in a court of law. Upon a trial with a judge and jury where the facts are laid out and one party prevails we'll see who has the strongest IP, otherwise all of this is just FUD.
Why is this coming out so hard and so fast at this point? It is because Microsoft Vista is doing so horribly and because products such as Red Hat, Ubuntu, and several others are doing very well in the home community.
It is up to Microsoft to lay out for us which IPs are being violated and to prove that they indeed own them and that there is no prior art. They can ill afford to put forth these claims and then take them to court because there's a good chance that a great number of their IP claims are not valid and they'll loose them if they do so.
Our community need only say one thing to Microsoft: "Put up or shut up!"
We say this because they benefit from this FUD while the open source community is harmed. If you made these claims against an individual without telling that individual what they have done wrong they'd get sued. Since the open source community is so large they can hide by not pointing specifically to any given claim and they will benefit.
Imagine them having to put up and them loosing at least some of those causes. How many of their products would then be found in violation of the open source community patents? I think the only way to get this out is to build funding for the purpose of suing Microsoft to force them to disclose the alleged violations or to give up on them.
I personally don't want this to be a never ending stand-off. The Open Source community would greatly advance on the day that we finally show that Microsoft is full of hot fat bellowing Ballmer air.
Let's bear in mind here that these words from Ballmer are mostly baseless unless they state specifically which patents are violated. You can't claim that you were harmed without telling the parties where they are harming you. If you do you have very little solid ground to stand on. I'm sure any jury deciding damages would mitigate them due to how Microsoft claims problems but tells no one what the problems are or what they need to do to resolve them.
Let's also bear in mind that Microsoft has lost nearly 100% of its patent lawsuits over the history of their legal affairs. Recent losses are pretty sizable affairs totaling in billions of dollars. Microsoft is also a convicted monopolist in more than one country and they have participated in some very nasty anti-competitive practices which have harmed the consumer (individuals, as well as businesses). By the very nature of this harm they have harmed the development of software and harmed the economy. Granted some of that last sentence is my own conjecture, but there's good cause to believe that if the money they have stockpiled in the banks of a few people had been distributed to a greater number of people that money would have been used to further the economy in more beneficial way.
Let's also keep in mind that Microsoft lost the lawsuit against a company called Z4 and it was upheld on appeal, regarding the violation of Z4's IP for online activation. In fact, they were found to have participated in numerous acts of misconduct during the trial, as noted by the Judge. He clearly stated in his ruling, when he awarded Z4 an additional $25 million in special damages above and beyond the normal punitive damages, that Microsoft had acted with such misconduct because they felt Z4 was incapable of defending its own IP.
The IP they stole from Z4 was the technology used to perform the activation of XP over the internet. This equates to essentially stealing the technology which they used to keep you from stealing their software. That's pretty atrocious if you ask me.
They have consistently operated in a malformed way and to this day they continue to spy on you with their hidden technology called Windows Genuine Advantage Notification. This same technology (and more) is incorporated into Vista. It is being done without the consumer's knowledge and is the equivalent of them coming into your home (because your computer is an extension of your home) in order to search it. No company does this nor should be allowed to do this, and just because it is done in a hidden way makes it no less a violation of your privacy. It's the equivalent of a hidden camera. No one would allow the Police authorities to place a hidden camera in your home and certainly would not agree to do that without the oversight of a court and Judge. This is the equivalent of allowing Walmart to enter your home to search it in order to determine if you have stolen any of their goods just because you are a regular shopper at Walmart.
So, they are not on the up and up and they should not be trusted in this matter. This commentary from their lead attorney is not being done in good faith and none of these claims have ever been proven in a court of law. Upon a trial with a judge and jury where the facts are laid out and one party prevails we'll see who has the strongest IP, otherwise all of this is just FUD.
Why is this coming out so hard and so fast at this point? It is because Microsoft Vista is doing so horribly and because products such as Red Hat, Ubuntu, and several others are doing very well in the home community.
It is up to Microsoft to lay out for us which IPs are being violated and to prove that they indeed own them and that there is no prior art. They can ill afford to put forth these claims and then take them to court because there's a good chance that a great number of their IP claims are not valid and they'll loose them if they do so.
Our community need only say one thing to Microsoft: "Put up or shut up!"
We say this because they benefit from this FUD while the open source community is harmed. If you made these claims against an individual without telling that individual what they have done wrong they'd get sued. Since the open source community is so large they can hide by not pointing specifically to any given claim and they will benefit.
Imagine them having to put up and them loosing at least some of those causes. How many of their products would then be found in violation of the open source community patents? I think the only way to get this out is to build funding for the purpose of suing Microsoft to force them to disclose the alleged violations or to give up on them.
I personally don't want this to be a never ending stand-off. The Open Source community would greatly advance on the day that we finally show that Microsoft is full of hot fat bellowing Ballmer air.
Scorn FUD
Below are a series of commentaries I posted on Slashdot.org These were written in the context that Microsoft has claimed that numerous, and rather sizable, IP violations exist in the Linux Kernel as well as in other open source projects such as mail and the GUI. Before you get what is being said you must understand that there is a history of IP theft by Microsoft over the years and there were some rather notable cases that were just decided. By and large tho the vast majority of IP lawsuits involving Microsoft have been won by Microsoft's opponents.
A particularly notable one was Z4. They were a small company that invented a way to perform software activation over the internet. Z4 discovered the Microsoft was using their IP and contacted Microsoft. Microsoft, for all intents and purposes, brushed off Z4. Z4 filed a lawsuit against Microsoft to protect their IP. During the trial proceedings, according to the judge, Microsoft performed many acts of misconduct. These acts of misconduct resulted in Microsoft being penalized another $25 million in special damages above and beyond normal and punitive damages. The Judge noted that Microsoft had conducted itself in this manner with the belief that Z4 did not have the ability to enforce it's own rights. The Z4 case went to appeal and was upheld, including the special damages.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the FUD aspect of these claims are not new and whenever these claims are brought out the Open Source community asks that the IP in question be brought out so that everyone can see them for themselves and evaluate, correct, or abandon those things which are potentially in violation. What many readers might not grasp is that the open source community doesn't want to use Microsoft's IP. They'd rather know what they are and remove or invent around them rather than risk the fall out.
Microsoft's history has shown that they have stolen IP and have used that IP even when notified of the violations. Not all Open Source participants believe that IP is wrong or that it needs to be done away with. What most Open Source participants believe is that the ability to patent software should be made significantly more difficult.
Here's an example. There was an individual on the net who invented a way of displaying some content. After some time he found out that Microsoft had been using his ideas on their web page. He contacted them not to say that he was unhappy but to say that he would have preferred that they give him credit for using his idea. Microsoft, to him, acknowledged they were using his idea. Unbeknownst to him they had also filed a patent on the idea. When this came out they dropped their patent claim but had he not pursued this they would have claimed the patent and gotten away with it.
The difference here is that it seems that Microsoft is attempting to use other's IP and will continue to do so even when told to stop while those that they claim are violating their IP are told they are but are never told which ones are in violation.
This is an ongoing battle between Microsoft and Open Source but in reality there's a significantly larger issue involved here including possible libel, slander and even anti-competitive actions being performed by a court ruled monopoly.
A particularly notable one was Z4. They were a small company that invented a way to perform software activation over the internet. Z4 discovered the Microsoft was using their IP and contacted Microsoft. Microsoft, for all intents and purposes, brushed off Z4. Z4 filed a lawsuit against Microsoft to protect their IP. During the trial proceedings, according to the judge, Microsoft performed many acts of misconduct. These acts of misconduct resulted in Microsoft being penalized another $25 million in special damages above and beyond normal and punitive damages. The Judge noted that Microsoft had conducted itself in this manner with the belief that Z4 did not have the ability to enforce it's own rights. The Z4 case went to appeal and was upheld, including the special damages.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the FUD aspect of these claims are not new and whenever these claims are brought out the Open Source community asks that the IP in question be brought out so that everyone can see them for themselves and evaluate, correct, or abandon those things which are potentially in violation. What many readers might not grasp is that the open source community doesn't want to use Microsoft's IP. They'd rather know what they are and remove or invent around them rather than risk the fall out.
Microsoft's history has shown that they have stolen IP and have used that IP even when notified of the violations. Not all Open Source participants believe that IP is wrong or that it needs to be done away with. What most Open Source participants believe is that the ability to patent software should be made significantly more difficult.
Here's an example. There was an individual on the net who invented a way of displaying some content. After some time he found out that Microsoft had been using his ideas on their web page. He contacted them not to say that he was unhappy but to say that he would have preferred that they give him credit for using his idea. Microsoft, to him, acknowledged they were using his idea. Unbeknownst to him they had also filed a patent on the idea. When this came out they dropped their patent claim but had he not pursued this they would have claimed the patent and gotten away with it.
The difference here is that it seems that Microsoft is attempting to use other's IP and will continue to do so even when told to stop while those that they claim are violating their IP are told they are but are never told which ones are in violation.
This is an ongoing battle between Microsoft and Open Source but in reality there's a significantly larger issue involved here including possible libel, slander and even anti-competitive actions being performed by a court ruled monopoly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)