[Media] Linux users owe Microsoft

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Anony Mouse, Nov 21, 2006.

  1. Anony Mouse

    Anony Mouse Guest

    Anony Mouse, Nov 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Anony Mouse

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:38:04 +1300, Anony Mouse <>
    exclaimed:

    >
    >http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;839593139;fp;16;fpid;1
    >
    >In comments confirming the open-source community's suspicions, Microsoft
    >CEO Steve Ballmer Thursday declared his belief that the Linux operating
    >system infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property.


    Of course it does.

    I know it's not the OS, but for example, how could OOo, which many
    people call a "clone" of MS Office (albeit not a very good one), not
    infringe MS's IP rights? (I use OOo as an example, as everyone knows
    it).

    Just because something is free doesn't mean it is without
    responsibility.
     
    Fred Dagg, Nov 22, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Anony Mouse

    Allistar Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:

    > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:38:04 +1300, Anony Mouse <>
    > exclaimed:
    >
    >>
    >>http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;839593139;fp;16;fpid;1
    >>
    >>In comments confirming the open-source community's suspicions, Microsoft
    >>CEO Steve Ballmer Thursday declared his belief that the Linux operating
    >>system infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property.

    >
    > Of course it does.


    Can you give specific examples?

    > I know it's not the OS, but for example, how could OOo, which many
    > people call a "clone" of MS Office (albeit not a very good one), not
    > infringe MS's IP rights? (I use OOo as an example, as everyone knows
    > it).


    In what way does it infringe on their IP rights?

    > Just because something is free doesn't mean it is without
    > responsibility.


    You could say the same thing about IE7 and tabbed browsing. But you can't
    (or shouldn't be able to) patent an idea like an office suite or tabbed
    browsing.

    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Nov 22, 2006
    #3
  4. On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:38:04 +1300, Anony Mouse <>
    wrote:

    >http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;839593139;fp;16;fpid;1
    >
    >In comments confirming the open-source community's suspicions, Microsoft
    >CEO Steve Ballmer Thursday declared his belief that the Linux operating
    >system infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property.


    Considering the number of software patents that Microsoft has it realy
    wouldnt be supprising if Linux did infringe on some of them.

    However, IBM has deeper pockets and more patents than Microsoft. Chair
    throwing maniac that Steve Ballmer may be, I dont think he is realy
    stupid enough to try and take on IBM and other large supporters of
    Linux.
     
    David Goodwin, Nov 22, 2006
    #4
  5. Anony Mouse

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:45:52 +1300, Allistar <> exclaimed:

    >> I know it's not the OS, but for example, how could OOo, which many
    >> people call a "clone" of MS Office (albeit not a very good one), not
    >> infringe MS's IP rights? (I use OOo as an example, as everyone knows
    >> it).

    >
    >In what way does it infringe on their IP rights?


    Well, for starters, the fact that they've reverse engineered
    Microsoft's Word format.
     
    Fred Dagg, Nov 22, 2006
    #5
  6. Anony Mouse

    Allistar Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:

    > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:45:52 +1300, Allistar <> exclaimed:
    >
    >>> I know it's not the OS, but for example, how could OOo, which many
    >>> people call a "clone" of MS Office (albeit not a very good one), not
    >>> infringe MS's IP rights? (I use OOo as an example, as everyone knows
    >>> it).

    >>
    >>In what way does it infringe on their IP rights?

    >
    > Well, for starters, the fact that they've reverse engineered
    > Microsoft's Word format.


    Reverse engineering isn't illegal, unless it circumvents security under the
    DMCA, which reverse engineering the .doc format doesn't do. I don't think
    Microsoft have a patent on a format (can formats be patented?)

    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Nov 22, 2006
    #6
  7. Anony Mouse

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:44:35 +1300, Allistar <> exclaimed:

    >Fred Dagg wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:45:52 +1300, Allistar <> exclaimed:
    >>
    >>>> I know it's not the OS, but for example, how could OOo, which many
    >>>> people call a "clone" of MS Office (albeit not a very good one), not
    >>>> infringe MS's IP rights? (I use OOo as an example, as everyone knows
    >>>> it).
    >>>
    >>>In what way does it infringe on their IP rights?

    >>
    >> Well, for starters, the fact that they've reverse engineered
    >> Microsoft's Word format.

    >
    >Reverse engineering isn't illegal, unless it circumvents security under the
    >DMCA, which reverse engineering the .doc format doesn't do. I don't think
    >Microsoft have a patent on a format (can formats be patented?)


    It is their Intellectual Property.
     
    Fred Dagg, Nov 22, 2006
    #7
  8. In message <>, Allistar wrote:

    > Reverse engineering isn't illegal, unless it circumvents security under
    > the DMCA, which reverse engineering the .doc format doesn't do. I don't
    > think Microsoft have a patent on a format (can formats be patented?)


    In the US, it seems, any bloody thing is patentable. Someone even got a
    patent on a method of tying shoelaces
    <http://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/doublehelixlacing.htm>.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 22, 2006
    #8
  9. Anony Mouse

    GraB Guest

    On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:50:25 +1300, Fred Dagg <>
    wrote:

    >On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:44:35 +1300, Allistar <> exclaimed:
    >
    >>Fred Dagg wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:45:52 +1300, Allistar <> exclaimed:
    >>>
    >>>>> I know it's not the OS, but for example, how could OOo, which many
    >>>>> people call a "clone" of MS Office (albeit not a very good one), not
    >>>>> infringe MS's IP rights? (I use OOo as an example, as everyone knows
    >>>>> it).
    >>>>
    >>>>In what way does it infringe on their IP rights?
    >>>
    >>> Well, for starters, the fact that they've reverse engineered
    >>> Microsoft's Word format.

    >>
    >>Reverse engineering isn't illegal, unless it circumvents security under the
    >>DMCA, which reverse engineering the .doc format doesn't do. I don't think
    >>Microsoft have a patent on a format (can formats be patented?)

    >
    >It is their Intellectual Property.


    Has MS ever used technology belonging to others before?
     
    GraB, Nov 22, 2006
    #9
  10. Anony Mouse

    Earl Grey Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:44:35 +1300, Allistar <> exclaimed:
    >
    >> Fred Dagg wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:45:52 +1300, Allistar <> exclaimed:
    >>>
    >>>>> I know it's not the OS, but for example, how could OOo, which many
    >>>>> people call a "clone" of MS Office (albeit not a very good one), not
    >>>>> infringe MS's IP rights? (I use OOo as an example, as everyone knows
    >>>>> it).
    >>>> In what way does it infringe on their IP rights?
    >>> Well, for starters, the fact that they've reverse engineered
    >>> Microsoft's Word format.

    >> Reverse engineering isn't illegal, unless it circumvents security under the
    >> DMCA, which reverse engineering the .doc format doesn't do. I don't think
    >> Microsoft have a patent on a format (can formats be patented?)

    >
    > It is their Intellectual Property.


    But not exclusively theirs.
     
    Earl Grey, Nov 22, 2006
    #10
  11. Anony Mouse

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:42:21 +1300, Earl Grey <> exclaimed:

    >Fred Dagg wrote:
    >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:44:35 +1300, Allistar <> exclaimed:
    >>
    >>> Fred Dagg wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:45:52 +1300, Allistar <> exclaimed:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> I know it's not the OS, but for example, how could OOo, which many
    >>>>>> people call a "clone" of MS Office (albeit not a very good one), not
    >>>>>> infringe MS's IP rights? (I use OOo as an example, as everyone knows
    >>>>>> it).
    >>>>> In what way does it infringe on their IP rights?
    >>>> Well, for starters, the fact that they've reverse engineered
    >>>> Microsoft's Word format.
    >>> Reverse engineering isn't illegal, unless it circumvents security under the
    >>> DMCA, which reverse engineering the .doc format doesn't do. I don't think
    >>> Microsoft have a patent on a format (can formats be patented?)

    >>
    >> It is their Intellectual Property.

    >
    >But not exclusively theirs.


    Sure about that?
     
    Fred Dagg, Nov 22, 2006
    #11
  12. Anony Mouse

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:24:16 +1300, GraB <>
    exclaimed:

    >On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:50:25 +1300, Fred Dagg <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:44:35 +1300, Allistar <> exclaimed:
    >>
    >>>Fred Dagg wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:45:52 +1300, Allistar <> exclaimed:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> I know it's not the OS, but for example, how could OOo, which many
    >>>>>> people call a "clone" of MS Office (albeit not a very good one), not
    >>>>>> infringe MS's IP rights? (I use OOo as an example, as everyone knows
    >>>>>> it).
    >>>>>
    >>>>>In what way does it infringe on their IP rights?
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, for starters, the fact that they've reverse engineered
    >>>> Microsoft's Word format.
    >>>
    >>>Reverse engineering isn't illegal, unless it circumvents security under the
    >>>DMCA, which reverse engineering the .doc format doesn't do. I don't think
    >>>Microsoft have a patent on a format (can formats be patented?)

    >>
    >>It is their Intellectual Property.

    >
    >Has MS ever used technology belonging to others before?
    >

    Where they have, they've paid the price. Now it's Linux's turn.
     
    Fred Dagg, Nov 22, 2006
    #12
  13. Anony Mouse

    steve Guest

    Anony Mouse wrote:

    >
    > http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;839593139;fp;16;fpid;1
    >
    > In comments confirming the open-source community's suspicions, Microsoft
    > CEO Steve Ballmer Thursday declared his belief that the Linux operating
    > system infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property.


    Heh....

    If he can't compete on the desktop and server, he'll compete through legal
    intimidation.

    Let's see how the Democrat-dominated Congress takes to this new
    monopoly-abusing, anti-competitive strategy of Microsoft's.

    It has the potential to cause a backlash that will sweep away the
    overly-restrictive intellectual property regime currently in place.

    Patents were intended to enable innovation.....not thwart it.

    Time to look at that again.
     
    steve, Nov 22, 2006
    #13
  14. Anony Mouse

    steve Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:

    > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:38:04 +1300, Anony Mouse <>
    > exclaimed:
    >
    >>
    >>http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;839593139;fp;16;fpid;1
    >>
    >>In comments confirming the open-source community's suspicions, Microsoft
    >>CEO Steve Ballmer Thursday declared his belief that the Linux operating
    >>system infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property.

    >
    > Of course it does.
    >
    > I know it's not the OS, but for example, how could OOo, which many
    > people call a "clone" of MS Office (albeit not a very good one), not
    > infringe MS's IP rights? (I use OOo as an example, as everyone knows
    > it).
    >
    > Just because something is free doesn't mean it is without
    > responsibility.


    Sorry. You need to prove how it does.....

    It might look similar, but it isn't the same.

    Does Microsoft now own the concept of GUI-based word processing and all the
    features and functions REQUIRED (fonts / pagination / inseted images /
    tables / etc) to be able to do it?

    I think not.

    There is more than ample prior art in every category.

    MS Word 5.5 was a clone of WordPerfect 5.x.
     
    steve, Nov 22, 2006
    #14
  15. Anony Mouse

    steve Guest

    David Goodwin wrote:

    > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:38:04 +1300, Anony Mouse <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;839593139;fp;16;fpid;1
    >>
    >>In comments confirming the open-source community's suspicions, Microsoft
    >>CEO Steve Ballmer Thursday declared his belief that the Linux operating
    >>system infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property.

    >
    > Considering the number of software patents that Microsoft has it realy
    > wouldnt be supprising if Linux did infringe on some of them.
    >
    > However, IBM has deeper pockets and more patents than Microsoft. Chair
    > throwing maniac that Steve Ballmer may be, I dont think he is realy
    > stupid enough to try and take on IBM and other large supporters of
    > Linux.


    Oh he'll sign agreements with the big guys....and attempt to squeeze out all
    the little guys (who actually write the software).
     
    steve, Nov 22, 2006
    #15
  16. In message <>, steve wrote:

    > Let's see how the Democrat-dominated Congress takes to this new
    > monopoly-abusing, anti-competitive strategy of Microsoft's.


    Democrat ... Republican ... Tweedledum ... Tweedledee.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 22, 2006
    #16
  17. Anony Mouse

    Warwick Guest

    On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:24:16 +1300, GraB wrote:

    > Has MS ever used technology belonging to others before?


    Borland's C compiler springs to mind.
     
    Warwick, Nov 22, 2006
    #17
  18. In message <bltsc2pg2p18$.12xe7bmq0h086$>, Warwick wrote:

    > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:24:16 +1300, GraB wrote:
    >
    >> Has MS ever used technology belonging to others before?

    >
    > Borland's C compiler springs to mind.


    When Microsoft bought Foxbase, Fox Software made no secret of the fact that
    they used Watcom C, not Microsoft C, to compile their product. This was
    because Watcom C produced smaller code, which meant that Foxbase could fit
    within the 640kiB limit that DOS was restricted to at the time--the code
    generated by Microsoft C was just too big.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 22, 2006
    #18
  19. Anony Mouse

    Earl Grey Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:42:21 +1300, Earl Grey <> exclaimed:
    >
    >> Fred Dagg wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:44:35 +1300, Allistar <> exclaimed:
    >>>
    >>>> Fred Dagg wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:45:52 +1300, Allistar <> exclaimed:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> I know it's not the OS, but for example, how could OOo, which many
    >>>>>>> people call a "clone" of MS Office (albeit not a very good one), not
    >>>>>>> infringe MS's IP rights? (I use OOo as an example, as everyone knows
    >>>>>>> it).
    >>>>>> In what way does it infringe on their IP rights?
    >>>>> Well, for starters, the fact that they've reverse engineered
    >>>>> Microsoft's Word format.
    >>>> Reverse engineering isn't illegal, unless it circumvents security under the
    >>>> DMCA, which reverse engineering the .doc format doesn't do. I don't think
    >>>> Microsoft have a patent on a format (can formats be patented?)
    >>> It is their Intellectual Property.

    >> But not exclusively theirs.

    >
    > Sure about that?

    The burden of proof is yours.
    Until it has been decided by litigation.
     
    Earl Grey, Nov 22, 2006
    #19
  20. Anony Mouse

    GraB Guest

    On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:24:16 +1300, GraB <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:50:25 +1300, Fred Dagg <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:44:35 +1300, Allistar <> exclaimed:
    >>
    >>>Fred Dagg wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:45:52 +1300, Allistar <> exclaimed:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> I know it's not the OS, but for example, how could OOo, which many
    >>>>>> people call a "clone" of MS Office (albeit not a very good one), not
    >>>>>> infringe MS's IP rights? (I use OOo as an example, as everyone knows
    >>>>>> it).
    >>>>>
    >>>>>In what way does it infringe on their IP rights?
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, for starters, the fact that they've reverse engineered
    >>>> Microsoft's Word format.
    >>>
    >>>Reverse engineering isn't illegal, unless it circumvents security under the
    >>>DMCA, which reverse engineering the .doc format doesn't do. I don't think
    >>>Microsoft have a patent on a format (can formats be patented?)

    >>
    >>It is their Intellectual Property.

    >
    >Has MS ever used technology belonging to others before?
    >


    Current:

    http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8LHL0280.htm

    The Associated Press November 21, 2006, 2:13PM EST

    Alcatel filed Friday two complaints with the U.S. District Court for
    the Eastern District of Texas seeking compensation for what the
    Paris-based company believes to be a violation of its intellectual
    property rights.

    Alcatel spokesman Stephane Lapeyrade would not comment on the details
    of the case but said the company had sued Microsoft "to preserve our
    rights to fair compensation for its intellectual property."

    "We hope that this can be resolved through discussions rather than
    courts," he said.

    Before filing the suits, Alcatel had reportedly notified Microsoft of
    what it believed to be unfair use of several patents, according to
    court documents.

    Microsoft has not filed a response to the complaints.

    The company's spokesman, Lou Gellos, declined to comment on the suits,
    but said they appeared to be related to long-standing patent
    litigation between U.S.-based Lucent Technologies Ltd. and Microsoft
    at a U.S. District Court in San Diego. He said that Alcatel, which is
    poised to takeover Lucent, may have "inherited" the legislation as
    part of the proposed merger.

    Gellos emphasized that Alcatel filed the suits last Friday, the same
    day President George W. Bush approved the proposed $11.8 billion
    (euro9.2 billion) merger between the two telecommunications equipment
    companies.

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128001-c,legalissues/article.html
     
    GraB, Nov 22, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Charles Schuler

    Many owe an apology to George Preddy

    Charles Schuler, May 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    591
  2. Unclaimed Mysteries

    I guess I owe this group a *lot* of on-topic messages.

    Unclaimed Mysteries, May 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    330
    Unclaimed Mysteries
    May 18, 2005
  3. philo

    I owe the IRS $7200

    philo, Jun 9, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    561
    philo
    Jun 10, 2006
  4. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    702
    thanatoid
    Oct 21, 2007
  5. Have a nice cup of pee

    Linux... yeah linux.. Linux

    Have a nice cup of pee, Apr 12, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    717
    Bette Noir
    Apr 17, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page