Microsoft's protection racketeering in United Kingdom

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by peterwn, Oct 9, 2007.

  1. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    See:

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071008205138925

    Steve Ballmer has been shooting his mouth off in the K about how Linux
    infringes Microsoft's 200 odd patents.

    Only trouble, Steve, the UK does not approve software patents. Never
    mind tht someone on this NG was recently blowing hot air about how
    patents were enforceable in foreign countries (eg USA patents were
    enforceable in NZ), which is of course complete, total and utter
    bullshit.

    Anyway he said:
    "The only other thing I would say that is probably germane is, we
    spend a lot of money, the rest of the commercial industry spends a lot
    of money on R & D. We've spent a lot of money licensing patents ..."

    Yes, MS has spent alot of money embracing extending and extinguishing.

    Yes, rest of the commercial industry soends alot of money on R &
    D ... and Microsoft not infrequently has to settle with them for IP
    infringement.

    And Microsoft has been quite ready to use other peoples stuff where
    there is weak or no IP protection. Microoft would dearly love to get
    its hands on GPL'd stuff, but cannot touch it.

    Now of course the biggest daddy of them all is "We've spent a lot of
    money licensing patents ...", Steve has said it!, Microsoft people
    brainstorm out trivial and obvious ideas to patent, then patents them
    US with its broken patent law. The cost of patenting far, far exceeds
    the cost of brainstorming out original ideas, and in any case there is
    often 'prior art' which is why Microsoft claim to be 'too busy' to
    reveal which 200 or so patents are infringed by Linux. Yes, just so
    much hot air.

    Microsoft has been caught trying to file crappy, non complying patents
    in NZ.
     
    peterwn, Oct 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. peterwn

    Peter Guest

    peterwn wrote:
    > Steve Ballmer has been shooting his mouth off in the UK about how Linux
    > infringes Microsoft's 200 odd patents.


    Has he actually identified any actual infringements this time, or is this
    just more FUD?

    More interesting, has he dared to make the claim in Germany? I've heard
    that if you make such claims then under German law you have to front up
    with the specifics, no FUD allowed.
    Of course, if there was any substance to their claims, MS would have no
    trouble with that. Similarly, if they have done the due diligence to
    actually establish that there are instances of infringement, then
    disclosing details of these would be very easy to do.

    The fact that MS has consistently refused to identify any specific
    infringements rather clearly demonstrates that there are none.


    Peter
     
    Peter, Oct 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 08:03:58 +0000, peterwn wrote:

    > Microoft would dearly love to get its hands on GPL'd stuff, but cannot
    > touch it.


    Micro$oft could very easily get the use of GPL'd software, provided it
    distributed it with the original source code, and released the source code
    for any and all modifications under the GPL.

    The problem is that M$ doesn't want to contribute back ANYTHING to truly
    Open Source projects.


    --
    Jonathan Walker

    "The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
    dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
     
    Jonathan Walker, Oct 9, 2007
    #3
  4. On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:47:13 +1300, Peter wrote:

    > The fact that MS has consistently refused to identify any specific
    > infringements rather clearly demonstrates that there are none.


    Moreover, M$ has been unequivocally asked to state with specificity (by
    version, file, and line) what specific software is infringing on what
    specific patents, and it chose to cancel a public discussion panel where
    Microsoft staff members had asked for questions from the public on the
    very question of their patents and Open Source software.

    So, IMHO, even *IF* there were any valid patents, Micro$oft's refusal to
    answer a direct question on what software is infringing on what patent
    would constitute a waiver of any such patent, if such a patent exist, and
    if there be any infringement, which I content there is not.


    --
    Jonathan Walker

    "The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
    dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
     
    Jonathan Walker, Oct 9, 2007
    #4
  5. peterwn

    thingy Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > peterwn wrote:
    >> Steve Ballmer has been shooting his mouth off in the UK about how Linux
    >> infringes Microsoft's 200 odd patents.


    US patents, of course with so called "free trade agreements" with the US
    that would apply to us...

    > Has he actually identified any actual infringements this time, or is this
    > just more FUD?


    usual FUD...guy's a hoodlum in a suit.

    > More interesting, has he dared to make the claim in Germany?


    No...but he has a tendency to open his fat mouth at the wrong time and
    say the wrong things...so give him the time.

    I've heard
    > that if you make such claims then under German law you have to front up
    > with the specifics, no FUD allowed.


    yep, it snookered SCO in Germany. Darl and his big mouth was kept shut...

    > Of course, if there was any substance to their claims, MS would have no
    > trouble with that.


    If there was they would be at the front door I am sure. Interestingly MS
    is now commenting on how "successful" others have been is sueing
    it....like Balmer is hoping he can point some of the sharks that circle
    MS at some other target....

    Biggest fact, MS has been successfully sued or settled out of court on
    many occasions...OSS has yet to suffer that fate...

    Similarly, if they have done the due diligence to
    > actually establish that there are instances of infringement, then
    > disclosing details of these would be very easy to do.
    >
    > The fact that MS has consistently refused to identify any specific
    > infringements rather clearly demonstrates that there are none.


    I am not 100% clear on why not. To me from my limited understanding of
    legal affairs MS has to actively uphold/defend its patents and
    copyright. If it does not it becomes hard or impossible to much later
    try it on. ie A court is going to have a lot of sympathy with a 3rd
    party or end user when they can show that MS for years failed to come
    forward with something specific and require compliance and/or dollars.

    All the noises about expecting RH to pay also overlooks one important
    aspect, my understanding is MS should be sueing end users and not Redhat
    just as SCO tried for a few companies and look how far that got them.

    Then throw in that lots of OSS software is not written in the USA so is
    not subject to screwy US patent laws anyway...worst case MS forces end
    users away from some OSS applications in the USA, its effect globally is
    diddly squat.

    Comes down to any competent IT manager will ignore this crud, the MS
    faithful well its faith, conversion is not going to happen and gormless
    CIOs, that believe this stuff, well they will get what they deserve...

    All in all I think MS is competing where it counts and its having a hard
    time. Lets not forget that apart from its cash cows of office and MS OS
    EVERY other business venture is losing it $ hand over fist. Balmer is a
    Psycho and venting his frustration over this publically by mouthing off....

    > Peter


    regards

    thing
     
    thingy, Oct 9, 2007
    #5
  6. In article <>, thingy <> wrote:
    (snip)
    >> The fact that MS has consistently refused to identify any specific
    >> infringements rather clearly demonstrates that there are none.

    >
    >I am not 100% clear on why not. To me from my limited understanding of
    >legal affairs MS has to actively uphold/defend its patents and
    >copyright. If it does not it becomes hard or impossible to much later
    >try it on. ie A court is going to have a lot of sympathy with a 3rd
    >party or end user when they can show that MS for years failed to come
    >forward with something specific and require compliance and/or dollars.


    Yep. All a patent gives you is the right to enforce it. If you don't, the
    patent (IIRC and IANAL :) ) becomes effectively void as I understand it.

    That's why 'trade secret' is so popular :)

    Of course, if you are a big fish negotiating patent 'infringement' deals
    with minnows, the threat of enforcement can work rather like a group of
    large unpleasant looking gentlemen in ill fitting suits wandering around
    your warehouse saying cheerful things like ... "boy that looks really
    flammable. Bet that would burn a treat. Petrol ! ...very flammable that.
    Hard to put that out once it gets going ..." and similar words. :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Oct 10, 2007
    #6
  7. peterwn

    thingy Guest

    Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    > In article <>, thingy <> wrote:
    > (snip)
    >>> The fact that MS has consistently refused to identify any specific
    >>> infringements rather clearly demonstrates that there are none.

    >> I am not 100% clear on why not. To me from my limited understanding of
    >> legal affairs MS has to actively uphold/defend its patents and
    >> copyright. If it does not it becomes hard or impossible to much later
    >> try it on. ie A court is going to have a lot of sympathy with a 3rd
    >> party or end user when they can show that MS for years failed to come
    >> forward with something specific and require compliance and/or dollars.

    >
    > Yep. All a patent gives you is the right to enforce it. If you don't, the
    > patent (IIRC and IANAL :) ) becomes effectively void as I understand it.
    >
    > That's why 'trade secret' is so popular :)
    >
    > Of course, if you are a big fish negotiating patent 'infringement' deals
    > with minnows, the threat of enforcement can work rather like a group of
    > large unpleasant looking gentlemen in ill fitting suits wandering around
    > your warehouse saying cheerful things like ... "boy that looks really
    > flammable. Bet that would burn a treat. Petrol ! ...very flammable that.
    > Hard to put that out once it gets going ..." and similar words. :)
    >


    very 1930s.....very American.....guess some things never change..........

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Oct 11, 2007
    #7
    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. Richard Schulman

    Free Wireless in the United Kingdom?

    Richard Schulman, Jun 4, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    407
    Richard Schulman
    Jun 4, 2006
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    787
  3. Mick

    United Kingdom Passport expiry date worry

    Mick, Nov 26, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    726
  4. Knut Arvid Keilen

    A Greeting to Mr. Gordon Brown, United Kingdom.

    Knut Arvid Keilen, Jul 12, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    732
    Jim S
    Jul 12, 2007
  5. peterwn

    Microsoft Protection Racketeering

    peterwn, Feb 27, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    627
    impossible
    Feb 28, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page