Re: IBM asserts patents against open source software

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by peterwn, Apr 9, 2010.

  1. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Apr 7, 11:56 am, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >
    > "IBM has sent a nastygram to the company TurboHercules, with a
    > 'non-exhaustive' list of US patents that it believes 'will be infringed' by
    > TurboHercules' code....To add insult to injury, the list of patents with
    > which IBM tries to intimidate the Hercules project even includes two of the
    > 500 patents IBM originally 'pledged' to the open source community."
    >


    See Groklaw for a commentay on this matter at:
    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100408153953613

    The heading is:
    " Why I Believe IBM is Free to Sue The Pants Off TurboHercules"

    The first sentence is:
    "It seems Groklaw will have to open a new category, answering Florian
    Mueller FUD. As you know he recently claimed that IBM had violated its
    public pledge not to sue Linux for patent infringement. I think he's
    mistaken. IBM, when it announced the patent pledge, specifically
    reserved the right to defend itself from attack:"
    peterwn, Apr 9, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Apr 9, 11:19 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 7, 11:56 am, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >
    > >> "IBM has sent a nastygram to the company TurboHercules, with a
    > >> 'non-exhaustive' list of US patents that it believes 'will be infringed'
    > >> by
    > >> TurboHercules' code....To add insult to injury, the list of patents with
    > >> which IBM tries to intimidate the Hercules project even includes two of
    > >> the
    > >> 500 patents IBM originally 'pledged' to the open source community."

    >
    > > See Groklaw for a commentay on this matter at:
    > >http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100408153953613

    >
    > > The heading is:
    > > " Why I Believe IBM is Free to Sue The Pants Off TurboHercules"

    >
    > > The first sentence is:
    > > "It seems Groklaw will have to open a new category, answering Florian
    > > Mueller FUD. As you know he recently claimed that IBM had violated its
    > > public pledge not to sue Linux for patent infringement. I think he's
    > > mistaken. IBM, when it announced the patent pledge, specifically
    > > reserved the right to defend itself from attack:"

    >
    > So IBM's "pledge" to a mythical "open source community" wasn't worth
    > anything? No kidding!


    This is not the issue. It is now apparent that the issue is
    effectively a rumble between IBM and Micro$oft . Open source has
    nothing to do with it. Micro$oft to avoid possible anti-trust actions
    is in the habit of shovelling money to third parties to take up the
    cudgels against its enemies.

    In this instance TurboHurculese is accoused of infringing IBM's most
    valuable IP relating to mainframe computers - surely IBM is entitled
    to protect itself against IP pirates and thieves.

    Therefore as a champion of IP rights, you would surely support IBM
    here, but no - you are just a Micro$oft shill.
    peterwn, Apr 12, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Apr 13, 11:57 am, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >
    > > Therefore as a champion of IP rights, you would surely support IBM
    > > here, but no - you are just a Micro$oft shill.

    >
    > IBM is fully entitled to defend its intellectual property against pirates..
    > Unlike you, I hold no one to a double standard on that or any other issue..
    > But once IBM pledged to freely share some of its property for the good of
    > the "community" it claimed to support, then it was obliged to follow through
    > and not beat up some open source competitor who happened to take IBM's word
    > for good coin.
    >


    TurboHerculese is NOT in the 'community' it is virtually a Microsoft
    front organisation. Hence IBM has kept its pledge to the community

    Microsoft is shit scared that IBM will continue to take chunks out of
    Microsoft and associates in the Big Iron market.
    peterwn, Apr 13, 2010
    #3
  4. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 13/04/2010 11:57 a.m., impossible wrote:

    >
    > IBM is fully entitled to defend its intellectual property against
    > pirates. Unlike you, I hold no one to a double standard on that or any
    > other issue. But once IBM pledged to freely share some of its property
    > for the good of the "community" it claimed to support, then it was
    > obliged to follow through and not beat up some open source competitor
    > who happened to take IBM's word for good coin.
    >
    > Oh, and now that you've come around to seeing software piracy as theft,
    > are you finally willing to go on record as condemining piracy of
    > intellectual property belonging to other developers like Microsoft? No?
    > Didn't think so, you two-faced scumbag.
    >
    >
    >


    LOL That would be Microsoft the Convicted Patent Pirates who were
    ordered to pay Alcatel Lucent $1.52 billion dollars for stealing their
    property, then ordered to pay Eolas $521 million for stealing their
    property and then proceeded to pirate thieve and steal property from i4i
    and get pinged for $290 million.
    You Two Faced Scumbag Yourself !
    victor, Apr 13, 2010
    #4
  5. In message
    <>, peterwn
    wrote:

    > In this instance TurboHurculese is accoused of infringing IBM's most
    > valuable IP relating to mainframe computers - surely IBM is entitled
    > to protect itself against IP pirates and thieves.


    What “pirates and thieves� TurboHercules was founded by Roger Bowler, the
    same one who wrote Hercules in the first place. Why shouldn’t he be allowed
    to commercialize his own code?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 13, 2010
    #5
  6. In message
    <>, peterwn
    wrote:

    > TurboHerculese is NOT in the 'community' it is virtually a Microsoft
    > front organisation.


    Is anybody saying this apart from Groklaw?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 13, 2010
    #6
  7. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 13/04/10 15:13, impossible wrote:
    > "victor" <> wrote in message
    > news:hq0h6n$v5l$-september.org...
    >> On 13/04/2010 11:57 a.m., impossible wrote:
    >>
    >>>> On Apr 9, 11:19 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>>>> "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> > On Apr 7, 11:56 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> >> "IBM has sent a nastygram to the company TurboHercules, with a
    >>>>> >> 'non-exhaustive' list of US patents that it believes 'will be >>
    >>>>> infringed'
    >>>>> >> by
    >>>>> >> TurboHercules' code....To add insult to injury, the list of
    >>>>> patents >> with
    >>>>> >> which IBM tries to intimidate the Hercules project even includes
    >>>>> two >> of
    >>>>> >> the
    >>>>> >> 500 patents IBM originally 'pledged' to the open source community."
    >>>>>
    >>>>> > See Groklaw for a commentay on this matter at:
    >>>>> >http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100408153953613
    >>>>>
    >>>>> > The heading is:
    >>>>> > " Why I Believe IBM is Free to Sue The Pants Off TurboHercules"
    >>>>>
    >>>>> > The first sentence is:
    >>>>> > "It seems Groklaw will have to open a new category, answering
    >>>>> Florian
    >>>>> > Mueller FUD. As you know he recently claimed that IBM had
    >>>>> violated > its
    >>>>> > public pledge not to sue Linux for patent infringement. I think he's
    >>>>> > mistaken. IBM, when it announced the patent pledge, specifically
    >>>>> > reserved the right to defend itself from attack:"
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So IBM's "pledge" to a mythical "open source community" wasn't worth
    >>>>> anything? No kidding!
    >>>>
    >>>> This is not the issue.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Of course it's the issue! IBM is attempting to enforce patents that
    >>> it pledged not to enforce.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/29469085/IBM-letter-dated-11-March-2010-to-TurboHercules-SAS
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> If IBM isn't asserting U.S. 5613086 and U.S. 5220669, as you claim,
    >>> why did
    >>> it explicitly name those two patents in its letter to Hercules?
    >>> What's IBM's
    >>> game?
    >>>
    >>>> It is now apparent that the issue is
    >>>> effectively a rumble between IBM and Micro$oft . Open source has
    >>>> nothing to do with it. Micro$oft to avoid possible anti-trust actions
    >>>> is in the habit of shovelling money to third parties to take up the
    >>>> cudgels against its enemies.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Another incoherent rant brought to you by Peter the Whiner.
    >>>
    >>>> In this instance TurboHurculese is accoused of infringing IBM's most
    >>>> valuable IP relating to mainframe computers - surely IBM is entitled
    >>>> to protect itself against IP pirates and thieves.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Yes, they are. But a promises is a promise. You've held IBM up as the
    >>> paragon of virtue--clearly its promises to the "open source
    >>> community" are worthless.
    >>>
    >>>> Therefore as a champion of IP rights, you would surely support IBM
    >>>> here, but no - you are just a Micro$oft shill.
    >>>
    >>> IBM is fully entitled to defend its intellectual property against
    >>> pirates. Unlike you, I hold no one to a double standard on that or
    >>> any other issue. But once IBM pledged to freely share some of its
    >>> property for the good of the "community" it claimed to support, then
    >>> it was obliged to follow through and not beat up some open source
    >>> competitor who happened to take IBM's word for good coin.
    >>>
    >>> Oh, and now that you've come around to seeing software piracy as
    >>> theft, are you finally willing to go on record as condemining piracy
    >>> of intellectual property belonging to other developers like
    >>> Microsoft? No? Didn't think so, you two-faced scumbag.
    >>>

    >>
    >> LOL That would be Microsoft the Convicted Patent Pirates who were
    >> ordered to pay Alcatel Lucent $1.52 billion dollars for stealing their
    >> property, then ordered to pay Eolas $521 million for stealing their
    >> property and then proceeded to pirate thieve and steal property from
    >> i4i and get pinged for $290 million.

    >
    > Yes. So what's your moronic point now? That if Microsoft breaks the law,
    > then internet teen pirates are justified in stealing Microsoft's software?
    >
    > Much as you'd like to change the subject, the subject here is IBM's
    > betrayal of its pledge to the open source community -- a pledge to share
    > some its patented property and renounce all legal claims to it. Do you
    > have something to say about *that** or are you just going to keep
    > ranting about Microsoft?
    >
    >

    You are the one that brought up Microsoft, and you condone the morality
    of their attitude towards "potentially infringing activities" in pursuit
    of profit.
    Its your double standard, your hypocrisy, your damn cheek in accusing
    others you two faced scumbag.
    victor, Apr 13, 2010
    #7
  8. peterwn

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:46:35 -0700, peterwn wrote:

    > On Apr 13, 11:57 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> > Therefore as a champion of IP rights, you would surely support IBM
    >> > here, but no - you are just a Micro$oft shill.

    >>
    >> IBM is fully entitled to defend its intellectual property against
    >> pirates. Unlike you, I hold no one to a double standard on that or any
    >> other issue. But once IBM pledged to freely share some of its property
    >> for the good of the "community" it claimed to support, then it was
    >> obliged to follow through and not beat up some open source competitor
    >> who happened to take IBM's word for good coin.
    >>
    >>

    > TurboHerculese is NOT in the 'community' it is virtually a Microsoft
    > front organisation. Hence IBM has kept its pledge to the community


    What TurboHercules is doing is selling a hardware/software package where the OSS software
    component is only a small part of the package - and in actual fact only a binary and not the source
    code. It is based on MS Windows and is being promoted as a disaster recovery solution instead of
    purchasing a solution from IBM.

    In this particular case TurboHercules has requested that IBM specifically license its technology to
    TurboHercules so that they can sell their hardware/software packages for profit. By so doing they fall
    outside of the terms of the pledge that IBM made due to TurboHercules now effectively attacking IBM's
    hardware sales business.

    Check out the recent updates on Groklaw to see the full picture.

    Don't bother trying to argue with Impossible - you'll only be wasting your time. It lives up to its name and
    appears to be unable to respond to actual genuine facts and objective reporting. It appears to only
    accept and agree with sources that are in Micro$oft's pocket.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
    Sweetpea, Apr 13, 2010
    #8
  9. peterwn

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:13:02 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > What “pirates and thieves� TurboHercules was founded by Roger Bowler,
    > the same one who wrote Hercules in the first place. Why shouldn’t he be
    > allowed to commercialize his own code?


    Nothing can prevent him from legitimately capitalising on his work if he has a legitimate right to do so.
    But his work is based on hardware and software technology that is patented by IBM.

    Whatever one may think about the legitimacy of software patents, the fact remains that IBM has
    invested billions of US$ in developing its mainframe technologies and that investment is protected by
    patents - software and hardware.

    TurboHercules (TH) needs to license that technology from IBM if it is to do what it wants to do; and as I
    understand it IBM is unwilling to license its technology to TH at the expense of its own hardware sales
    business and has accordingly advised TH that it would be infringing on IBM's patents if it were to go
    down that track.

    Groklaw has published the email trail between IBM and TH and has also published the press releases
    of the various companies. Reading all those documents and noting their various dates would inform the
    astute reader which of those two corporations is telling the truth.

    TH's response was to misrepresent the truth of the situation and to attack IBM using the EU. Legal
    threats by IBM would be done by IBM's legal department and not by any other part of that corporation.

    Also, the list of patents that was provided by IBM was in response to a request from TH to IBM to detail
    which patents would be infringed. It was an email conversation that was started by, and mis-
    represented by, TH.

    You should read the original documents for yourself and then form your own opinion as to the facts of
    the case and who is telling the truth.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
    Sweetpea, Apr 13, 2010
    #9
  10. In message <>, Sweetpea wrote:

    > On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:13:02 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> What “pirates and thieves� TurboHercules was founded by Roger Bowler,
    >> the same one who wrote Hercules in the first place. Why shouldn’t he be
    >> allowed to commercialize his own code?

    >
    > Nothing can prevent him from legitimately capitalising on his work if he
    > has a legitimate right to do so. But his work is based on hardware and
    > software technology that is patented by IBM.


    That would apply just as much to the open-source Hercules as well. And the
    Linux kernel allegedly infringes a couple of hundred Microsoft patents—so
    you think Linux should be prevented from using that patented technology?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 13, 2010
    #10
  11. In message <>, Sweetpea wrote:

    > Check out the recent updates on Groklaw to see the full picture.


    I would say Groklaw’s credibility is in the toilet on this one.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 13, 2010
    #11
  12. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 14/04/10 00:12, impossible wrote:
    >
    >
    > "victor" <> wrote in message
    > news:hq188i$sg0$-september.org...
    >> On 13/04/10 15:13, impossible wrote:
    >>> "victor" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hq0h6n$v5l$-september.org...
    >>>> On 13/04/2010 11:57 a.m., impossible wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> On Apr 9, 11:19 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> > On Apr 7, 11:56 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> >> "IBM has sent a nastygram to the company TurboHercules, with a
    >>>>>>> >> 'non-exhaustive' list of US patents that it believes 'will be >>
    >>>>>>> infringed'
    >>>>>>> >> by
    >>>>>>> >> TurboHercules' code....To add insult to injury, the list of
    >>>>>>> patents >> with
    >>>>>>> >> which IBM tries to intimidate the Hercules project even includes
    >>>>>>> two >> of
    >>>>>>> >> the
    >>>>>>> >> 500 patents IBM originally 'pledged' to the open source >>
    >>>>>>> community."
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> > See Groklaw for a commentay on this matter at:
    >>>>>>> >http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100408153953613
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> > The heading is:
    >>>>>>> > " Why I Believe IBM is Free to Sue The Pants Off TurboHercules"
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> > The first sentence is:
    >>>>>>> > "It seems Groklaw will have to open a new category, answering
    >>>>>>> Florian
    >>>>>>> > Mueller FUD. As you know he recently claimed that IBM had
    >>>>>>> violated > its
    >>>>>>> > public pledge not to sue Linux for patent infringement. I think
    >>>>>>> > he's
    >>>>>>> > mistaken. IBM, when it announced the patent pledge, specifically
    >>>>>>> > reserved the right to defend itself from attack:"
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> So IBM's "pledge" to a mythical "open source community" wasn't worth
    >>>>>>> anything? No kidding!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> This is not the issue.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Of course it's the issue! IBM is attempting to enforce patents that
    >>>>> it pledged not to enforce.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/29469085/IBM-letter-dated-11-March-2010-to-TurboHercules-SAS
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If IBM isn't asserting U.S. 5613086 and U.S. 5220669, as you claim,
    >>>>> why did
    >>>>> it explicitly name those two patents in its letter to Hercules?
    >>>>> What's IBM's
    >>>>> game?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> It is now apparent that the issue is
    >>>>>> effectively a rumble between IBM and Micro$oft . Open source has
    >>>>>> nothing to do with it. Micro$oft to avoid possible anti-trust actions
    >>>>>> is in the habit of shovelling money to third parties to take up the
    >>>>>> cudgels against its enemies.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Another incoherent rant brought to you by Peter the Whiner.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> In this instance TurboHurculese is accoused of infringing IBM's most
    >>>>>> valuable IP relating to mainframe computers - surely IBM is entitled
    >>>>>> to protect itself against IP pirates and thieves.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes, they are. But a promises is a promise. You've held IBM up as the
    >>>>> paragon of virtue--clearly its promises to the "open source
    >>>>> community" are worthless.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Therefore as a champion of IP rights, you would surely support IBM
    >>>>>> here, but no - you are just a Micro$oft shill.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> IBM is fully entitled to defend its intellectual property against
    >>>>> pirates. Unlike you, I hold no one to a double standard on that or
    >>>>> any other issue. But once IBM pledged to freely share some of its
    >>>>> property for the good of the "community" it claimed to support, then
    >>>>> it was obliged to follow through and not beat up some open source
    >>>>> competitor who happened to take IBM's word for good coin.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Oh, and now that you've come around to seeing software piracy as
    >>>>> theft, are you finally willing to go on record as condemining piracy
    >>>>> of intellectual property belonging to other developers like
    >>>>> Microsoft? No? Didn't think so, you two-faced scumbag.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> LOL That would be Microsoft the Convicted Patent Pirates who were
    >>>> ordered to pay Alcatel Lucent $1.52 billion dollars for stealing their
    >>>> property, then ordered to pay Eolas $521 million for stealing their
    >>>> property and then proceeded to pirate thieve and steal property from
    >>>> i4i and get pinged for $290 million.
    >>>
    >>> Yes. So what's your moronic point now? That if Microsoft breaks the law,
    >>> then internet teen pirates are justified in stealing Microsoft's
    >>> software?
    >>>
    >>> Much as you'd like to change the subject, the subject here is IBM's
    >>> betrayal of its pledge to the open source community -- a pledge to share
    >>> some its patented property and renounce all legal claims to it. Do you
    >>> have something to say about *that** or are you just going to keep
    >>> ranting about Microsoft?
    >>>
    >>>

    >> You are the one that brought up Microsoft, and you condone the
    >> morality of their attitude towards "potentially infringing activities"
    >> in pursuit of profit.

    >
    > I fully support Microsoft, IBM, RedHat, Ubuntu, and all other owners of
    > intellectual property in their defense of that property against thieves
    > and would-be thieves. I fully condemn IBM in this case for conning open
    > source developers like TurboHercules into believing that IBM was sharing
    > some of its patented intellectual property with the "community" and then
    > cynically reneging on that pledge.
    >
    > What';s your view?
    >
    >> Its your double standard, your hypocrisy, your damn cheek in accusing
    >> others you two faced scumbag.

    >
    > I get it -- you're embarassed by IBM's behavior in this case, and I
    > don't blame you. You've treated that company like the Holy Patron of
    > Open Source, imagining somehow that the biggest intellectual property
    > owner in the world actually subscribed to the harebrained ideological
    > fantasies of the COLA troll set you so adore. Let that be a lesson to you.
    >
    >

    Couldn't give a **** about IBM actually.
    Cut from the same cloth.
    As I said earlier in the thread, IBM participates in FOSS for their own
    benefit just like all the rest of the corporates that share their
    patents in the OIN pool.
    Its voluntary, I think the short answer is IBM thinks TurboHercules are
    taking the piss in emulating hardware covered by IBMs patents and
    seeking cover in the FOSS patent pool agreements.
    They all play the same business game where what you can get away with is
    where the ethical bar is set.
    If the ref doesn't see the infringement you win.
    victor, Apr 13, 2010
    #12
  13. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 14/04/10 09:27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message<>, Sweetpea wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:13:02 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>> What “pirates and thieves� TurboHercules was founded by Roger Bowler,
    >>> the same one who wrote Hercules in the first place. Why shouldn’t he be
    >>> allowed to commercialize his own code?

    >>
    >> Nothing can prevent him from legitimately capitalising on his work if he
    >> has a legitimate right to do so. But his work is based on hardware and
    >> software technology that is patented by IBM.

    >
    > That would apply just as much to the open-source Hercules as well. And the
    > Linux kernel allegedly infringes a couple of hundred Microsoft patents—so
    > you think Linux should be prevented from using that patented technology?


    About 18 actually
    But just one is enough to brand them as Theiving Pirate Scumbags !!11!!!!
    victor, Apr 13, 2010
    #13
  14. In message <hq2par$9rg$-september.org>, victor wrote:

    > ... I think the short answer is IBM thinks TurboHercules are
    > taking the piss in emulating hardware covered by IBMs patents and
    > seeking cover in the FOSS patent pool agreements.


    As Boldrin & Levine point out, the very fact that patent pool agreements
    exist gives the lie to the fact that patents are all about the incentive to
    invent.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 14, 2010
    #14
  15. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 13/04/10 22:59, Sweetpea wrote:

    >
    > You should read the original documents for yourself and then form your own opinion as to the facts of
    > the case and who is telling the truth.
    >
    >

    Its pretty murky, since Hercules has been going for a while, but its
    been no threat because of the low performance. Now it is, or has enough
    potential for a bit of a shakedown and IBM wants to head off that
    business risk.
    A bit of blackmail against the open source pledge, bring in a few
    agitators and even some lame wannabees like impossimple and a bit of poo
    gets flung and eventually IBM buys TurboHercules out, that's what they
    want.
    Microsofts interest is in the potential of z/OS and Windows and Linux
    being consolidated into a single operating environment to break the OS
    to hardware tying that IBM protects itself with, same reason they
    invested in PSI.
    victor, Apr 14, 2010
    #15
  16. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 14/04/10 12:39, impossible wrote:
    >
    >
    > "victor" <> wrote in message
    > news:hq2par$9rg$-september.org...
    >> On 14/04/10 00:12, impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "victor" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hq188i$sg0$-september.org...
    >>>> On 13/04/10 15:13, impossible wrote:
    >>>>> "victor" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:hq0h6n$v5l$-september.org...
    >>>>>> On 13/04/2010 11:57 a.m., impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 11:19 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> > On Apr 7, 11:56 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> >> "IBM has sent a nastygram to the company TurboHercules, with a
    >>>>>>>>> >> 'non-exhaustive' list of US patents that it believes 'will
    >>>>>>>>> be >>
    >>>>>>>>> infringed'
    >>>>>>>>> >> by
    >>>>>>>>> >> TurboHercules' code....To add insult to injury, the list of
    >>>>>>>>> patents >> with
    >>>>>>>>> >> which IBM tries to intimidate the Hercules project even
    >>>>>>>>> includes
    >>>>>>>>> two >> of
    >>>>>>>>> >> the
    >>>>>>>>> >> 500 patents IBM originally 'pledged' to the open source >>
    >>>>>>>>> community."
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> > See Groklaw for a commentay on this matter at:
    >>>>>>>>> >http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100408153953613
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> > The heading is:
    >>>>>>>>> > " Why I Believe IBM is Free to Sue The Pants Off TurboHercules"
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> > The first sentence is:
    >>>>>>>>> > "It seems Groklaw will have to open a new category, answering
    >>>>>>>>> Florian
    >>>>>>>>> > Mueller FUD. As you know he recently claimed that IBM had
    >>>>>>>>> violated > its
    >>>>>>>>> > public pledge not to sue Linux for patent infringement. I think
    >>>>>>>>> > he's
    >>>>>>>>> > mistaken. IBM, when it announced the patent pledge, specifically
    >>>>>>>>> > reserved the right to defend itself from attack:"
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> So IBM's "pledge" to a mythical "open source community" wasn't
    >>>>>>>>> worth
    >>>>>>>>> anything? No kidding!
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> This is not the issue.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Of course it's the issue! IBM is attempting to enforce patents that
    >>>>>>> it pledged not to enforce.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/29469085/IBM-letter-dated-11-March-2010-to-TurboHercules-SAS
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> If IBM isn't asserting U.S. 5613086 and U.S. 5220669, as you claim,
    >>>>>>> why did
    >>>>>>> it explicitly name those two patents in its letter to Hercules?
    >>>>>>> What's IBM's
    >>>>>>> game?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> It is now apparent that the issue is
    >>>>>>>> effectively a rumble between IBM and Micro$oft . Open source has
    >>>>>>>> nothing to do with it. Micro$oft to avoid possible anti-trust
    >>>>>>>> actions
    >>>>>>>> is in the habit of shovelling money to third parties to take up the
    >>>>>>>> cudgels against its enemies.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Another incoherent rant brought to you by Peter the Whiner.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> In this instance TurboHurculese is accoused of infringing IBM's
    >>>>>>>> most
    >>>>>>>> valuable IP relating to mainframe computers - surely IBM is
    >>>>>>>> entitled
    >>>>>>>> to protect itself against IP pirates and thieves.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Yes, they are. But a promises is a promise. You've held IBM up as
    >>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>> paragon of virtue--clearly its promises to the "open source
    >>>>>>> community" are worthless.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Therefore as a champion of IP rights, you would surely support IBM
    >>>>>>>> here, but no - you are just a Micro$oft shill.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> IBM is fully entitled to defend its intellectual property against
    >>>>>>> pirates. Unlike you, I hold no one to a double standard on that or
    >>>>>>> any other issue. But once IBM pledged to freely share some of its
    >>>>>>> property for the good of the "community" it claimed to support, then
    >>>>>>> it was obliged to follow through and not beat up some open source
    >>>>>>> competitor who happened to take IBM's word for good coin.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Oh, and now that you've come around to seeing software piracy as
    >>>>>>> theft, are you finally willing to go on record as condemining piracy
    >>>>>>> of intellectual property belonging to other developers like
    >>>>>>> Microsoft? No? Didn't think so, you two-faced scumbag.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> LOL That would be Microsoft the Convicted Patent Pirates who were
    >>>>>> ordered to pay Alcatel Lucent $1.52 billion dollars for stealing
    >>>>>> their
    >>>>>> property, then ordered to pay Eolas $521 million for stealing their
    >>>>>> property and then proceeded to pirate thieve and steal property from
    >>>>>> i4i and get pinged for $290 million.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes. So what's your moronic point now? That if Microsoft breaks the
    >>>>> law,
    >>>>> then internet teen pirates are justified in stealing Microsoft's
    >>>>> software?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Much as you'd like to change the subject, the subject here is IBM's
    >>>>> betrayal of its pledge to the open source community -- a pledge to
    >>>>> share
    >>>>> some its patented property and renounce all legal claims to it. Do you
    >>>>> have something to say about *that** or are you just going to keep
    >>>>> ranting about Microsoft?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> You are the one that brought up Microsoft, and you condone the
    >>>> morality of their attitude towards "potentially infringing activities"
    >>>> in pursuit of profit.
    >>>
    >>> I fully support Microsoft, IBM, RedHat, Ubuntu, and all other owners of
    >>> intellectual property in their defense of that property against thieves
    >>> and would-be thieves. I fully condemn IBM in this case for conning open
    >>> source developers like TurboHercules into believing that IBM was sharing
    >>> some of its patented intellectual property with the "community" and then
    >>> cynically reneging on that pledge.
    >>>
    >>> What';s your view?
    >>>
    >>>> Its your double standard, your hypocrisy, your damn cheek in accusing
    >>>> others you two faced scumbag.
    >>>
    >>> I get it -- you're embarassed by IBM's behavior in this case, and I
    >>> don't blame you. You've treated that company like the Holy Patron of
    >>> Open Source, imagining somehow that the biggest intellectual property
    >>> owner in the world actually subscribed to the harebrained ideological
    >>> fantasies of the COLA troll set you so adore. Let that be a lesson to
    >>> you.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Couldn't give a **** about IBM actually.
    >> Cut from the same cloth.
    >> As I said earlier in the thread, IBM participates in FOSS for their
    >> own benefit just like all the rest of the corporates that share their
    >> patents in the OIN pool.
    >> Its voluntary, I think the short answer is IBM thinks TurboHercules
    >> are taking the piss in emulating hardware covered by IBMs patents and
    >> seeking cover in the FOSS patent pool agreements.
    >> They all play the same business game where what you can get away with
    >> is where the ethical bar is set.
    >> If the ref doesn't see the infringement you win.

    >
    > But why did IBM renege on its pledge to share U.S. 5613086 and U.S.
    > 5220669 with open source developers? Doesn't that call into question the
    > property rights of other open source developers who used those same
    > patents --and 498 others -- that IBM promised it would not assert? Are
    > uyou saying that those developers are also now infringing oin IBM's
    > intellectual property?


    I'm not even saying TurboHercules infringes.
    There is some good background in this article which might make the case
    a bit clearer for you.

    http://www.itworld.com/open-source/...reaking-promise-seem-mostly-smoke-little-fire
    victor, Apr 14, 2010
    #16
  17. In message <hq33ki$7mi$-september.org>, victor wrote:

    > ... and eventually IBM buys TurboHercules out, that's what they
    > want.


    But Hercules is still Open Source, buying one company won’t stop others from
    also trying to commercialize it.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 14, 2010
    #17
  18. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 14/04/10 12:01, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message<hq2par$9rg$-september.org>, victor wrote:
    >
    >> ... I think the short answer is IBM thinks TurboHercules are
    >> taking the piss in emulating hardware covered by IBMs patents and
    >> seeking cover in the FOSS patent pool agreements.

    >
    > As Boldrin& Levine point out, the very fact that patent pool agreements
    > exist gives the lie to the fact that patents are all about the incentive to
    > invent.


    Too true, pooling is an attempt to mitigate the downside that patent
    holders may not be able to exploit the full potential of their
    inventions due to the rights held by others.
    They are ammunition for aggression intimidation retaliation etc.
    Counterproductive.
    victor, Apr 14, 2010
    #18
  19. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 14/04/10 13:07, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message<hq33ki$7mi$-september.org>, victor wrote:
    >
    >> ... and eventually IBM buys TurboHercules out, that's what they
    >> want.

    >
    > But Hercules is still Open Source, buying one company won’t stop others from
    > also trying to commercialize it.


    No, they will still have to use the patents and licensing.
    But they will have Roger Bowler <http://pagesperso-orange.fr/rbowler/>
    and Jay Maynard <http://www.tronguy.net/> Who could resist ?

    According to this article its mainly about the turnkey package they were
    offering.
    http://www.itworld.com/open-source/...reaking-promise-seem-mostly-smoke-little-fire
    victor, Apr 14, 2010
    #19
  20. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 14/04/10 14:55, impossible wrote:
    >
    >
    > "victor" <> wrote in message
    > news:hq34bq$b71$-september.org...
    >> On 14/04/10 12:39, impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "victor" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hq2par$9rg$-september.org...
    >>>> On 14/04/10 00:12, impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "victor" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:hq188i$sg0$-september.org...
    >>>>>> On 13/04/10 15:13, impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>> "victor" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:hq0h6n$v5l$-september.org...
    >>>>>>>> On 13/04/2010 11:57 a.m., impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 11:19 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> > On Apr 7, 11:56 am, "impossible" <>
    >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> >> "IBM has sent a nastygram to the company TurboHercules,
    >>>>>>>>>>> with a
    >>>>>>>>>>> >> 'non-exhaustive' list of US patents that it believes 'will
    >>>>>>>>>>> be >>
    >>>>>>>>>>> infringed'
    >>>>>>>>>>> >> by
    >>>>>>>>>>> >> TurboHercules' code....To add insult to injury, the list of
    >>>>>>>>>>> patents >> with
    >>>>>>>>>>> >> which IBM tries to intimidate the Hercules project even
    >>>>>>>>>>> includes
    >>>>>>>>>>> two >> of
    >>>>>>>>>>> >> the
    >>>>>>>>>>> >> 500 patents IBM originally 'pledged' to the open source >>
    >>>>>>>>>>> community."
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> > See Groklaw for a commentay on this matter at:
    >>>>>>>>>>> >http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100408153953613
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> > The heading is:
    >>>>>>>>>>> > " Why I Believe IBM is Free to Sue The Pants Off
    >>>>>>>>>>> TurboHercules"
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> > The first sentence is:
    >>>>>>>>>>> > "It seems Groklaw will have to open a new category, answering
    >>>>>>>>>>> Florian
    >>>>>>>>>>> > Mueller FUD. As you know he recently claimed that IBM had
    >>>>>>>>>>> violated > its
    >>>>>>>>>>> > public pledge not to sue Linux for patent infringement. I
    >>>>>>>>>>> think
    >>>>>>>>>>> > he's
    >>>>>>>>>>> > mistaken. IBM, when it announced the patent pledge, >
    >>>>>>>>>>> specifically
    >>>>>>>>>>> > reserved the right to defend itself from attack:"
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> So IBM's "pledge" to a mythical "open source community" wasn't
    >>>>>>>>>>> worth
    >>>>>>>>>>> anything? No kidding!
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> This is not the issue.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Of course it's the issue! IBM is attempting to enforce patents
    >>>>>>>>> that
    >>>>>>>>> it pledged not to enforce.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/29469085/IBM-letter-dated-11-March-2010-to-TurboHercules-SAS
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> If IBM isn't asserting U.S. 5613086 and U.S. 5220669, as you
    >>>>>>>>> claim,
    >>>>>>>>> why did
    >>>>>>>>> it explicitly name those two patents in its letter to Hercules?
    >>>>>>>>> What's IBM's
    >>>>>>>>> game?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> It is now apparent that the issue is
    >>>>>>>>>> effectively a rumble between IBM and Micro$oft . Open source has
    >>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with it. Micro$oft to avoid possible anti-trust
    >>>>>>>>>> actions
    >>>>>>>>>> is in the habit of shovelling money to third parties to take
    >>>>>>>>>> up the
    >>>>>>>>>> cudgels against its enemies.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Another incoherent rant brought to you by Peter the Whiner.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> In this instance TurboHurculese is accoused of infringing IBM's
    >>>>>>>>>> most
    >>>>>>>>>> valuable IP relating to mainframe computers - surely IBM is
    >>>>>>>>>> entitled
    >>>>>>>>>> to protect itself against IP pirates and thieves.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Yes, they are. But a promises is a promise. You've held IBM up as
    >>>>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>>>> paragon of virtue--clearly its promises to the "open source
    >>>>>>>>> community" are worthless.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Therefore as a champion of IP rights, you would surely support
    >>>>>>>>>> IBM
    >>>>>>>>>> here, but no - you are just a Micro$oft shill.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> IBM is fully entitled to defend its intellectual property against
    >>>>>>>>> pirates. Unlike you, I hold no one to a double standard on that or
    >>>>>>>>> any other issue. But once IBM pledged to freely share some of its
    >>>>>>>>> property for the good of the "community" it claimed to support,
    >>>>>>>>> then
    >>>>>>>>> it was obliged to follow through and not beat up some open source
    >>>>>>>>> competitor who happened to take IBM's word for good coin.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Oh, and now that you've come around to seeing software piracy as
    >>>>>>>>> theft, are you finally willing to go on record as condemining
    >>>>>>>>> piracy
    >>>>>>>>> of intellectual property belonging to other developers like
    >>>>>>>>> Microsoft? No? Didn't think so, you two-faced scumbag.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> LOL That would be Microsoft the Convicted Patent Pirates who were
    >>>>>>>> ordered to pay Alcatel Lucent $1.52 billion dollars for stealing
    >>>>>>>> their
    >>>>>>>> property, then ordered to pay Eolas $521 million for stealing their
    >>>>>>>> property and then proceeded to pirate thieve and steal property
    >>>>>>>> from
    >>>>>>>> i4i and get pinged for $290 million.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Yes. So what's your moronic point now? That if Microsoft breaks the
    >>>>>>> law,
    >>>>>>> then internet teen pirates are justified in stealing Microsoft's
    >>>>>>> software?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Much as you'd like to change the subject, the subject here is IBM's
    >>>>>>> betrayal of its pledge to the open source community -- a pledge to
    >>>>>>> share
    >>>>>>> some its patented property and renounce all legal claims to it.
    >>>>>>> Do you
    >>>>>>> have something to say about *that** or are you just going to keep
    >>>>>>> ranting about Microsoft?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> You are the one that brought up Microsoft, and you condone the
    >>>>>> morality of their attitude towards "potentially infringing
    >>>>>> activities"
    >>>>>> in pursuit of profit.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I fully support Microsoft, IBM, RedHat, Ubuntu, and all other
    >>>>> owners of
    >>>>> intellectual property in their defense of that property against
    >>>>> thieves
    >>>>> and would-be thieves. I fully condemn IBM in this case for conning
    >>>>> open
    >>>>> source developers like TurboHercules into believing that IBM was
    >>>>> sharing
    >>>>> some of its patented intellectual property with the "community" and
    >>>>> then
    >>>>> cynically reneging on that pledge.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What';s your view?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Its your double standard, your hypocrisy, your damn cheek in accusing
    >>>>>> others you two faced scumbag.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I get it -- you're embarassed by IBM's behavior in this case, and I
    >>>>> don't blame you. You've treated that company like the Holy Patron of
    >>>>> Open Source, imagining somehow that the biggest intellectual property
    >>>>> owner in the world actually subscribed to the harebrained ideological
    >>>>> fantasies of the COLA troll set you so adore. Let that be a lesson to
    >>>>> you.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Couldn't give a **** about IBM actually.
    >>>> Cut from the same cloth.
    >>>> As I said earlier in the thread, IBM participates in FOSS for their
    >>>> own benefit just like all the rest of the corporates that share their
    >>>> patents in the OIN pool.
    >>>> Its voluntary, I think the short answer is IBM thinks TurboHercules
    >>>> are taking the piss in emulating hardware covered by IBMs patents and
    >>>> seeking cover in the FOSS patent pool agreements.
    >>>> They all play the same business game where what you can get away with
    >>>> is where the ethical bar is set.
    >>>> If the ref doesn't see the infringement you win.
    >>>
    >>> But why did IBM renege on its pledge to share U.S. 5613086 and U.S.
    >>> 5220669 with open source developers? Doesn't that call into question the
    >>> property rights of other open source developers who used those same
    >>> patents --and 498 others -- that IBM promised it would not assert? Are
    >>> uyou saying that those developers are also now infringing oin IBM's
    >>> intellectual property?

    >>
    >> I'm not even saying TurboHercules infringes.
    >> There is some good background in this article which might make the
    >> case a bit clearer for you.
    >>
    >> http://www.itworld.com/open-source/...reaking-promise-seem-mostly-smoke-little-fire
    >>

    >
    > Yeah, right. It was all just a clerical mistake by IBM. Uh-huh. Cue the
    > next excuse.


    Probably
    It was two out of several pages.
    TurboHercules response was to mount an antitrust case in a pre emptive
    action rather than point out that they only intended to infringe all the
    other 170 odd patents listed and would IBM mind awfully removing the two
    contentious patents from the list because 170 is more than enough.
    I expect IBM is keen on selling their own emulator rather than doing all
    the spade work for a competitor.
    victor, Apr 14, 2010
    #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. GraB
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    321
    peterwn
    Nov 22, 2006
  2. Mickey Mouse
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    415
    BrianM
    Sep 18, 2007
  3. Blig Merk
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    1,830
    StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
    Apr 27, 2008
  4. David Goodwin

    Re: IBM asserts patents against open source software

    David Goodwin, Apr 7, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    554
    victor
    Apr 10, 2010
  5. Usenet Account

    WTF: Amazon Patents shooting against a white seamless.

    Usenet Account, May 9, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    67
    nospam
    May 10, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page