[clue-talk] FW: [LinuxFun] patent-indemnification solution
specialist
Tony McDowell
svet.am at gmail.com
Sun Jun 24 09:21:45 MDT 2007
In an idealistic way, I agree with you _entirely_. But, from a pragmatic
point of view (I've not dealt with this on the software level, but I _have_
had to deal with hardware IP issues with TI, Conexant, Xilinx, etc. since
I'm a hardware design engineer) you've got to play the hand that you're
actually dealt, not the one you wish you were dealt. Xandros, Novell, and
Linspire are all in business to make money. Part of their business model is
to allow Windows applications to co-exist on Linux platforms so that they
can sell to corporate clients. Thus, they've got to do what it takes to
ensure that business model doesn't die. The Fedora Working Group,
Canonical, and Mandriva can all thumb their nose at Microsoft because their
business model has no vested interest in anything Microsoft has to offer
them.
I would absolutely LOVE IT if someone would grow the cajones required to
tell Microsoft to take their anti-competitive practices and shove them in
their ear. However, that would require the DoJ and other government
agencies (mostly inside the US since MS is an American company) to enforce
regulations already on the books, not just the actions of a few companies
who have, realistically, very little financial impact on Microsoft's future.
As to patents as a means of intimidation, I look at it both ways. Patents
are FABULOUS for a small business to allow themselves protection from big
companies that might try to squash them early in their life. However, the
same system has allowed large companies to wage financial warfare against
each other as well. We need patent _reform_, not an abolition of patents
altogether. Like most things in life, you cannot treat this issue in a
vacuum. You've got to consider not only the idealistic way we all wish that
it would really work, but also the financially, socially, and practically
effective ways for it to work.
.tony
On 6/22/07, David L. Willson <DLWillson at thegeek.nu> wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
> Wouldn't you agree that what these companies are doing by entering
> cross-patent licentsing agreements is validating the current concept of
> patents as a means of intimidation? Isn't that inherently bad, because
> it discourages developers with ingenuity but nothing to trade or pay
> Microsoft from using their talents?
>
> David
>
> On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 20:45 -0600, Tony McDowell wrote:
> > I don't agree with this mindset. If you look at the nature of
> > Novell's SuSE and NovellDesktop offerings, Linspire, and Xandros, ALL
> > THREE have made it a priority to play well with Windows applications.
> > If you've seen the Xandros development builds, they are starting to
> > place CrossOver and Wine right in the mainline. Bearing this in mind,
> > I can see why they'd "capitulate" with Microsoft. It's to protect
> > themselves when they start stepping all over the Win32 API to make
> > Windows apps work under Linux is production, corporate environments
> > (notice what I said -- production environments, not home users).
> >
> > Red Hat, Ubuntu, and Mandriva have always made a public showing of
> > their "down with Microsoft, Linux can do everything" attitude. That
> > being said, I am not remotely surprised that they have reacted the way
> > they have. They don't _need_ Microsoft or Windows for their normal
> > business model or target client base to work properly. They don't
> > need any access to API's or other IP from MS, so there's no need for
> > them to sign anything that would give them access to it or protection
> > from "stepping on it".
> >
> > While I absolutely HATE that things have come to this, I think it had
> > to come to something like this eventually. Somewhere down the road, I
> > think that ReactOS will face the same scenario as well when MS brings
> > out the "IP infringement" guns on having "two Windows".
> >
> > As a final note, don't forget that Apple is "in bed with" Microsoft to
> > a sum that I am no longer familiar with dating back to the late 1990's
> > when Apple was months from going under and Microsoft infused huge sums
> > of money into Cupertino just to keep up the guise of "competition." I
> > make this point because no one seems to be going around chastising
> > Apple for being in bed with MS like these Linux companies.
> >
> > as always, this is just my $0.02 so take it for what it's worth.
> >
> > .tony
> >
> > On 6/22/07, dennisjperkins at comcast.net <dennisjperkins at comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> > It just shows that even Linux companies can have a PHB.
> >
> > Only a fool capitulates and pays money without being shown
> > proof. Unless they're going to break your kneecaps. :)
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
> > From: "David L. Willson" <DLWillson at TheGeek.NU>
> > > reposting for link repair... and I'll add a few more links
> > while I'm at it...
> > > Hopefully, I won't break them this time.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > Had to work hard to get the acronym I was working for
> > there...
> > >
> > > Just to let you know, in case you're not paying attention,
> > these are the
> > > Linux
> > > distribution vendors that are in bed with Microsoft:
> > >
> > > - Novell
> > > - Xandros
> > > - Linspire
> > >
> > > And these are the Linux distribution vendors that have
> > stated their
> > > disinterest in being
> > > bedded by Microsoft.
> > >
> > > - Red Hat - http://www.redhat.com/promo/believe/
> > > - Ubuntu - http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/127
> > > - Mandriva -
> > http://blog.mandriva.com/2007/06/19/we-will-not-go-to-canossa/
> > >
> > > And ~this~ is how Microsoft encourages vigorous competition
> > and
> > > innovation:
> > >
> >
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleI
> > > d=9019238
> > >
> > > David L. Willson
> > > Trainer/Engineer/Consultant
> > > MCT, MCSE, Linux+
> > > (720) 333-LANS
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > clue-talk mailing list
> > > clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> > > http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > clue-talk mailing list
> > clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> > http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > clue-talk mailing list
> > clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> > http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue-talk mailing list
> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cluedenver.org/pipermail/clue-talk/attachments/20070624/2f38b9ae/attachment-0002.html
More information about the clue-talk
mailing list