[clue-talk] patent-indemnification solution specialist
David L. Willson
DLWillson at TheGeek.NU
Sun Jun 24 14:56:22 MDT 2007
On Sun, 2007-06-24 at 09:21 -0600, Tony McDowell wrote:
> 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 don't understand how letting Windows applications run on Linux is
significantly different on the taxed Linuxen, than it is on the untaxed
Linuxen. Moreover, since this is not a release of copyright, but
patent-indemnification, the developers of taxed Linuxen are ~not~ free
to borrow code or verbatim interfaces. They are not even protected from
Microsoft's entire patent portfolio, I think.
Come to think of it, I don't know who is protected by these agreements,
or what they are protected from... Can MS sue ~me~ because I ~use~ OOo,
which they claim infringes something-or-other? What about my employer,
if I'm using a company PC? Who, exactly, is MS shaking their weapon at,
here? Or, in their words, who are they offering "protection" to? And
who are these protected parties being protected from?
> 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.
I think you mis-spelled cojones, but that's beside the point. Haven't
Red Hat, Canonical, and Mandriva "told Microsoft to take their
anti-competitive practices and shove them in their ear"? I'm not seeing
your love going out to them. Companies that have taken the DOJ route,
have found it to be an all-consuming effort, and from my own
perspective, I can't say I admire "earning through creative litigation"
anyway. I kinda believe the other way 'round. I believe that we can
get this done, long term, by good, old-fashioned capitalism. That is,
we make products with better value, by fighting to keep Linux and the
products that run on it free, by investing of ourselves, and leading
others to do so, until eventually, the best platform wins.
> 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.
So, we're agreed that these tactics are wrong, whether or not they are
legal. And I think you're saying that even if I think biting or pulling
hair in a fight is wrong, I should do so, if I am pretty sure the other
fellow is going to, and the official rules do not prohibit it. Is that
correct? Doesn't that sacrifice my positive identity for material gain?
Isn't that the definition of evil? Before someone tells me that
business is no place for the expression of personal notions of good and
evil, I need that someone to ask himself how it could possibly be
natural/appropriate/fitting to spend that much time (40 hours a week,
let's say) ~suppressing~ personal notions of good and evil. In other
words, work is the second best place for such expression.
> .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
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue-talk mailing list
> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
More information about the clue-talk
mailing list