[clue-talk] Microsoft Claims 235 Patents Violated

[David Rudder]

There was an interesting analysis of this done, but I lost the link.  I 
guess that's the hazard of relying on Google News.
This article:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2125456,00.asp
talks about how the Supreme Court recently raised the bar for what 
qualified for a software patent.

That article I read off Google News brings this up as a problem with the 
MS patents.  Who knows how many of these patents are enforceable?
Eben Moglen commented that the "235" number means nothing.  RIM recently 
got thwacked with a mere 7, 4 of which were thrown out.  One patent 
violation is all that's necessary, but given the state of software 
patents, even that might be more than MS has of value.

So, from my perspective, nothing's changed.  It's just more noise.

I am not a lawyer, but I think there's a lot of FUD around this.  You 
don't get sued for using the product of a patent violator.  No one came 
after me for using my Blackberry.  No one bothered me for using software 
that creates GIF files. Microsoft isn't going to sue anyone for using 
Linux.  I think.

-Dave

P.S.  Here's that link.  That's the upside of relying on Google :)
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/

    Moglen contends that software is a mathematical algorithm and, as
    such, not patentable. (The Supreme Court has never expressly ruled
    on the question.) In any case, the fact that Microsoft might possess
    many relevant patents doesn't impress him. "Numbers aren't where the
    action is," he says. "The action is in very tight qualitative
    analysis of individual situations." Patents can be invalidated in
    court on numerous grounds, he observes. Others can easily be
    "invented around." Still others might be valid, yet not infringed
    under the particular circumstances.


I want someone to prove to me that "dance dance revolution" is a 
mathematical algorithm.

Gary Threlkeld wrote:
> Microsoft Claims Open--Source Technology Violates 235 of its Patents:
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2129407,00.asp?kc=EWNAVEMNL051407EOAD 
> <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2129407,00.asp?kc=EWNAVEMNL051407EOAD>
>
> OK.  I've stayed on the sidelines for quite some time but that is NOT 
> to say that I haven't carefully watched the CLUE traffic over the last 
> few months.  You guys/gals are some of the best informal information 
> out there on Linux, Open Source applications, tips and techniques, 
> etc. in my book!
>
>  So what do you think??? Is Microsoft serious about the claims against 
> Linux as the attached article portrays or is this just round two 
> (round one being SCO) of the FUD put out against Linux?  Delving into 
> the article links, if I read it right, it would appear even "Founding 
> Father"  Richard Stallman might have had some concerns about software 
> patent violations.
>
> Do you think this will be moved forward by Microsoft?  What do you 
> think the "short-term" and/or "long-term" effects might be on business 
> adoption of Linux?  Do you think this will have more of an impact on 
> non-SUse distributions?  Your thoughts???
>
> Gary Threlkeld
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue-talk mailing list
> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk