[clue-talk] Microsoft Claims 235 Patents Violated

[Dave Price]

I think muSoft should secure their own OS 1st.  This is FUD.

On 5/14/07, David Rudder <david.rudder at reliableresponse.net> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue-talk mailing list
> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
>


-- 
aloha,
dave