[clue-talk] Microsoft Claims 235 Patents Violated

[David L. Willson]

I think we should tell every Windows-using person we know about this,
and ask them if this is who they want to business with.

On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 15:54 -0600, Dave Price wrote:
> 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
> >
> 
>