I guess they do know about the 235 MS patents they're violating...

[Frank]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070628/tc_nm/redhat_microsoft_dc_1

Frank

 

[Alias]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070628/tc_nm/redhat_microsoft_dc_1

Frank

Name one patent. Just one. The article you linked most certainly doesn't
name one. The patent trip on the part of Microsoft only reveals how
scared Microsoft is of Open Source. Microsoft hates Open Source almost
as much as it hates its own paying customers.

Alias

 

[Frank]

Name one patent. Just one. The article you linked most certainly doesn't
name one. The patent trip on the part of Microsoft only reveals how
scared Microsoft is of Open Source. Microsoft hates Open Source almost
as much as it hates its own paying customers.

Alias

That's not the point bozo. I'm sure Red Hat knows exactly which patents
are in dispute seeing as how the article refers to them by number and
that they've had private discussions for over a year concerning them,
presumably lawyers to lawyers. You can bet your last peso that Red Hat
knows exactly which patents are in question.
Your ignorant assumption that..."Microsoft only reveals how scared
Microsoft is of Open Source', is simply down right stupid as is
your..."Microsoft hates Open Source almost as much as it hates its own
paying customers". Especially considering the fact that MS has a patent
royalty deal with Novell and other linux distros. I guess you didn't
know that, huh?
You need to re-read the article cause your comprehension is way off.
Frank

 

[Bill Yanaire]

I'm surprised he just didn't say, "Why not install Ubuntu" !

 

[Frank]

I'm surprised he just didn't say, "Why not install Ubuntu" !

:-D
Frank

 

[Alias]

That's not the point bozo. I'm sure Red Hat knows exactly which patents
are in dispute seeing as how the article refers to them by number and
that they've had private discussions for over a year concerning them,
presumably lawyers to lawyers.

You are ASSuming they know.

You can bet your last peso that Red Hat
knows exactly which patents are in question.

You are ASSuming they know. I don't use pesos, btw, in Europe we have
the euro. You know, the one where you get almost $1.40 for each euro?

Your ignorant assumption that..."Microsoft only reveals how scared
Microsoft is of Open Source', is simply down right stupid as is
your..."Microsoft hates Open Source almost as much as it hates its own
paying customers".

Stupid on the part of Microsoft. Right on, on my part.

Especially considering the fact that MS has a patent
royalty deal with Novell and other linux distros. I guess you didn't
know that, huh?

Of course I knew that some lame Linux companies that are on the verge of
bankruptcy accepted Microsoft's protection racket.

You need to re-read the article cause your comprehension is way off.
Frank

NO, YOU do.

No mention of which patents.

Red Hat has NOT signed a deal.

From the article:

"The Free Software Foundation, which authored the General Public License
and owns rights to much of the code at the heart of Red Hat Enterprise
Linux, inserted that clause into the agreement in an effort to
discourage other open-source software developers from signing patent
deals with Microsoft.

The authors of that license have said they believe that such patent
deals will help Microsoft back claims that its intellectual property is
being violated by code in Linux and other open source software,
eventually giving the company ammunition to seek billions of dollars in
license fees from users of open-source software."

Alias

 

[Alias]

I'm surprised he just didn't say, "Why not install Ubuntu" !

I'm *not* surprised that you posted this.

Alias

 

[Adam Albright]

That's not the point bozo. I'm sure Red Hat knows exactly which patents
are in dispute seeing as how the article refers to them by number and
that they've had private discussions for over a year concerning them,
presumably lawyers to lawyers. You can bet your last peso that Red Hat
knows exactly which patents are in question.
Your ignorant assumption that..."Microsoft only reveals how scared
Microsoft is of Open Source', is simply down right stupid as is
your..."Microsoft hates Open Source almost as much as it hates its own
paying customers". Especially considering the fact that MS has a patent
royalty deal with Novell and other linux distros. I guess you didn't
know that, huh?
You need to re-read the article cause your comprehension is way off.
Frank

Frank, you need to pull real hard and try to get your head out of
Microsoft's corporate butt. You need some fresh air boy. I mean I've
seen all kinds of kiss ups to Microsoft, but you've managed to firmly
shove your head so far up their butt I'm betting you haven't seen
daylight in years.

 

[Bill Yanaire]

Because it's your best solution to any problem?

I'm *not* surprised that you posted this.

Alias

 

[Alias]

Because it's your best solution to any problem?

Au contraire! I just built a ninja machine with XP for gaming.

Alias

 

[Alias]

Frank, you need to pull real hard and try to get your head out of
Microsoft's corporate butt. You need some fresh air boy. I mean I've
seen all kinds of kiss ups to Microsoft, but you've managed to firmly
shove your head so far up their butt I'm betting you haven't seen
daylight in years.

A true feral cave dweller that Frank.

Alias

 

[Frank]

You are ASSuming they know.

You're ASSuming they don't. Only an idiot like you would make that
ASSumption.
Only a complete fool like you would want to believe that corporate
attorneys for both parties, who have been meeting for over a year, don't
know the details of that which they are negotiating.
Get real!
You're an excellent example of just how stupid one person can be.
Oh, btw, that would be an insult to most people but considering your
level of intelligence its a compliment.
Linus loser!
Frank

 

[Frank]

Frank, you need to pull real hard and try to get your head out of
Microsoft's corporate butt. You need some fresh air boy. I mean I've
seen all kinds of kiss ups to Microsoft, but you've managed to firmly
shove your head so far up their butt I'm betting you haven't seen
daylight in years.

Did you just wakeup from your drunken weekend binge?
Get some sleep.
Call me later when you've sobered up.
Frank

 

[norm]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070628/tc_nm/redhat_microsoft_dc_1

Frank

Frank, your subject line suggests that the violations are a proven fact.
Nothing I have read supports that position. So far, ms has only alleged
violations and no one has admitted to violation or been proven to be
in violation in a court of law. Accusation is a long way from
conviction. Conviction has not yet occurred. This situation certainly
has not played out with any finality.

 

[Frank]

Frank, your subject line suggests that the violations are a proven fact.
Nothing I have read supports that position. So far, ms has only alleged
violations and no one has admitted to violation or been proven to be in
violation in a court of law.

Well that's not true. Patent disputes don't start in courts; they only
end up there if the party’s cannot come to an agreement. Patent disputes
start with a letter of warning of patent infringement from the patent
holders attorneys’ to the patent infringer. If an appropriate royalty
payment agreement cannot be reached, then more legal steps are taken
until they arrive in court…if no agreement can be reached.
Agreeing to pay royalties for usage amounts to an admission of guilt.
So in actuality, patent infringements by linux distros has already been
established.
The deal is done. Now all that is left is to agree on settlement amounts
and future royalty payments.
Frank

 

[Adam Albright]

Well that's not true. Patent disputes don't start in courts; they only
end up there if the party’s cannot come to an agreement. Patent disputes
start with a letter of warning of patent infringement from the patent
holders attorneys’ to the patent infringer. If an appropriate royalty
payment agreement cannot be reached, then more legal steps are taken
until they arrive in court…if no agreement can be reached.
Agreeing to pay royalties for usage amounts to an admission of guilt.
So in actuality, patent infringements by linux distros has already been
established.
The deal is done. Now all that is left is to agree on settlement amounts
and future royalty payments.
Frank

Frank pretending to be an attorney. Funny, but not quite as funny as
Frank pretending he runs a marketing company or is some computer
expert.

 

[Adam Albright]

Frank, your subject line suggests that the violations are a proven fact.
Nothing I have read supports that position. So far, ms has only alleged
violations and no one has admitted to violation or been proven to be
in violation in a court of law. Accusation is a long way from
conviction. Conviction has not yet occurred. This situation certainly
has not played out with any finality.

Frank is just blowing smoke like he always does. Some people need to
act important to feel important. That's Frank.

 

[norm]

Well that's not true. Patent disputes don't start in courts; they only
end up there if the party’s cannot come to an agreement. Patent disputes
start with a letter of warning of patent infringement from the patent
holders attorneys’ to the patent infringer. If an appropriate royalty
payment agreement cannot be reached, then more legal steps are taken
until they arrive in court…if no agreement can be reached.
Agreeing to pay royalties for usage amounts to an admission of guilt.
So in actuality, patent infringements by linux distros has already been
established.
The deal is done. Now all that is left is to agree on settlement amounts
and future royalty payments.
Frank

This article seems to define a different path to be taken in the case of
patent infringement:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/infringe.htm
"Infringement of a patent consists of the unauthorized making, using,
offering for sale or selling any patented invention within the United
States or United States Territories, or importing into the United States
of any patented invention during the term of the patent. If a patent is
infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the appropriate Federal
court. The patentee may ask the court for an injunction to prevent the
continuation of the infringement and may also ask the court for an award
of damages because of the infringement. In such an infringement suit,
the defendant may raise the question of the validity of the patent,
which is then decided by the court. The defendant may also aver that
what is being done does not constitute infringement. Infringement is
determined primarily by the language of the claims of the patent and, if
what the defendant is making does not fall within the language of any of
the claims of the patent, there is no literal infringement.
Suits for infringement of patents follow the rules of procedure of the
Federal courts. From the decision of the district court, there is an
appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Supreme
Court may thereafter take a case by writ of certiorari. If the United
States Government infringes a patent, the patentee has a remedy for
damages in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Government may
use any patented invention without permission of the patentee, but the
patentee is entitled to obtain compensation for the use by or for the
Government.
The Office has no jurisdiction over questions relating to infringement
of patents. In examining applications for patent, no determination is
made as to whether the invention sought to be patented infringes any
prior patent. An improvement invention may be patentable, but it might
infringe a prior unexpired patent for the invention improved upon, if
there is one."

As I read the above, the legitimate path is through the courts. The
following article portrays the actual state of affairs to this point,
and does not seem to come to the same conclusion as you have:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index3.htm

 

[Mr. Happy]

Well that's not true. Patent disputes don't start in courts; they only
end up there if the party’s cannot come to an agreement. Patent disputes
start with a letter of warning of patent infringement from the patent
holders attorneys’ to the patent infringer.

That might be true. But in this case, Microsoft has refused to say what
patents it is alleging have been violated. I suspect that this is because,
quite frankly (no pun intended), Microsoft doesn't really want to open this
whole can of worms. It begs the question as to why it has delayed enforcing
its patents for so long. It also opens the door to others to jump in and
seriously start looking at those patents that Microsoft has been
infringing. Remember, that IBM holds the largest number of patents in the
software/hardware world than any other corporation in the world. Once a
wholesale push comes to shove on patents, the patents will probably have
expired before all the litigation came any where close to resolving all the
questions.

Microsoft has succeeded in coming to an arrangement with Novell, that made
both parties come out look foolish. Two other insignificant and losing
companies, recently jumped into deals with Microsoft, probably hoping that
it would somehow turn around their fortunes. The really big players in the
Linux world from a commercial standpoint, RedHat and Mandriva have both
rejected any kind of patent deal with Microsoft. The most popular Linux
desktop distro, Ubuntu has also outright rejected a "deal" with Microsoft
and essentially to put up or shut up.

Just the other day GPL3 came into being, and it's adoption by a good many
open source developers will see the end of any such future patent deals
with Microsoft and does pretty much null and void Novell's "deal".

At this point, the whole subject is mute and just so much bullshit, that
won't really impact where users choose to go with their desktops. Open
source will not be stopped, nor should it be. It delivers tremendous
innovation to a growing audience of users, who are only too happy to use
the software for free and gain the benefits.


Shake Hands With,
Mr. Happy

 

[Frank]

This article seems to define a different path to be taken in the case of
patent infringement:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/infringe.htm
"Infringement of a patent consists of the unauthorized making, using,
offering for sale or selling any patented invention within the United
States or United States Territories, or importing into the United States
of any patented invention during the term of the patent. If a patent is
infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the appropriate Federal
court. The patentee may ask the court for an injunction to prevent the
continuation of the infringement and may also ask the court for an award
of damages because of the infringement. In such an infringement suit,
the defendant may raise the question of the validity of the patent,
which is then decided by the court. The defendant may also aver that
what is being done does not constitute infringement. Infringement is
determined primarily by the language of the claims of the patent and, if
what the defendant is making does not fall within the language of any of
the claims of the patent, there is no literal infringement.
Suits for infringement of patents follow the rules of procedure of the
Federal courts. From the decision of the district court, there is an
appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Supreme
Court may thereafter take a case by writ of certiorari. If the United
States Government infringes a patent, the patentee has a remedy for
damages in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Government may
use any patented invention without permission of the patentee, but the
patentee is entitled to obtain compensation for the use by or for the
Government.
The Office has no jurisdiction over questions relating to infringement
of patents. In examining applications for patent, no determination is
made as to whether the invention sought to be patented infringes any
prior patent. An improvement invention may be patentable, but it might
infringe a prior unexpired patent for the invention improved upon, if
there is one."

As I read the above, the legitimate path is through the courts. The
following article portrays the actual state of affairs to this point,
and does not seem to come to the same conclusion as you have:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index3.htm

The article you referenced is dated May 14th, 2007. The article I
referenced is dated June 27, 2007.
Sorry, but most patent infringements are settled out of court. Court is
the avenue of last resort. Not the first.
As stated..."As part of their November 2006 business partnership,
Microsoft agreed not to sue Novell customers for any patent violations
that might come up as a result of their use of Novell's Linux software."
So a patent royalty agreement has already been signed by Novell and
other linux distros that will avoid court action. A royalty agreement is
currently being pursued between Red Hat and other linux distros.
Frank