All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company

MS exec rattles sabre, suggests Linux could infringe patents

<< < (3/4) > >>

slave:

quote: I think its time for you to give up on windows and use Linux. If you're going to do it eventually, there's not reason not to switch now. Become Linux user #5225982375.
--- End quote ---


Actually I haven't used Windows in over four weeks, probably because I'm too lazy to reboot and Linux comes with all the programs I need.  I can't be arsed to find and download WinRAR when I can apt-get rar, CuteFTP (and all the cracks) when I already have gFTP, and roxio seedy cd creator always goofs up on me when xcdroast does not and I can't be arsed to fix it.  Imagine that, too lazy to use Windows.

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Windows XP User #5225982375 ]

TB:
Edison is only credited for the invention of the light bulb because he made millions from it (how easy is it to sell light bulbs when you own the power company???). I recall reading that the US Supreme court declared Edison's patent for the light bulb void because it was discovered an Englishman called Joseph Swan had a British patent for the light bulb for over a year prior to Edison's "invention". Oh, and Swan sued the crap out of Edison when he found out about the money being made. Apparently Swan had also had his work published in journals too, so it's quite possible that Edison had read about Swan's work and saw the financial oppurtunity.

It's a typical thing - history only remembers powerful and wealthy people. Wasn't it Napoleon who said "History is a bunch of lies, agreed upon"?

EDIT: A google search on Joseph Swan gave me a shitload of hits. Apparently it's SIR Joseph Swan, and it seems to be a reasonably well known fact. I guess we just have to re-educate people now!

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: TB ]

pkd_lives:
This patent thing should be going gainst M$. I mean this is the perfect reason for showing why closed source code is unacceptable for various resons.

Now M$ were convicted of pirating that French companies code, and by all accounts they had trouble proving it, whereas with Open source the infringements can be spotted.

So surely M$ argument about patent infringement is really best kept quite by them. How do you know your patent and your rights have not been infringed upon if the code is closed, and as such if the code is closed then you cannot even verify for yourself whether there is a chance the code you are *leasing* is legal.

And you as a company are just a liable for infringement through use of code from closed as open source.

Their argument for indemnification is pointless. Unless you are spend billions of dollars with a company it is just not worth it, and the cost would drive out competition from small companies. And M$ do not offer indemnification for their product, in fact they refuse even the perfunctory 1 year warranty.

Yes patents would be easy to infringe, but this situation has been dealt with. Mechanical patents survive without much problem, and people can SEE what has been done. Do you see huge and widespread abuse of mechanical patents, NO you do not, there are a few, but that's no less and no more than those from other types of patent. Same with literary copyright, same with electronic circuits, same with most other technologies - WHAT MAKES SOFTWARE SO FUCKING DIFFERENT THAT YOU NEED TO FUCKING REINVENT THE WHEEL.  :mad:  , nothing but corporate greed as far as I can see.

lazygamer:
What makes software different? Well it shoulden't be different, but there is a reason why it is so acceptable. I believe that software is an illusion in the end, im suprised it's physically possible.

It really boils down to putting tiny little things in electric currents, and putting tiny little things in magnets. The result is that you turn magentism into a libary and electricity into a road to the libary.

Now software appears where these little things mean shit, and they can be combined together to do more complex stuff. To me, software seems like very primitive form of nanites(you know those nano sized machines).

Because this is so incredible, it seems different then other forms of innovation. This is why it has up until now, been possible to get away with it. In fact, if it wasn't for Torvalds and Stallman, we would have no revolution, no "nature's reaction to restricting information".

Doctor V:
Copyright laws are total BS, written just to fuck us over and keep the pigopolies in power.  Thats all they do at this point.  There is no reason to follow a law that is so blatantly opressive.  Its perfectly ok for a person to break the law in this case.  Its impossible to enforce a law that is broken by the masses.  But those who follow the laws make them stronger.  Lets all break copyright regulations.  I'm gonna go copy a picture of Mickey and change it a little and hang it up somewhere.

V

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page