Comments on: Microsoft seeks rehearing in Eolas case

Redmond seeks ruling on the "golden master" issue. Results could have a dramatic effect on how software is distributed worldwide.

[hadaso]

The same argument applies to any software CD

> Microsoft argued that companies shipping golden masters
> are exporting design instructions for the creation of software
> by the overseas OEM, not "components of an invention"-- ...

The same applies to any CD containing software. All it contains are instructions that an OS uses to create software on a hard disk by a cosumer operating a PC.

Actually, the "Golden master" is much more similar to the produced CDs than these CDs are to the actual software produced on the hard disk: The golden master contains exactly the same bits as the CDs sold to consumers. The software installed on the Hard disk is not the same bits: Those bits are just instructions on how to decompress and arrange the different parts of the software on the hard disk, what registry entries and what folders to create for putting them in. Something entirely different.

Even if the entire content of the CD are copied to the hard disk as is they are not bit to bit identical to what's on the CD: It's a different file system on the Hard disk!

[qazwiz]

This makes more questions

As I read this I thought about it

Microsoft is claiming that "Golden Disk" is just blueprints and building instructions.

But Source code is the blueprint used by a compiler(manufacturer) to assemble libraries (components) into the software that resides on the disk

The so called golden master might have a few limited bytes changed on each disk it makes to allow each to be uniquely identified but on the whole it is simply an original used to make exact copies

so how about this analogy:

The Golden Master is like a copyrighted photograph. Use a Xerox machine(or Cannon or in my case Epson) to make an exact copy then sell the copy

the sale is copyright infringement

Providing the Master (photo or disk) for such a purpose is conspiracy to commit a crime

all parties are guilty separately and cumulatively (wrong terms but same idea)

calling a skunk a rose doesn't change it's smell
And money bags(Gates) is as responsible as an unavailable nopockets (overseas & out of jurisdiction)_

Problematic analogy

The Eolas case is not about copyrights--it's about a patent. These issues on software are complicated because software automatically gets a copyright, but parts of software can also get patents.

Microsoft copied Eolas's patented idea--copyrights can't protect ideas, only specific works. For example, Windows can be copyrighted, but the idea of a GUI operating system cannot be. It could be patented, however, and this is better for that purpose, since no one else could make a GUI OS without your permission. With a copyright, others could make a different GUI OS--as long as the work is theirs and they didn't steal code.

I'm surprised the Eolas patent was upheld; assuming I understand it correctly, it sounds like a very obvious combinations of technologies used in previous programs. Any "obvious" combination of technologies is not supposed to be patentable.

As for this golden master issue, it does sound pretty weak. Essentially, the idea is that MS is paying Eolas the amount, in theory, Eolas would have received from MS had MS been selling IE with that feature licensed on a royalty arrangement. At least, this is what I have to assume, since these articles only quote the damages and not the type.

So, I guess I fail to understand why sending a golden master overseas wouldn't require MS to pay royalty fees if it wasn't under license. . .

I guess if an industry insider happens to see this, they can explain it to me.