Comments on: Microsoft patent peace--or patent war?

By declaring a "patent peace" with Novell Linux, did the software company just declare patent war with the open-source realm?

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Unpleasant business practices

Don't sue, just threaten to sue to divide and
conquer. I would prefer that they sue us. I
would love to defend our work and then trace MS's
chain of software ownership. We have nothing to
hide. The code is open. MS has a LOT to hide.

[Had_to_be_said]

Another commentary on Microsofts possible motives...

One really basic question... Given Microsofts alleged goals, why DIDNT Microsoft decide to "cooperate" with the largest "Linux" company, "Redhat"..?

Here is a fairly-well thought-out opinion, on "Linspires" site, concerning the possible "hidden agenda".

http://www.linspire.com/linspire_letter_archives.php?id=36

Honestly, after Microsofts long unethical history, ...their laughable "Get the Facts" campaign, and the clumsy "SCO" charade, you would have to be PRETTY-DARN-DIM to NOT question the REAL-MOTIVES behind this latest move by Microsoft.

[John Kuzak]

Get the Facts

http://www.analogstereo.com/volvo_760_owners_manual.htm

[Commander_Spock]

OPERATION FIGHTBACK!

Why should one become interested in this "Microsoft patent peace--or patent war" when this appears to issues involving hundreds of flavors of a particular Operating System (Linux) and on the other side - Windows that appears to be perpetual "work-in-progress"; also, both of these having benefited in different ways from IBM OS/2 Warp's (now eComStation) development which in the future will be known as VOYAGER (and under consideration - CASINII) to get users precisely where they wish to BOLDLY GO!

http://voyager.netlabs.org/

[Commander_Spock]

"Linux vs. Windows NT and OS/2"....

... as was the "battles" of yester-year and what was said by Bernie Thompson:

"Picking an operating system is a dangerous business. You're committing yourself to a couple hours, certainly, or maybe a couple days of manual-reading, file-editing, and hassles. If your real goal was just to get some work done, maybe it would have been simpler to stay with Windows 3.1 and never embark on an adventure in computing.

But, then again, there seems to be a substantial body of computer users who are dissatisfied with DOS and Windows. Some are moving to OS/2, Windows NT, or some other Comdex wonder. Some are even daring enough to wipe out DOS in favor of an anti-establishment system like Linux.

Before you take the plunge, you should know up front what you stand to gain. More importantly, too, what you stand to lose. Here's what lies ahead for you if you want OS/2, Windows NT, or Linux to be part of your future." Read it all here:

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/2734

[jabbotts]

article is old but point well taken

Yeah, seems the same arguments go round and round. I meet a lot of IT managers long since tired of the MS upgrade treadmill but there handlers continue to only stamp projects with the Microsoft brand of approval.

There different OS based on the Linux kernel (each distribution is truly a seporate OS) have evolved greatly from the days of winNT and Warp. I had Kubuntu running off a live CD in about ten minutes including .ISO burn time and that includes the boot to a GUI desktop with complete application feature support. Install to the hard drive took about fifteen minutes after answering five questions but you can also run it off the CD as a Live Boot too.

As for your link; thank you. It's been printed and archived with other news of interest.

[Llib Setag]

MSharks to Linux Penquins: Buh Bye...

Steve "JAWS" Ballmer is sinking his multi-rows of sharp teeth
deep into the Linux World with this "pact with the devil" deal.

Illegal monopolies fiercly hate competition & independance, no
matter who it is or how small it is, they are nervous that the Evil
Empire will crumble around them...

Just like Microsith did with Java & their "improved MS-Java"
prgramming that was a slimy attempt to kill "write once / work
anywhere" Sun Java, they were diluted & manipulating a source
of programming that they perceived as a threat to their
Microsith Empire.

Never, never, never trust the BillyBot or BaldyBot when it comes
at you with a handshake & a big grin baring their JAWS
teeth...You will be assimulted or eaten alive.

Just a smoke & mirrors ploy to keep the US DOJ happy, get the
EU of their a$$ & kill the competiton to rake in the big bucks.

Bye bye Linux...
"Microsoft, where do you want to go today?"

[Sumatra-Bosch]

Peace . . . with the Mansons?

Please. It is a tactic. Run for the hills. The only posture for engagment with Redmond is Mutually Assured Destruction.

Assume MS needs to annihilate you and wakes up every day dreaming and scheming to assure your destruction.

Assume there is only one end-state possible. You or them alone still breathing on a bloody, scortched battlefield.

Novell needs to find out where MS thinks it is weak and open for annihilation in terms of IP defensibility and then recruit Sun and the ROW to join in the task of assembling the case that would shatter MS.

The only reason MS would offer peace is if they know they are exposed somewhere. If that exposure exists, ROW should work to exploit it to the destruction of MS.

Trying to reason with MS is like attempting to reason the creature in Alien. It only knows one modality: kill everything and eat it. No use burning cycles making nice with something that only wants to chew your face from your skull.

Roberto

[bw94382]

Microsoft Patents? Give me a break.

Does anybody really believe that Microsoft has any enforceable patents for any technology that remotely impacts on Linux? This is a company that has never invented anything worthwhile. DOS was a rip-off of CPM, Word was a rip-off of Wordperfect, Windows is a rip-off of Macintosh, Windows NT was a rip-off of Unix and OS/2, SQL Server was purchased from Sybase, Internet Explorer is a rip-off of Mozilla, C# is a rip-off of Java, and so on and so forth. The only things that Microsoft can be said to have genuinely invented are moronic technologies like integrating the web browser and media player with the OS, building ActiveX support into Internet Explorer, and Passport authentication -- things that smarter (or more ethical) developers would consider absolutely laughable.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Since you ask...

Not commenting on the merits of the patents (that would be a whole different can of worms), MS has patents on the FAT file system (specifically the changes that allow long file names and larger media sizes than the older pre-Windows 95 versions allowed) and the NTFS file system. Those are not the only patents by far but perhaps more relevant.

Now about your rant:

"DOS was a rip-off of CPM" -- DOS started life as a clone of CP/M but MS didn't write it, they bought it from it's author and then modified it to meet IBM's requirements. The IBM PC was also available with CP/M so ask yourself "Why did DOS prevail over CP/M?"

"Word was a rip-off of Wordperfect" -- The DOS version of Word was just another also-ran bit player living in the shadow of Wordperfect during the DOS days but the Windows version of Word was a giant step ahead of anything Wordperfect had to offer and at $100 for Word vs $550 for Wordperfect it was a great bargain too. I know, I bought and used both back in the day.

"Windows is a rip-off of Macintosh" -- The first version of Windows predates the first version of the MacOS. MS did indeed copy a number of things from the MacOS in later versions of Windows but they made some of their own innovations along the way that Apple hasn't been shy in copying either.

"Windows NT was a rip-off of Unix and OS/2" -- MS wrote the first versions of Unix for the PC which they later sold to another company. They also co-wrote OS/2 with IBM and were developing the "Portable OS/2" when Windows took off as a highly successful product. It was in the settlement of the disagreement with IBM over including the Windows API into the new product that IBM took the original OS/2 code as their's while MS took the portable OS/2 project and made it into Windows NT. For the record NT most resembled VMS though it could also run OS/2 and Posix (a standardized Unix) applications.

"SQL Server was purchased from Sybase" -- Got that one right but compare the current version of MS's SQL Server to Sybase and you'll see that MS has taken the product far beyond it's Sybase roots.

"Internet Explorer is a rip-off of Mozilla" -- Totally wrong, MS licensed the Mosaic code and based IE on that code base until IE 4.0 which was a rewrite. Netscape was an original creation based on Mosaic as well but the simple fact is that IE isn't a rip-off of Mozilla.

"C# is a rip-off of Java" -- MS invested heavily in Java and tried to license it properly only to be violently rebuffed by Sun. So MS took their investment and made something of value from it. However C# is no more of a rip-off of Java than Java is of C++.

[Computer Ed]

Your ignorance is Showing

Okay first DOS was a very different OS from CPM and hardly a rip off of it. As for Word there where a TON of Word Processors out there as good as WP, so I think being specific is a bit unfair. Also all of them where similiar since there is only so many things that could be done with a Word processor.

As for the rip off of the OS, the idea actually came from another OS idea, I do not recall it now that BOTH where based on and was never published.

IE a ripoff of Mozilla, FUNNY. BOTH browsers trace their design back to a program called Mosaic. Also IE came out BEFORE ANY program named Mozilla. At the time Microsoft was working against Netscape.

I would go on but your ignorance of the hsitroy of computers and this software showes your conclusions are not viable since they have no basis in fact, just pure MS bashing.