IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Linus agrees

Microsoft should name the patents that it claims have been violated so the claims can be tested in court or so open-source developers can rewrite code to avoid the violation, Torvalds wrote.

"Naming them would make it either clear that Linux isn't infringing at all (which is quite possible, especially if the patents are bad), or would make it possible to avoid infringing by coding around whatever silly thing they claim," he said.

Put up or shut up.

Unfortunately, Mr. CIO evalutes this as potential risk when reviewing projects. Were I not somewhat informed as to the history here, I would think twice about going a route where the potential vendor could be sued into oblivion by one of the most powerful companies in the world. And that's what uSoft's game plan is, I wot. Cast enough FUD to cause decision-makers to think twice and go with their products cuz it's 'safer'. I'd wager that they don't have any real intentions to sue.
New Microsoft blinked.
[link|http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/05/15/microsoft-will-not-sue-linux-for-patent-violations/|Uhh, yeah sorry about that.]

IOW, FUD is what they want. Vapor-ware^H^H^H^Hlawsuit.

I believe they mucked up. They should have been the first to sue, rather than the bungling SCOg. Then they MIGHT have had a chance to get something done.

Now, its toast.
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0  2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74  E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
     Well, now we know. It *is* going to use patent... - (folkert) - (30)
         Wow...kernel violates 42 different patents - (bepatient) - (10)
             pretty funny as well as the NT Kernel - (boxley) - (9)
                 Huh? [Insert perplexed dog picture here] -NT - (altmann) - (8)
                     here - (boxley) - (7)
                         Umm - (altmann) - (6)
                             it does, maybe I need a better source -NT - (boxley) - (5)
                                 links - (boxley)
                                 links - (boxley) - (3)
                                     Re: links - (altmann) - (2)
                                         mac osx of course sits on top of mach - (boxley) - (1)
                                             WhatEVar. - (pwhysall)
         How do you spell "irrelevant"? - (mmoffitt)
         Looks like a repeat of SCOSource - (JayMehaffey) - (2)
             This is a clear civil RICO case -NT - (boxley)
             Its a very dangerous game - (bepatient)
         To quote an idiot, "Bring it on!" - (a6l6e6x) - (4)
             xenix had a lot of good innovation -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                 Yes, but what did they do with it? -NT - (folkert)
             Don't forget Bob -NT - (jbrabeck) - (1)
                 Fortunately, I was never exposed to it. -NT - (a6l6e6x)
         No they're not. - (Andrew Grygus) - (6)
             Yes. Except... - (folkert) - (3)
                 There's only so deep they can go . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                     That would be the OTHER Big Giant Corp not being MS... - (folkert)
                     "logic roots in weaving loom" gets 500k hits - (Ashton)
             Remember that anti-trust trumps patent - (tonytib) - (1)
                 Hasn't stopped Microsoft from Biatchin' about Samba. -NT - (folkert)
         Tim Bray (Sun employee... err yeah), in his Blog. - (folkert) - (2)
             Linus agrees - (Steve Lowe) - (1)
                 Microsoft blinked. - (folkert)

He makes Murphy look like a babbling optimist.
98 ms