On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 05:35:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 10:58:22 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> I'm sure lots of people will be willing to pick up a metaphorical
>> scalpel and dig out the offending bit of code ..
> Wow, this is so wrong on so many levels. First, the "oops, we're
> sorry, we won't do it again" defense won't hold up. Microsoft
> had to pay Eolas millions of dollars for a very tiny patent they
> were then enjoined from using afterwards.
First off and you're lying already. MS was found guilty of using a
plug-in owned by the U. of California without a license.
"a federal court found Microsoft guilty of infringing a patent
relating to widely used browser plug-ins owned by the University of
California and licensed solely to Eolas"
http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5173287.html
> A company like Red Hat could be liable for thousands of dollars
> in royalties (and penalties) for each distributed copy of Linux.
What code in RH Linux makse them liable for royaltees.
> Second, this assumes there is an offending "bit" of code.
> A patent could cover a broad invention that could cover
> thousands or even millions of lines of code. Or ..
Which lines of code in Linux violates MS IP patents. Why can't you or
Ballmer produce any?
> Not that I think Microsoft would ever instigate a
> patent lawsuit against Red Hat or anyone else
Why not. Then why does Fester contimously make threatening noises in
that direction.
> but this sort of argument is incredibly naive.
What argument, it's you that has put up these straw man arguments.
Unfortunatly Roy, in saying dig out the 'offending bit of code' you
gave ewic some wiggle room, allows him to not address the core
argument and beat up on you, at the same time.
I believe the whole Linux violates MS patents issue is a mirage,
thought up to distract us and the investors from this: That while Open
Source exists Microsoft total IP portfolio is next to worthless and is
liable to collapse like a house of cards. You see if similar
functionality to a MS product exists in OSS then third parties won't
be liable to pay MS IP royaltees.
Despite moving into other areas eh. gaming, mobile phones, iPod
clones, their core business is still the desktop monopoly. In the
future with similar services being offered on other platforms MS
revenue is liable to dive as they won't have the influence they
currently have on the desktop.
fuddie, where is the offending code .. SHOW ME THE CODE ...
|
|
