Verily I say unto thee, that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
> Hadron wrote:
>> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:13:36 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
>>>>>> In article <hfb085-skd.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Jim Richardson
>>>>>> <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> It's FUD, pure and simple, and every time they try it,
>>>>>>> they should be called on it. Put up, or shut up. Simple
>>>>>>> as that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet, for years, one of the big arguments for patent reform
>>>>>> has been that companies like Microsoft get broad patents
>>>>>> from a lax patent office, and that these cover much open
>>>>>> source software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now, when Microsoft says THE SAME THING FREE SOFTWARE
>>>>>> ADVOCATES HAVE SAID FOR YEARS, it becomes FUD with no
>>>>>> factual basis? Huh?
That's a false dichotomy.
Supposedly Free Software that deliberately incorporates Microsoft
technology, such as .Net, is indeed poisoning Free Software (e.g.
through Mono). No argument.
But software that merely works in a similar way, or has a similar
appearance to Microsoft's technology is not "their IP" as they so
arrogantly claim.
I would personally be overjoyed to purge Mono and OOXML from Free
Software. As for the rest ... it /is/ pure FUD.
If Ballmer's claims are in reference to Mono and OOXML, then that
only serves to prove my assertion that Linux developers and users
who support that technology are engaging in a destructive pursuit
that endangers Free Software.
But until Ballmer stops peddling innuendo, and actually presents
some hard evidence of his claims, then all he's doing is engaging
in a campaign of spreading FUD to scare off potential adopters.
OTOH, if there is any truth to his claims then by all means let's
hear the evidence, so that "infringing" code can be removed from
Free Software. Ballmer's silence on the matter merely proves that
he is full of shit, and finds more value in the innuendo than the
protection of Microsoft's so-called IP ... if indeed there is any
in Free Software beyond that deliberately introduced by Gnome and
Novell.
And all /that/ is before one even begins to consider the validity
of any given patent, or even the validity of the software patents
system at all. Most of what Microsoft has patented is probably as
second-hand as their product portfolio, and the idea of software
patent-ability is pure nonsense anyway.
>>> My position on this is, and has been, that software patents are
>>> stupid, and need to go. Whether it's MS holding them, or someone
>>> threatening MS with one, they're bad law, and a bad idea.
>>
>> Why is it a bad idea to stop people stealing your expensively
>> researched work?
>
> You don't need software patents for that
> Pray tell, why isn't "expensively researched work" stolen more often
> in europe, where there are no patents on software?
> Because it might be protected by other means just as well perhaps?
Yes, copyrights are sufficient to protect the actual /work/.
Protecting /ideas/ using patents, is an utterly repellent concept, and
nothing more than a state-sponsored monopoly.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
14:08:17 up 51 days, 11:44, 5 users, load average: 0.03, 0.04, 0.00
|
|
