[tlug] Re: LETTER FROM LINSPIRE FOUNDER (Godwin Stewart)

[<burlingk@example.com>]

This is taken from the digest, so I will respond to several at once.
Much snippage will be involved.  This isn't a blatant top post, it is
just quick warning. :P


<snip>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 18:55:32 +0900
> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>
> Subject: Re: [tlug] LETTER FROM LINSPIRE FOUNDER
> To: Tokyo Linux Users Group <tlug@example.com>
> Message-ID: <87veeu9zsb.fsf@example.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> Godwin Stewart writes:
> 
>  > Note that their lack of information on exactly what 
> patents are being  > infringed is resounding in its silence.
> 
> They also haven't defined what "Linux" is.  Do they mean the 
> kernel? The GNU system?  Everything on the Novell distribution CD?
> 
>  > There's a good chance that by naming the patents, everyone 
> would  > challenge their validity and either produce prior 
> art or demonstrate a  > lack of innovation, either of which 
> would invalidate the patents in  > question.
> 
> In the U.S. you should expect that it's quite a bit harder 
> than that, even after recent Supreme Court decisions.  It's 
> also expensive, especially if you're a commercial enterprise. 
>  The patent is presumed valid until overturned, so you're at 
> substantial risk of various injunctions throughout the process.
> 
> Saber-rattling, yes, in the end.  But in the meantime "don't 
> point that thing at *me*, the end is damn sharp!"
> 

That is the messed up thing.  The country that wrote the template
for the laws (and their protections) is the country that is screwing 
up the enforcement of them the worst.  In theory, and by the word of 
the laws, it SHOULD be that easy. Yes, there would be the inevitable
court drama, but the end result should be more cut and dry.




> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 11:56:27 +0200
> From: Godwin Stewart <gstewart@example.com>
> Subject: Re: [tlug] LETTER FROM LINSPIRE FOUNDER
> To: tlug@example.com
> Message-ID: <20070515115627.728d815e.gstewart@example.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:55:32 +0900, "Stephen J. Turnbull" 
> <stephen@example.com> wrote:
> 
> > In the U.S. you should expect that it's quite a bit harder 
> than that, 
> > even after recent Supreme Court decisions.  It's also expensive, 
> > especially if you're a commercial enterprise.  The patent 
> is presumed 
> > valid until overturned, so you're at substantial risk of various 
> > injunctions throughout the process.
> 
> True. But on the other hand, if M$ *does* start (literally) 
> putting its money where its mouth is, you'll have heavyweight 
> companies like Red Hat, IBM, Google etc., all of which are 
> supporters of Linux and Open Source in general, showing up as 
> further obstacles for M$ to get past.


Messed up point two...  Those companies and their parent companies
(Well, maybe not google they are pretty new), were the ones that 
originated half the tech that Microsoft Windows is based off of.  
They may have stolen the concepts fair and square, but that doesn't
mean that they created them.  They used legal loopholes and contract
Law to get most of what they used initially.


> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 19:08:37 +0900 (JST)
> From: "Michael Engel" <mkengel@example.com>
> > They also haven't defined what "Linux" is.  Do they mean 
> the kernel? 
> > The GNU system?  Everything on the Novell distribution CD?
> 
> They did:
> http://tinyurl.com/ypuxkg
> (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/0
> 5/28/100033867/index.htm)
> 
> "But he does break down the total number allegedly violated - 
> 235 - into categories. He says that the Linux kernel - the 
> deepest layer of the free operating system, which interacts 
> most directly with the computer hardware
> - violates 42 Microsoft patents. The Linux graphical user 
> interfaces - essentially, the way design elements like menus 
> and toolbars are set up - run afoul of another 65, he claims. 
> The Open Office suite of programs, which is analogous to 
> Microsoft Office, infringes 45 more. E-mail programs infringe 
> 15, while other assorted FOSS programs allegedly transgress 68"

The Kernel:  The companies who developed originally the initial
technologies
in the kernel are all backing Linux now.  In fact, they are funneling
money
to the community now.  I am not accusing any kernel developer of
stealing code.
I am simply saying that if ANYONE had true right to the patents, it
would
not be Microsoft.

As for the Graphical interface, we all owe Xerox company (not MS, not
Mac)
a debt of gratitude for that one.  I've seen the old consoles.  I assure
you, the messages in their boot sequence predate Windows 3.1 (or Dos 3.1

for that matter) by a good amount of time.

Ok, as for the generic "E-mail programs."  This one, without further
qualifiers could have some merrit.  I have complained for years that
the developers seem to want to make things more and more like outlook
or exchange on the email side of things.  I am not saying that there
was ever reason for anyone to listen to me. :P  I never complained to
anyone with any actual connection to the programs, nor do I have the
Skills myself to make any changes.  But my main point is that any
Userland app that they have taken pains to "make the transition from
Windows less painful," will prove harder to hold up on patent suits.

As for "Other Assorted FOSS programs..."  This one won't be easy,
or good.  A lot of guys DO step on the toes of patented software
a LOT, and stick an open source liscense of some sort on it.

When dealing with some companies, the community nature of such a
move is enough for them to hold back their lawyers.  Microsoft
However at this point in time is fighting an uphill battle.  They
will do what they must.

We need to pick and choose our battles, and we need to make sure
that the public, and especially the lawyers and judges involved
know that there is a difference between "Linux," "The Linux Community,"

> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 19:25:13 +0900 (JST)
> From: "Michael Engel" <mkengel@example.com>
> 
> With such exact numbers named, expect Microsoft to come out 
> with more details. They are not so stupid to do exact the 
> same errors as SCO. Would be nice if I am wrong but I fear 
> that I am not.
> 
> The only thing which then counts is if these patents will be 
> upheld or not. Even if not, this is a hard blow towards the 
> acceptance of Linux etc. Many people will hesitate using it.
> 
> Michael

Remember, we are dealing with the US Courts.  :(  They have been 
addle minded and confused of late when it comes to patent issues.


> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 12:34:41 +0200
> From: Godwin Stewart <gstewart@example.com>
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:25:13 +0900 (JST), "Michael Engel" 
> <mkengel@example.com> wrote:
> 
> > The only thing which then counts is if these patents will 
> be upheld or 
> > not. Even if not, this is a hard blow towards the 
> acceptance of Linux 
> > etc. Many people will hesitate using it.
> 
> Only in the US.
> 
> Elsewhere, in particular in the EU, software *cannot* be 
> patented. M$'s allegedly infringed upon 235 patents simply do 
> not exist and are therefore not enforceable this side of the Pond.
> 

Those on the list who are in EU countries...  Make sure that any time
you are given the chance to speak out on the issue that you do.  Many
of the laws that the US have passed concerning intelectual property
rights and copy right law have been pused into effect in EU countries
as well.  Make sure you know your stance, and how to speak out on it.


^^;;