MS ready to declare all-out war on open source.
http://news.google.com/?ned=us&ncl=1116311757&hl=en
It looks like MS is scared. They were hoping for business as usual with the Vista release, but now that it looks like their old tactics might not have much more life left in them, they are switching to defensive mode.
Now that people are starting to realize they have real choices and don't have to stick with Windows, and the alternatives out there might even have significant advantages over Windows, it looks like MS will now use patents and go back to using their old monopoly practices to FORCE people to use Windows and deny them a choice completely.
If Apple is smart, they will take advantage of this situation.
It looks like MS is scared. They were hoping for business as usual with the Vista release, but now that it looks like their old tactics might not have much more life left in them, they are switching to defensive mode.
Now that people are starting to realize they have real choices and don't have to stick with Windows, and the alternatives out there might even have significant advantages over Windows, it looks like MS will now use patents and go back to using their old monopoly practices to FORCE people to use Windows and deny them a choice completely.
If Apple is smart, they will take advantage of this situation.
Comments
Microsoft plans to Embrace and Extend Open Source to an Excruciatingly painful Extinguishing from the world. It won't work.
Sebastian
http://news.google.com/?ned=us&ncl=1116311757&hl=en
It looks like MS is scared. They were hoping for business as usual with the Vista release, but now that it looks like their old tactics might not have much more life left in them, they are switching to defensive mode.
Now that people are starting to realize they have real choices and don't have to stick with Windows, and the alternatives out there might even have significant advantages over Windows, it looks like MS will now use patents and go back to using their old monopoly practices to FORCE people to use Windows and deny them a choice completely.
If Apple is smart, they will take advantage of this situation.
I'm not surprised. When MS signed their deal with Novell to indemnify them, it was obviously a 'shot across the bow' letting everyone know what they were planning to do. Until this actually plays out in court I think this could hurt the Linux and open source community as it introduces a heavy dose of FUD.
Software patents are such a bad idea.
Vinea
*WHY* are software patents a bad idea? I agree that the current implementation of them is screwed up (industry moves too fast - a 17yr term on them is insane - make it <5 yrs, and then we'll talk... 2-3 would be better) but what about them *fundamentally* make them a bad idea, as opposed to say, physical invention patents? I haven't seen a justification yet that held water, IMO.
I've heard the "well, because anyone can write software" reason, but I don't buy it - anyone can put gears together too, but few question the utility of a patent covering, for instance, a new transmission or engine design.
I've also heard the "you can't patent math, and that's all software is" reason. Well, if software were 'just math', you'd think it'd be a lot easier to write, wouldn't you? It's not. Secondly, building an engine is just carving bits of metal into the right shapes, and placing them next to one another, if you really think about it. Seems kind of silly to patent something so trivial...
So what about software patents makes them so *fundamentally* different in your eyes?
I know this is going to get me pilloried, but what the hell...
*WHY* are software patents a bad idea? I agree that the current implementation of them is screwed up (industry moves too fast - a 17yr term on them is insane - make it <5 yrs, and then we'll talk... 2-3 would be better) but what about them *fundamentally* make them a bad idea, as opposed to say, physical invention patents? I haven't seen a justification yet that held water, IMO.
17yr term is insane. <5 protection is almost meaningless given the time it takes to get a patent. 2-3 years completely pointless. 10 years? Meh. Perhaps but also the worst of both worlds...the average (meaningful) technology takes 10 years to get to mainstream. So just about when you hit critical mass your protection expires...but 10 years is too long for stiffling innovation on fundamental ideas...
For short term protection copyright is sufficient simply because any non-trivial idea will require non-trivial effort to reproduce in a clean-room approach. Innovate fast enough and your competitors will be hard pressed to catch you anyway.
Show me a software patent implementation that doesn't suck out of the gate and I might be inclined to change my mind. Not everyone against software patents is anti-IP...just that patents seem ill-suited for certain domains. Software and genes come to mind.
There should be two balanced objectives with respect to patents: protection of the IP holder and protection of social good.
Vinea
In US, at least, patent doesn't mean anything unless it has been challenged in court.
I can get a patent for the process of breathing air in US.