Lawsuits against Linux?

[Newby]

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/27/1826219&from=rss

I think it's absolutely pathetic that Ballmer would sue something that's free. Is he really that scared of a little competition?

I'd personally be trying to find ways to screw Apple versus Linux...

[Warrior]

I hope he does it, besides the only one affected would be those who sell Linux for profit..so I don't get you trying to get Linux some pity. If they violate patents that windows has then he should go ahead and sue them, they arn't exempt from the law.

[MyndFyre]

I hope he does it, besides the only one affected would be those who sell Linux for profit..so I don't get you trying to get Linux some pity. If they violate patents that windows has then he should go ahead and sue them, they arn't exempt from the law.

Torvalds would be affected if he licenses Microsoft IP in the Linux kernel.  That'd be hard to prove, though.

[Newby]

I hope he does it, besides the only one affected would be those who sell Linux for profit..so I don't get you trying to get Linux some pity. If they violate patents that windows has then he should go ahead and sue them, they arn't exempt from the law.

So those who distribute it freely would go untouched? Good!

[rabbit]

[...] and already owns more than 4000 patents, including many patents on fundamental, but trivial technologies, like double clicks.

Wtf?

[GameSnake]

I read that too. Bill Gates owns double clicking?!

[MyndFyre]

I read that too. Bill Gates owns double clicking?!

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a judge to uphold that patent, primarily because his office couldn't enter the data if they did.

[iago]

See, the problem is that too many stupid things get patented so patents become a joke.

They should do what FreeBSD did and move to Canada

[Sidoh]

See, the problem is that too many stupid things get patented so patents become a joke.

They should do what FreeBSD did and move to Canada

Haha, that's a good idea.

[deadly7]

Hahaha.  Steve Ballmer is a funny guy.

Ballmer: One, people value their time. Our stuff does more, and they like that. Two, people value their time, and those [free] things tend to be clunky. Let's say you think you can save $50. And then you go and waste three hours. You tell me how quick that payback is. You can sketch that out at the enterprise level as much as you can at the individual end-user level. So people value their time, and people value their capability. Frankly, people value not only the compatibility our stuff has with itself, but they value the add-ons and the third-party customization that people have done. As long as we keep pushing the pace of innovation and delivering that value, I think we have a great opportunity.

Right.  For $150~ (I didn't actually buy XP mind you, but it would be the same time for install ) I had to install Windows 3 times and waste four hours doing so.  Right, people value their time, which is why they don't install Windows.  Linux took two tries (the first one I didn't install the un-gzipper program so it broke the package install) at a total of ~2 hours.  And that was a first time install, too. Rocked?

[Sidoh]

There are more dosile (and more sensible) reasons that Windows is more useful than Linux in some cases.  Ballmer is an idiot, if you ask me.

[MyndFyre]

Hahaha.  Steve Ballmer is a funny guy.

Ballmer: One, people value their time. Our stuff does more, and they like that. Two, people value their time, and those [free] things tend to be clunky. Let's say you think you can save $50. And then you go and waste three hours. You tell me how quick that payback is. You can sketch that out at the enterprise level as much as you can at the individual end-user level. So people value their time, and people value their capability. Frankly, people value not only the compatibility our stuff has with itself, but they value the add-ons and the third-party customization that people have done. As long as we keep pushing the pace of innovation and delivering that value, I think we have a great opportunity.

Right.  For $150~ (I didn't actually buy XP mind you, but it would be the same time for install ) I had to install Windows 3 times and waste four hours doing so.  Right, people value their time, which is why they don't install Windows.  Linux took two tries (the first one I didn't install the un-gzipper program so it broke the package install) at a total of ~2 hours.  And that was a first time install, too. Rocked?

I think yours is an exceptional case.  Because you're a LOSER.

[Feanor]

Microsoft will never bring a lawsuit againts Linux. It is just silly, and there is no money to gain by sueing linux.

[deadly7]

I think yours is an exceptional case.  Because you're a LOSER.

Jeez Myndy, so harsh.

[AntiVirus]

Microsoft will never bring a lawsuit againts Linux. It is just silly, and there is no money to gain by sueing linux.

Well, would they actually be sueing Linux or would the be sueing the people who sold linux with things that violate Microsoft's patents?

[deadly7]

Hahaha.  This article is just M$ using the intimidation factor.  "We'll just act like we have no stance on suing Linux and scare people into using our product!"

[igimo1]

Hahaha.  This article is just M$ using the intimidation factor.  "We'll just act like we have no stance on suing Linux and scare people into using our product!"

Keep your pants on.

[Warrior]

Or they could actually do it and scare people into using their product! They are breaking the law either way, no one is exempt from the laws. Not Microsoft not Linux not Apple not anyone.

I mean a patent on double clicking? They'd own almost every OS out there..also.. Patent on FAT anyone? Cmon.

[iago]

Or they could actually do it and scare people into using their product! They are breaking the law either way, no one is exempt from the laws. Not Microsoft not Linux not Apple not anyone.

The problem is that Microsoft can hire better legal protection.  That counts for something. 

[Warrior]

So? Linux better get a free laywer haha.

[Hitmen]

So? Linux better get a free laywer haha.

There are actually lots of lawyers (EFF included) that do pro bono work for open source projects.

[Warrior]

Question is, can they compete with whatever lawyers MS has on it's payroll?

[rabbit]

Probably, otherwise they would probably be out of work.

[deadly7]

The people that do the work pro bono do it because they LIKE the thing they're supporting.  I'm willing to bet you that a majority of, if not all, of the lawyers that Microsoft has are there because of the damn good money.

[Warrior]

And they don't get the damn good money withought doing a damn good job. Point stands.

[deadly7]

So?  Work done because you want to do it will end up being better than work done because you're good at it and you get paid a shit load.
Let me put it in these terms for you War.  You're suddenly in charge of software development for Windows.  And you still remain a Windows zealot.  Now, since you love Windows so much, you want it to succeed, so you will end up working harder and demanding perfection from those below you.  Now let's change the situation so that you're still in charge of software development, but you hate Windows.  Your annual salary is $500,000 (I don't care if this figure isn't accurate to what they're making, so shut up about it).  Sure, you still want the product to succeed, but you just want it to sell enough so that you make your big fat paycheck because as far as you care, you don't even like it.  You're just there because you're talented and you accepted because you get a big fat paycheck.

[MyndFyre]

So?  Work done because you want to do it will end up being better than work done because you're good at it and you get paid a shit load.

I don't think this is necessarily accurate.  Provide actual statistics, please.

Now let's change the situation so that you're still in charge of software development, but you hate Windows.  Your annual salary is $500,000 (I don't care if this figure isn't accurate to what they're making, so shut up about it).

I think this hypothetical is too far-fetched to work.  I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a software developer (you might have noticed, they tend to be factional) who would work on Windows even though (s)he hates it.  I can't imagine any MS employee who hates MS - they might be humorously cynical about it, but that's completely different than hating.

[Warrior]

If it isn't done well, you don't get paid. You get paid for coding excellence. I don't think you'd be one to make that comparison (as outrageous as it may be) since you don't program.

[deadly7]

I don't think this is necessarily accurate.  Provide actual statistics, please.

I would question the credibility of any test that conducts something like this.  I'd give examples of my life, but I doubt you really care/would believe me.

I think this hypothetical is too far-fetched to work.  I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a software developer (you might have noticed, they tend to be factional) who would work on Windows even though (s)he hates it.  I can't imagine any MS employee who hates MS - they might be humorously cynical about it, but that's completely different than hating.

Maybe hate was too strong of a word.  How about instead of him hating it, he has his current opinions on Linux and it's userbase (i.e.: they suck, are arrogant, stupid, etc whatever he believes).
Besides, I'd take up a job that I hate if it payed me 500 G's a year.  Quit in a few years and work somewhere I like after that.

If it isn't done well, you don't get paid. You get paid for coding excellence. I don't think you'd be one to make that comparison (as outrageous as it may be) since you don't program.

What does me not programming have to do with anything?

[Warrior]

Everything? You don't know how it works. You base everything on stuff you pull out of your ass as shown above.

[iago]

Question is, can they compete with whatever lawyers MS has on it's payroll?

Well, there are two answers:

a) yes -- the trial is fair, the system works
b) no -- Microsoft's paid legal advice beats others.  That goes to prove that the US justice system doesn't work.  People with more money should not be favored. 

[deadly7]

That was the biggest dodge of a question I've ever seen.  How does me not knowing how to program affect the analogy at all?  What did I pull out of my ass?  It was a HYPOTHETICAL analogy, if you didn't get that already.

[Warrior]

Like I said, it has everything to do with it. You don't program therefore you can't begin to imagine how people program while being paid as opposed to not being paid.

You get paid for quality work, if it is anything but quality work then you don't get paid. So in the end weather you like it or not won't matter since you'll get a paycheck or you wont. It's pretty black and white.

@iago: The trial itself will be fair, but how well the lawyers can do their job is what matters. The US isn't at fault for this, they guarantee the right to a fair trial and they do give you a fair trial. How you defend yourself and present evidence is your problem.

[deadly7]

Like I said, it has everything to do with it. You don't program therefore you can't begin to imagine how people program while being paid as opposed to not being paid.

You get paid for quality work, if it is anything but quality work then you don't get paid. So in the end weather you like it or not won't matter since you'll get a paycheck or you wont. It's pretty black and white.

No, but I do know people that program for money.  True, none of them work for Microsoft, but they program nonetheless.  My neighbor programs the software that the registers at McDonalds and whatever use.  That's for money.  He told me he programs some random things that interest him and he makes them better because they interest him.  I'm sure his goal in life wasn't to be a programmer that programs the cash registers at McDonalds, but I never got around to asking him.

Sure you make quality work in order to make money, that doesn't mean it's to the BEST of your abilties, or that you CARE for the certain kind of programming job you've taken up.

[Warrior]

That can hardly be related to working at Microsoft who strives for perfection, you don't do quality work you get fired.
The people they hire have a passion for programming and just love to do it (It shows in dev interviews on channel9)

[iago]

@iago: The trial itself will be fair, but how well the lawyers can do their job is what matters. The US isn't at fault for this, they guarantee the right to a fair trial and they do give you a fair trial. How you defend yourself and present evidence is your problem.

It's not fair if rich companies can hire powerful lawyers that walk all over people who aren't rich. 

[Warrior]

Of course it is, they worked for the money. Besides all the lawyers in the world arn't going to save them if they break the law, proof is proof is proof and the jury wont cut rich companies any slack (As seen with MS in Antitrust hearings)

[iago]

Of course it is, they worked for the money. Besides all the lawyers in the world arn't going to save them if they break the law, proof is proof is proof and the jury wont cut rich companies any slack (As seen with MS in Antitrust hearings)

It doesn't matter how hard they worked when it comes to the legal court.  It's supposed to be about who's right and who's wrong, not who makes more money. 

And you're right, that's what I said originally.  But justice is not what we were talking about.  To quote you:

Question is, can they compete with whatever lawyers MS has on it's payroll?

It shouldn't matter what Microsoft has on its payroll, it should matter whether or not they did anything wrong.  We're worried about justice, not money.  You shouldn't be able to buy the result of your case. 

[Warrior]

The thing is, they DID do something wrong. They violated patents that Microsoft owns.
They would be able to defend themselves all they want, but MS has lawyers with huge checks.
They despite being right will embarass them in court.

[iago]

The thing is, they DID do something wrong. They violated patents that Microsoft owns.
They would be able to defend themselves all they want, but MS has lawyers with huge checks.
They despite being right will embarass them in court.

I don't know how patents work, but I think if they tried to bring somebody to court over using double-click, they wouldn't get far. 

If Microsoft is right and the others are wrong, then why does it matter how big the cheques are?

[Warrior]

They have numerous others, double click was one of the more outrageous ones.
It matters simply to add insult to injury, this is all one big game. Some people have more
peices than others.

[iago]

What's all one big game?  The word "this" should be avoided at all costs, that's one of the biggest things I've learned in technical communication

[Warrior]

OS wars, you think Microsoft would care if it did/did not sue Linux? It wouldn't even flinch. This is just them playing games since it's fun when you have the upper hand.