What a Linux shill SJVN really is
May 16, 2007Sometimes, I wonder, what is journalism in this world coming to? What is journalism worth if you can just spout utter nonsense and have people believe you? Steven J. Vaughn-Nichols writes:
Microsoft is putting its own spin on its “re-re-announcement” that it believes that Linux and open source violate 235 of its patents. The company is now sending out a release to some members of the press explaining its position.
Microsoft’s statement opens, “The company’s longstanding preference is to license rather than litigate and Microsoft’s work over the past three years to build a bridge with open source is a result of that commitment. The November agreement with Novell addresses the IP issues in open source while meeting both the distributor’s needs and, more importantly, the needs of the customer.”
While Microsoft professes a preference to license rather than litigate, its record indicates otherwise.
Up until now, there is little wrong with the above. Microsoft makes patent infringement claims, but says it won’t litigate. SJVN then poses his thesis, namely that “While Microsoft professes a preference to license rather than litigate, its record indicates otherwise”. This is a thesis that needs proof. So, what do you expect SJVN to list now? Exactly, a list of court cases where Microsoft sued other parties for patent infringement. This is what follows:
On Feb. 22, 2007, a jury awarded a $1.52 billion patent judgment in favor of Alcatel-Lucent against Microsoft over the Redmond, Wash., company’s use of MP3 codices. This was the largest patent award in history. In the Eolas case, Microsoft was also found guilty in a $521 million patent infringement ruling over how Internet Explorer handled embedded content.
Those are cases against Microsoft. In other words, these cases are not started by Microsoft, and therefore are completely irrelevant to the build-up he wrote. These cases do not prove, at all, that Microsoft in fact prefers litigation instead of licensing (which may in fact very well be true, but that’s irrelevant).
This is just bad journalism, and goes to show what a Linux shill SJVN really is.
I see you failed reading English 101 …
The point is Microsoft is claiming to always license and pay other people code and patent they have included in there OS. People who respect other code , license and patent don’t get sued for it all the time.
In other words Microsoft is saying we are the legal , lawful abiding one’s and GNU/Linux are thief who steal our code :
Reality its the contrary , The GNU/Linux community as said what code are we using that is rightfully your’s so we can remove it and keep being lawful abiding citizen.
You owe SJVN an apology. If you want to know what patent Microsoft as defended why , don’t you ask on OsNews about it ,,,
Comment by Moulinneuf — May 16, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Can you PLEASE speak normal English? I haven’t a clue as to what you’re saying. I’ll attempt at a rebuttal anyway.
You have obviously completely misunderstood the article written by SJVN. Let me sum it up for you.
I) MS claims Linux and OSS software violate 235 of their patents;
II) MS claims its preference is to license their patents, instead of litigating against people who infringe on MS patents;
III) SJVN then claims Microsoft’s track record shows the complete opposite (meaning, Microsoft prefers to litigate);
IV) SJVN then presents two cases of patent infringement litigation AGAINST Microsoft started by OTHER COMPANIES as proof that Microsoft prefers to litigate!
That is completely nonsensical. If you do not see that, then you obviously need to learn how to speak, write, and understand the English language.
Comment by Administrator — May 16, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
>You owe SJVN an apology
No he doesn’t. I have tried to reason with him in the past via email about other stuff, but the guy is an obvious Linux fanatic and that’s very obvious. If he wants to help Linux, he better start writing more objectively.
Comment by Eugenia — May 16, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
“Can you PLEASE speak normal English? ”
As it is writing , no sorry , I cant do that ;-) , I guess i was a bit vague and incomplete sorry , I apologize for it.
“You have obviously completely misunderstood the article written by SJVN.”
No , I did understood the article as it is written , not as you tried to analyze it and somewhat deform it a bit ( probably due to your over analyzing it and not liking its content.
“I) MS claims Linux and OSS software violate 235 of their patents;”
Its not claim they made unsupported accusation of a legal nature. They did not say “we think” , they said “we know” , its different and important. They also tried to explain/completely lye about there position in there former press release.
“II) MS claims its preference is to license their patents, instead of litigating against people who infringe on MS patents;”
MS claim to be legal and always be licensing patent from others …
“III) SJVN then claims Microsoft’s track record shows the complete opposite (meaning, Microsoft prefers to litigate);”
SJVN then *show* with real event in recorded court history that Microsoft is lying.
” IV) SJVN then presents two cases of patent infringement litigation AGAINST Microsoft started by OTHER COMPANIES as proof that Microsoft prefers to litigate!”
You got that part.But then it continue with :
“Richard Fontana, counsel for the SFLC (Software Freedom Law Center), which works with the Free Software Foundation, said that these judgments “[suggest] that it is Microsoft’s proprietary software that is full of IP risk, and not Linux or FOSS [free and open-source software]. In the past three years alone, Microsoft has publicly paid out more than $4 billion dollars in settlements and court awards for alleged infringements of other companies’ patents. And if any of Microsoft’s own patents are not novel and non-obvious, that means that Microsoft’s purported IP includes property it does not actually have any right to own — property that has essentially been misappropriated from earlier inventors, or from the public.”
“That is completely nonsensical.”
If is intent had been to show that Microsoft was suing other for patent infringement Yes , you would have been right , But your wrong in this case , is point is that Microsoft don’t respect the law and other IP and claim to be a law abiding citizen regarding there own code and are trying to backpedal from going to court by twisting what there original intent was by issuing a new press release.
Your seeing this as an BIAS analysis of Microsoft first press release , when its an analysis of there second one with comments , historical recorded court and information from others. I have to disagree with you attacking is journalist integrity and saying he is a shill and that he let is bias affect is reporting.
Comment by Moulinneuf — May 16, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
“No he doesn’t.”
In this case he ( thom ) is wrong , sorry. I am not saying he as to agree to like GNU/Linux or SJVN here.
” I have tried to reason with him in the past via email about other stuff,”
Sometime you get too emotional about certain subject , and your rationality and accuracy over the global GNU/Linux scene is off , not that you don’t make good and valid point most of the time. You concentrate on precise details without the full accurate global picture. example “this is buggy” , when I say do you know why its buggy you usually reply its of no importance its buggy just fix it …
” but the guy is an obvious Linux fanatic and that’s very obvious.”
You must not have read is entire work. he try to bring intelligence and accurate corporate perception on the hard subject and try to moderate and put down the most hardcore fanatics.
” If he wants to help Linux, he better start writing more objectively.” ”
He is paid professionally to analyze and report on it , not to help it , to tell things as they are.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Steven+J.+Vaughan-Nichols&hl=en&safe=off&start=10&sa=N
P.S. : Try and get paid and published in as many respectable magazine and paper as he has , on as many subjects , then will talk about is integrity.
Comment by Moulinneuf — May 17, 2007 @ 12:24 am
I’ve gotta disagree with you here, Thom. The quote from the article is “While Microsoft professes a preference to license rather than litigate, its record indicates otherwise.”
This appears to be true. If Microsoft prefers to license, it should work both ways: they license their technology out TO others, and they license what they use FROM others. They should have been licensing software THEMSELVES. But they aren’t, because obviously, they have been found guitly of patent infringement in at least two *mega* big cases - both to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. They are using “X” illegally and waiting until someone litigates — which is the exact opposite of what they are claiming.
This is not a one way deal. You can’t claim “we believe in licensing” but not buy a license for the technology you yourself are using. This is the point of the metaphor, and why Vaughn-Nichols is right in his piece.
Comment by Adam — May 17, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
I’ve never said it is or is not true.
SJVN is talking about OTHER companies/projects infringing MICROSOFT patents; NOT the other way around. He should have given examples of MICROSOFT sueing OTHER companies for patent infringement, because THAT is what is being discussed here.
If you want to disprove the statement “I prefer to talk, instead of fight”, what examples would you give? You certainly would not use cases where I was attacked by someone else, now, would you?
Comment by Administrator — May 17, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
If you want to disprove the statement “I prefer to talk, instead of fight”, what examples would you give? You certainly would not use cases where I was attacked by someone else, now, would you?
Sure I would! I would give examples of times that I avoided a fight by using words. It’s totally irrelevant who started the confrontation. Because it can’t be just one way.
If I show you over and over that I prefer to settle my confrontations with words, but if someone else comes at me, I throw punches immediately, doesn’t that not count? Do I get to say… “well…. they came at me first.” Of course not, and that is why you must consider all cases. Microsoft has not licensed from others.
There’s an english colloqualism that goes “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” If others should be licensing, so should Microsoft.
Comment by Adam — May 18, 2007 @ 1:54 am