Am Freitag 10 Juli 2009 schrieb David Newall: > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Am Donnerstag 09 Juli 2009 schrieb David Newall: > >> What I don't understand is how anybody could be satisfied with the > >> status quo. We cannot leave vfat unchanged, for that will perpetuate > >> a pool of victims to be sued, and Linux loses credibility every time > >> that happens. Something *must* change. > >> > >> What is especially attractive about Andrew's position (he said this > >> more eloquently than me) is that developing a solution to avoid the > >> patent will impact Microsoft revenues; and that will be most > >> instructive to them. That's almost sufficient reason by itself! > > > > Pardon me, but I just don't get how adapting software to software > > patents will contribute into solving the problems they cause. > > As Andrew said, if we work around a patent without losing function we > destroy the economic value of that patent. Nobody would pay licence > fees for a patent if there was a good work around. As patent holders > attack us, we devalue their patents. Eventually (probably quickly) > they'll learn not to attack us. To me your thoughts appear to be *within* the patent approach and *thus* implicitely saying "yes" software patents as such. Going this way I think actually strengthen patents. The FAT patents have not yet been tested. They might easily just be void and invalid. But going the way you outline would be giving in to the patent claim *before* it has even been tried and tested for validity. And thus IMHO this strengthens the patent and it holder. If you change the upstream kernel Microsoft can always say: "Look Linux kernel developers think that the kernel infringed our patents." The linux kernel has not yet been proven to infringe any FAT patent. Microsoft claims that it does. But so did SCO claim that it contains source of UNIX that they said they have a license for. SCO could never prove that claim. The linux kernel community ignored SCO for exactly that reason. Why on Earth should it handle Microsoft differently? Just due to its sheer size and weight in capital? The trial with TomTom just proves nothing right now. > > Instead of > > implementing a feature like long name + short name support straight > > forwardly and simply one has to invent utterly complex, error prone > > and ugly work-arounds that actually even limit the functionality. > > Actually I do not envy Tridge for doing that job. > > It's not a given that working around a patent will result in something > ugly, error-prone or complex, nor that it will limit function. But it > is true that we have to work around them. We can't permit Linux to > violate patents (nor can we permit a serious claim of such.) That > would cause no end of legal trouble, and would drive vendors away. > Since vfat violates Microsoft's patent, or at least they seriously > claim it does, we have to do something. We really have no choice. Right now to me it seems that it is nowhere but clear that Linux violates valid patents about the inner workings of FAT. Currently any work to adapt the kernel to the FAT patents is based on the assumption that they might be valid, not on facts. > > To me it seems that Microsoft has won if it can get Linux kernel > > developers to cripple the upstream vanilla kernel in order to avoid > > software patents. > > It's still not certain that we have to cripple Linux to work around the > long filename patent. Granted it looks sad, but Andrew is still > working on it. If it turns out that we do have to cripple Linux, well > sometimes we win, sometimes we lose; but if don't at least try we > always lose. When we work around a patent without losing function we > win big, and Andrew said that has already happened for other patents. I just relate to what is currently available. If Tridge posts a different patch things might be different. But right now this is just pure speculation. So I would like to stick to what is actually there. This patch. > > Microsoft sued only TomTom regarding FAT patents upto now. Why? If > > they acted like SCO they would have gone against IBM, big Linux > > distributors like Novell and especially against several companies at > > once. I think this might be cause that Microsoft just knows that > > their software patent claim would break down if really tested. I do > > think that Microsoft does not want those FAT patents to be tested in > > court. Cause I think they know they would not stand a chance. > > I think you're right that Microsoft does not want their patent tested > in court, but as they have more money than anyone, they could keep a > patent case in court forever, costing both them and those they sue more > and more money. If the other party keeps fighting they stand a real > chance of running out of money (and thus out of business); or they > could settle, as Tom Tom did. I think you omit that doing this would cost Microsoft really lots of reputation. I believe that Microsoft fears testing the patent in trial and having a long trial just as much if not more than the company it sues. Would you buy a Unix or something else from SCO? I wouldn't. Would a company do it? I think only if forced to by compatibility constraints. Now SCO OpenServer or what it was called may be more replaceable than Windows, but Windows has become replaceable in more and more use cases as well. If Microsoft would be serious about playing the bad guy they IMHO would pay a forbiddenly high price for it. Actually I believe this would impose a high, probably existential risk to Microsoft. Yes, Microsoft has lots of money. But the current economic crisis has shown how easily insane amounts of money can be disintegrated in no time. I do think that Microsoft is neither almighty nor immune to that. And then they would also show even more clearly than ever the absurdities of the current software patent law in the USA. This would strengthen forces that work to revert that law. More politicians would see that the software patent law must be changed. > > Accepting such a patch IMHO would help Microsoft to get away with > > seeding fear, uncertainity and doubt and not having the software > > patent tested and be made void. Actively adapting to software patents > > gives them a place to be, gives those who support them your energy. > > This is wrong. Doing nothing is what helps Microsoft. I can't continue aguing on that basis. I just stated my oppinion. You say it is wrong. I can say your oppinion is wrong. But nothing gained by that. No need to continue to cycle this. My oppinion is my oppinion and yours is yours. And I don't buy your oppinion even when you present it as factual thing. > > Actually I think just ignoring them would be better. > > This is also wrong. Microsoft have sued Tom Tom, and they won't stop Same here. Just: > there. They'll keep picking businesses to sue; and each time they do > they'll win; and each time they win, Linux's reputation becomes > tarnished. Eventually the manufacturers that build on Linux will move > to some other platform, which would be a disaster for us. You seem to know more than me. Sure I can speculate about what Microsoft will be doing and I did. But I am pretty sure that I can not really *know* it. Your statements sounds bold enough to suggest that you have looked into a crystal orb of foresay. Did you? I just point out to you: They didn't do anything else than suing TomTom just yet. Thats fact, unless I did not notice any other trials going on. > > Shall Microsoft attack IBM or other big companies. Shall Microsoft > > attack big Linux distributors. Shall they attack the upstream Linux > > kernel > > IBM? Of course they would, and then Microsoft and IBM would > cross-licence their patents. They've probably already done this. You really think they would? Have they been already that successful at seeding fear, uncertainity and doubt? I bet that they would not dare to challenge IBM on such ridiculous patents. > Big Linux distributors? I don't see Red Hat or Novel fighting, should > Microsoft sue. They'd know the score, and either settle or remove the > function. Sure? What about indemnification assurances regarding SCO claims that AFAIK both Novell and RedHat offered to their customers? SCO is smaller than Microsoft, granted. But still, those patents, the whole software patent law in USA are ridiculous. Giving in to them would probably loose Novell and RedHat more than is gained by testing them and having them declared as invalid and void as they should be declared. > The upstream kernel developers? I don't know. They would if they felt > they needed to, but the truth is that they can do just as well by > attacking manufacturers who build on Linux, such as Tom Tom. How many > more Tom Toms do you think it would take to drive manufacturers away > from Linux? I don't think the number is large. Directly attacking upstream kernel developers IMHO would backfire even more than suing companies. Do you really think Microsoft can risk to loose that much reputation? Do you really think that Microsoft is ready to handle the response of the open-source community, big news sites, companies supporting open-source, lawyers supporting open-source? I think they aren't and I think they know that. And thus I think they would not dare to do it. Right know they only had a go at TomTom. To me this looks like the behavior of coward. Apart from I think Linux including all its surroundings isn't that weak that it needs to fear Microsoft. I think right know its more the other way around. Granted, speculation, but IMHO a quite plausible one. Anyway I will end it here. And as I think there is not much more to be said without recycling arguments I will try to refrain from any comments on arguments that have already been rised. Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
