Problem is the majority of users won't demand this . . . How many non geeks even know what linux is? I see it as a potential problem for at least a few years until the OEMs get tired of the geeks complaining about it.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
It’s not a bug it’s a feature!
It’s a New Year and Microsoft has graciously given you a fresh clean start with your, I mean their email. No need to worry about the past . . . Embrace the new . . .
Yeah gotta love the cloud MS has been tokin up lately, I mean talking up lately.
So you are saying the government should be able to restrict my movement by somehow setting up an unconstitutional buffer zone within the US. That in this magical buffer zone somehow my rights as defined in the Constitution do not exist? Interesting, what if the president decides that the buffer zone should be expanded a few thousand miles inland?
WTF does this have to do with asking for his password: "Furthermore, he was being searched by customs after returning from a know drug smuggling point" Did he digitally encrypt drugs onto his hard drive? Have a dog sniff the thing. If they want to search data they ought to have a warrant, i.e., reasonable suspicion.
There is no harm you have done the required work. Just because you can use your work in more than one place doesn't harm anyone. Assertions to the otherwise are ridiculous.
yes and the larger the bill the less likely you will be to get the money.
Good luck collecting the money . . .
/ "It was a short reference to the fact that it demonstrates the uselessness of those pledges. So it was on-topic. But responding in detail to more comments or questions on TurboHercules would have been off-topic, thus my link to LWN."
More FUD, as has been discussed before IBM did not renege on their pledge, no amount of spin from you will change that. TurboHercules wanted IBM to opensource and/or provide licenses so that IBM's mainframe OS could run on TurboHercules platform to the benefit of TurboHercules. IBM did not wish to pursue this business venture with TurboHercules as it would be detrimental in several ways to IBM.
IBM also pointed that it has invested "many billions of dollars developing its z-architecture" and holds "many intellectual property rights" (I hate that phrase, "intellectual property rights") and has litigated to defend their rights. It then identified a non-exhaustive list of patents related to this matter as requested by TurboHercules. They could have told them to piss-off, but they provided the requested information, and told them they (IBM) had concerns about TurboHercules going forward with their plan. IBM put them on notice regarding their IP concerns in a very businesslike way. Please explain how they should have proceed, if they did not intend give TurboHercules what TurboHercules wanted?
It is pretty straight forward just read the letters and look at what IBM pledged and please stop FUDDING and spinning already. IBM pledged not to sue as related to 500 specific patents, so please show that ALL of the patients related to TurboHercules are within the 500 patents please, before you continue with this TurboHercules nonsense.
Quote by redbeard55: "Another point to remember, all MS would have to do to get around their promise is to sell a
"Show me even one other patent pledge or promise, including Red Hat's patent policy, where that wouldn't be just the same thing. This isn't Microsoft-specific at all."
True some risk exist with other companies but, remember a little discussion about the past actions of MS . . . I don't believe that RH ever claimed that Linux was a cancer or threatened to sue Linux users over 200+ patents. Did you just conveniently forget that?
Also, name one other software company that can dominate the industry in desktop area like MS can and promote the use of specific software. There is none and MS has openly declared Linux a "cancer" you don't play nice with cancer do you? MS's past history show the lengths they are willing to go to kill or cripple competitors, even to the extent of breaking the law. MS still is an 800 pound gorilla in this area, so you had better be very, very, careful with your interaction with them and most of the time it is better to stay as far away as possible from the beast, if you are more that a flea. Really dealing with MS is way different than dealing with ANY other company including ORACLE/SUN.
"The "workaround" you just described would presumably even work for the GPLv3."
Uhmm did you forget paragraph 11 of the GPLv3? It may be possible but it would be a much trickier proposition, and would make for an interesting court case. The question would appear to be could the buyer revoke the original grant of non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license. If the new buyer wished to monetize the patent, he either didn't perform due diligence or the seller committed fraud. I don't think the end user would be in as near as much danger compared to my scenario.
"I didn't want to get into a detailed IBM vs. TurboHercules discussion here . .
Really? then stop bringing it up . . .
Another point to remember, all MS would have to do to get around their promise is to sell a
Shill?????? We have been over your TurboHercules/IBM BS and not many here bought you line. Why don't you take your agenda and go somewhere else and stop trying to tie your TurboHercules/IBM BS to every post with some tenuous connection to it.
Again MS history clearly illustrates why they should be avoided unless you have a completely airtight contract . . . and you had better have some damn fine lawyers to make sure it is airtight. Remember the MS promise does not include the non-ECMA parts of Mono.
But the specific parts used in computer patents are too general, and make the patents much too broad. As was said the code is not patented so using the systems that anyone would obviously use to do something on a computer systems and the path of point A to B gets you a patent. Look at the "1-Click" BS . . .
They didn't patent code. They patented the method and system. And you can certainly patent those. In fact, the fact that it's not the code, but the method, that's patented is why he was infringing even though he did it in Java and they did it in C#. Patents are not copyright.
The problem is the "method and system" of getting from input (A) to output (C) is the ideal, so if I come up with some novel code to get from (A) to (C) I can't publish is because it would infringe on the patent. Software patents are patents on ideals. It like patenting the cotton gin, but instead of patenting a machine with specific parts 1 to 434, you patent something along the lines of:
"A method and a system for removing cotton seed from the cotton fiber."
Now anyone that creates a new and novel machine to do this no matter how different from the patented one is infringing on a patent. This is why software patents are ridiculous.
Well boys and girls having problems with reception on you shiiiiinnny new iPhone 4 . . . Wellllll . . . Have we got a product for you, for just $29. YES ONLY $29, you can purchase our Apple Bumper cover. Guaranteed! Yes I said GUARAAAANTEEEED!! To improve your ability to make AND receive calls! Yes this product has been thoroughly tested and proven to improve your ability to make AND receive calls! Why this product has been tested more than the original iPhone 4 was before it was shipped out . . .
Yes, that seems to be what it is about, amazing how twisted some people make it. . .