Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Niels Larsen who wrote (32518)	11/7/1999 1:50:00 AM
From: Brian Malloy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Oh yea, the innocent little Linux family. Sheep in Wolves clothing. Here is an opinion of Red Hat Is Red Hat a mini Microsoft? Some critics say the Linux leader's business practices are becoming heavy-handed. By Ben Elgin, Sm@rt Reseller March 22, 1999 6:38 AM PT Conceived as a computing underdog, Red Hat Software Inc. cut its teeth battling heavy-handed moves by the likes of Microsoft. Now it may be borrowing a page straight from Redmond. zdnet.com

To: Niels Larsen who wrote (32518)	11/7/1999 7:05:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

ere is what I believe should happen with Microsoft, linuxtoday.com; I have no problem with points 1) and 3) (but in if that one happened then either no one would bother to get certified or Microsoft would just drop the certification program), but 2) is absolutely ridiculous. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other fields, those other fields could be included in this requirement, or they could be exempt.) This would block the other tactic Microsoft mentioned in the Halloween documents: using patents to block development of free software. We should give Microsoft the option of using either self-defense or mutual defense. Self defense means offering to cross-license all patents at no charge with anyone who wishes to do so. Mutual defense means licensing all patents to a pool which anyone can join -- even people who have no patents of their own. The pool would license all members' patents to all members. It is crucial to address the issue of patents, because it does no good to have Microsoft publish an interface, if they have managed to work some patented wrinkle into it (or into the functionality it gives access to), such that the rest of us are not allowed to implement it. The patent system was initiated to ensure that an inventor would profit from his idea for a set period of time. You want to throw that concept right out the window. Those who are successful must give away their valuable ideas for free. You've valued the intellectual property owned by Microsoft to zero if force "free" cross-licensing (and what if the other company has no patent in which Microsoft is interested in licensing?) or limit them to "defense only." And what exactly does that last phase mean? Does it mean they can only use their patents if they're sued, and that otherwise if they notice blatant violations they can do nothing about it? Get real. If I was presented with this proposal and they wouldn't drop it then I'd tell them to call me when they wanted to be reasonable and then I'd walk out.