M$ Litigation against Linux

[Arthur Pemberton]

On 10/13/07, Jack <quiet_celt at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Arthur Pemberton <pemboa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10/12/07, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > > On Friday 12 October 2007, you wrote:
> > > > On 10/12/07, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Friday 12 October 2007, Arthur Pemberton
> > wrote:
> > > > > > On 10/12/07, Jestin Stoffel
> > <jestin.stoffel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:25 -0700, Julie
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Some of you may find the msg threads to
> > this article a bit
> > > > > > > > "interesting". ;)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=833&tag=nl.e589
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The conspiracy theory that Microsoft is
> > behind this suit falls
> > > > > > > somewhere between alarmist nonsense and
> > obviousness.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It could just be a coincidence that this
> > happened right on the heals
> > > > > > of Balmer's latest threats. And it could
> > just be a coincidence that
> > > > > > the patent holder if isn't also suing
> > Microsoft.
> > > > >
> > > > > Microsoft doesn't violate it, unless that's
> > something new in Vista.
> > > >
> > > > Aren't we talking about virtual desktops? Or did
> > I misunderstand the
> > > > scope of the patent?
> > >
> > > Indeed, a concept foreign to Windows.
> >
> > Microsoft has powertoys, Nvidia has an app for this
> > also... two big
> > companies with virtual desktop support for Windows.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
> > ( www.pembo13.com )
> > _______________________________________________
> > Kclug mailing list
> > Kclug at kclug.org
> > http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
> >
> Not to mention Microsoft's own virtual desktop
> application. I use it all thew time in professional
> settings. Windows definitely does fit the category of
> this patents.
> Oh and it's just a coincidence that two of Microsoft's
> brightest, one an IP lawyer, just happen to have been
> hired very very recently by this patent troll. Oh, yes
> it's definitely alarmist to draw annnnnnnnny
> connection. If I were a prosecutor  and this were a
> crime, I'd consider all the "coincidences" rather
> strong circumstantial evidence. MS is to smart to
> actually get caught too deeply involved, however
> accidents happen and people slip up. Stay tuned for
> more. I'm sure something will happen. I don't give
> this suit a prayer. considering that there is a tin of
> prior art, and there were applications already on the
> market that did this before the patent was even
> granted. Anyone remember Norton Desktop and Norton
> Desktop for Windows? That was released before August
> 1991, I don't know the exact date, but there is an
> August NYT article on it. Five full months before the
> patent was approved.
>  Not to mention a ton of much earlier work in Unix
> desktops. I wish someone with a boatload of money
> would go through the IP stack of this patent troll and
> get the bulk of their patents invalidated. Also, there
> may be a bit of a conflict of interest here, as it
> seems their attorney is also a judge in the district
> in which they filed. Not sure if that's even allowed
> by Bar Ethics.


This is why no matter how good an MS product is, I will try not to use
it if possible - I do not want to fund their war against everyone
else.


-- 
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )