Can Recent MS Patents Affect Mono and DotGNU? 410
5p1urge asks: "I really love the Mono and DotGNU projects. As someone who's worked in Java for for over 5 years, I welcome C# and it's buddies to the OpenSource world. However, here's question: as far as I can tell, only the C# spec and System.* assemblies were submitted to ECMA and therefore made officially public. What happens when MS decides that, Linux -is- going to steal valuable income-generating business, and therefore it should use it's newly acquired patents to sue? I'd appreciate comments from IT lawyers / solicitors and individuals with experience in this area, as well as from the wider community. I'm asking this question because I want to code in mono / DotGnu but I'm cautious because I wonder if MS can take it away from us?"
Nope (Score:3, Funny)
It's only a matter of time before the processing of such irrational IP-related legal claims becomes impossible.
Which, of course, doesn't matter anyway because companies like Microsoft have made stealing ideas so profitable that they should have a patent on it.
Re:Nope (Score:2)
If the dumb idea of software patents wasn't already on its deathbed Microsoft looks to be pushing it into the grave. What the RIAA is doing for copyright Microsoft will do for software patents.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
er, why would you think that? intellectual property has only become stronger over the last 20, 100, 500 years.
government regulation of economic rights parallels economic growth. when agriculture became the dominant economic model, feudalism and land-rights became entrenched. when capitalism and the industrial revolution made their debut, property rights becamed enshrined by the state. now that we are heading into a "post-industrial" (don't blame me for that phrase), information-based economy, intellectual property rights will becomed entrenched.
let's face it: the opensource folks like us are the diggers and godwinists of the information revolution. we will impact the nature of property rights, but not abolish them.
doubt me? read up on the diggers [bilderberg.org] and william godwin [stanford.edu]. sounds like the oss movement today, right?
Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)
Come on! Even Bill Gates knows this one:
Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."
Bill Gates
You forgot the most important part of this quote...
"The solution
Therefore, I don't think Bill Gates knows this one, he seems to be all for patents.
Re:Nope (Score:3, Insightful)
And exactly what precident are you using as the basis for your reasoning? To my knowledge, MS has never done any kind of bait-and-switch with their IP (unlike Rambus/Intel, for example, or even Apple). Furthermore, I cant really seeing them do so in the future either.
The problem with all you "when Linux rules the world" people is that you view
Re:Nope (Score:2)
Growth always seems to always come before thought. I mean we are still even reproducing or killing even before we get to growth, what little time we have left for thought is like enought to get us were we are now. With more ways to kill ourselfs than ways to advance ourselfs. I mean I'm not trying to be too ne
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, it hasn't been a steady advance, and there have been occasional major setbacks to the progression.
For example, a bit over 200 years back, there was a revolution in North America, and when a new Constitution was established, it restricted "IP" to a short time, and only when it advances the arts and sciences. Some economists and historians have claimed that this was one of the major reasons the US became the world's biggest economic power. Of course, now this has mostly been cancelled by recent laws extending patent and copyright indefinitely, and allowing them for rather silly "inventions". So the US's technical lead is probably ended, at least for the near future.
But it's always possible we'll see another such revolution, either in the US or in another part of the world that wants to take the lead in technology while the US strangles its own creative folks. It has happened before, after all; there's no reason to believe it can't ever happen again.
Re:Nope (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, a bit over 200 years back, there was a revolution in North America, and when a new Constitution was established, it restricted "IP" to a short time, and only when it advances the arts and sciences. Some economists and historians have claimed that this was one of the major reasons the US became the world's biggest economic power.
Like who? I'd love to be able to cite reputable historians and the like on American development when discussing IP growth.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite the fact that every word I said above is factual... I know I am going to get flamed for this so... let er rip...
their problem is that they don't show details (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need to do completely away with software patents any more than we need to do away with all patents. We need to make both reasonable.
By reasonable, I mean non-profit groups should be exempt, patents should last 2-5 years depending upon the technology involved, and nothing that significantly advances a previous technology should fall under that technology's patent.
Patents should spawn innovation in exchange for the disclosure of the underlying technology. They shouldn't hold innovation hostage for decades to come.
I don't know what would happen, (Score:5, Funny)
*sniff* (Score:3, Funny)
Could be intaresting.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Could be intaresting.... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why you'll see cross licensing agreements between Apple and Microsoft and IBM etc.; Microsoft had to catch up in that respect actually since its patent portfolio wasn't a priority for a long time.
Microsoft along with those other big players don't tend to litigate and push their patents because they simply don't need to. They create intellectual property and through licensing agreements they can still share it amongst each other (sometimes grudgingly, but they don't want to get into a huge countersuit war on other patents they're "infringing" on).
It's only the little guys who have one patent and nothing to lose in a countersuit who will sue everybody to hell -- those are the true stiflers of innovation.
Re:Could be intaresting.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Could be intaresting.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm asking this question because I want to code in mono / DotGnu but I'm cautious because I wonder if MS can take it away from us?"
Yes, MS can take it away from you, but you know this already. Why not just code in
Re:Yes! (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't code anything new in
Does MS want/need developers anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, Windows is Microsoft's flagship OS, and they want to defend their turf. So, lets say developers and their customers pay MS the required tithe. If you play this software game too far, is there any room for little-guy developers of even Windows itself?
When MS started out with DOS and then with Windows, I think they went to great lengths to get "mindshare" of developers: MSDN, Visual Basic for applications programmers, VC++ for heavy-metal programmers, and so on. And then you had all the "third parties." Where would the PC have been without Lotus 123? Where would programming languages on the PC be without Borland? It is said that MS treatment of developers is what sunk OS/2. IBM was charging an arm-and-a-leg for OS/2 development tools at a time when MS was handing tools out at conferences to get developers to forgo OS/2 and develop for Win32.
But a good part of MS was that they fostered 3rd party developers, but when you got big enough they either bought you out or squashed you.
So having good developer relations was important to the growth of Windows and Microsoft, and the fact that there were a lot of people besides Microsoft writing apps for Windows was part of what was so great about Windows, especially since early iterations of Microsoft compilers, spread sheets, and other apps were pretty lame.
But now the development tools all cost an arm and a leg, and with software patents as a club, what size developer will Microsoft tolerate. If you are selling a recipe program written in VB to a handful of friends, you will be off the radar, but at what market size does MS these days decide they want all of that market.
More importantly, if independent software developers are all put out of business through the enforcement of IP, how is MS going to develop new markets through their usual strategy of buying out or squashing out the pioneers. MS has in the past been pretty clumsy in all their attempts at new markets and has depended on acquisition (can you say Anders Hejlsberg? I knew you could!).
Besides choking off small developers, at what point is MS going to shoot themselves in the foot?
Answer your own question? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Answer your own question? (Score:5, Informative)
Steve Ballmer has explicitly stated that free implementations of Dotnet will not be tolerated and that he will use patents to protect the "millions" invested.
Reference: Interview in May 2002 issue of IX Magazine (in German, excerpt here [heise.de]).
Anyone else do that? (Score:5, Funny)
I welcome C# and it's buddies to the OpenSource world.
looked suspiciously like "I for one welcome our new C# overlords." the first and second times I read it.
Not the right question IMHO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not the right question IMHO (Score:5, Informative)
Office and consumer OSs are definitely the current cash cow, but I believe that the Dev Tools group is still in the black. It's not easy to figure out exactly how much they pull in from tools because in their financials it's lumped in a bunch of other things. However, in their latest 10k, revenue from "developer tools, training, certification, Microsoft Press and other services" was listed at US$1.016 BILLION. Yes, with a B.
How much of that is actual developer tools isn't clear, but that group as a whole (which includes CALs, licensing, etc.) made US$1.409 billion last year, and they're estimating US$1.848 billion this year.
Re:Not the right question IMHO (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not the right question IMHO (Score:2)
Re:Not the right question IMHO (Score:3, Insightful)
Parrot (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm waiting for Parrot [parrotcode.org] to mature. It's a register-oriented bytecode interpreter, designed for Perl 6, but with other languages in the wings. When it gets Perl's libraries, Ruby's syntax, real threads, and great speed, I think it will do well.
Perl libs, Ruby Syntax, threads, OR speed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Parrot (Score:3, Interesting)
yes it may take a bit to mature, but so what, the direction I think is good, not a copy of ms tech.
Parrot vs Python (Score:5, Interesting)
Dan, the author of the Parrot VM, has a bet with Pythong's Guido van Rossum. Dan bet Guido that Parrot can execute pure Python bytecode faster than the Python interpreter can. The battle will be decided at OSCON 2004 in Portland, OR. He sounds pretty confident:
"Boys and girls, let's get this straight. I'm only going to say this once. Parrot is an order of magnitude faster than perl 5 doing equivalent things. Without enabling any extraordinary measures. You know how Python's performance rates against Perl 5. Do the math."
Dan's blog entry about the bet: http://www.sidhe.org/~dan/blog/archives/000139.ht
Re:Parrot (Score:5, Informative)
It's not an emerging technology and it won't change computing. There's nothing new in .net which isn't already present in Java [tu-berlin.de], very little that wasn't already present in the UCSD p-system [threedee.com] in 1973, and not a lot which wasn't already present in BCPL [wikipedia.org]in 1967
The timeline goes like this:
With Perl and Python being mainstream (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as microsoft goes: man who sleeps with gates wakes up as goatse.
Re:With Perl and Python being mainstream (Score:3, Interesting)
As a Perl-head myself, I wondered where this statement comes from. To me, it seems, a lot of people on smaller projects and at the "lower end" are ditching Perl for PHP. In terms of pure number, I'd imagine PHP is growing a lot more than Perl.
Re:With Perl and Python being mainstream (Score:5, Insightful)
And python is my favorite choice for anything not related to web development. It is by far the most productive and maintainable language for business work.
Re:With Perl and Python being mainstream (Score:2)
Why not we? Have you ever tried Zope [zope.org]?
Re:With Perl and Python being mainstream (Score:2)
Zope may well be a good Unix solution, but I don't believe that it is for everybody.
Re:With Perl and Python being mainstream (Score:3, Interesting)
Hugh. Odd. I'm seeing it more and more.
mod_perl/Mason just took over Amazon. I see lots of signs of perl all over the web - basically anyone who doesn't drink MS koolaid and isn't into Java for whatever reason is using Perl. There's a huge hobbyist contingent that likes PHP, because it is a little easier to get started with for http related stuff, and companies like Yahoo whom for whatever reason went with it. (I'm not diss
Re:With Perl and Python being mainstream (Score:5, Informative)
That's happen before Zope [zope.org] became mature. Now the situation is turned for PHP. For example, the author of two famous PHP books and the original developer of the famous NeoBoard [neoboard.net] portal rewrote the whole thing from PHP to Zope.
Re:With Perl and Python being mainstream (Score:3, Insightful)
If Zope is open-source, why not port the Zope framework over to PHP?
My observation is that Python/Zope is where the OO fans tend to go, and PHP is where the paradigm agnostic go. OO agnostics using PHP would probably not be too warm to Zope.
(And I just wish PHP would add named parameters.)
Re:With Perl and Python being mainstream (Score:3, Informative)
Very interesting logic: every open source project must be implemented in PHP.
Zope is a seriously designed application server. The major concept of Zope is to separate aspects. OOP is important concept but it is not the concept theat the programmer is forced to use exclusively. Also, in Zope the stateful and stateless content is managed dynamically. That requires often functions as first class objects. Zope templates include (but not li
It's simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like the development of Mono and DotGnu anyways. Think about it. Gnome started in part because some people didn't like the QT license. A "problem" that is now resolved with QT being GPL licensed and a contract that will put it under a BSD-style license once Trolltech decides to stop working on it or is going out of business.
Mono on the other hand reproduces MS technology that MS apperantly doesn't want to be open despite it's (marketing) efforts to standardize a subset of the Framework. I think developing with/for mono is counterproductive since it allows possibly great Opensource software to be used with Windows, taking away another reason for people to switch or even consider a switch. Because only a subset of
While
So in the end it should be clear, don't support Mono by developing applications for/with it.
Re:It's simple... (Score:2, Interesting)
In the end, everyone is free to use the tools that suit them best. If they happen to find a combination of Wi
Re:It's simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand your concerns about mono helping microsoft, one can say the same thing about php and perl helping the MS server platform, gcc supporting MS development, and frozen bubble making windows a better gaming platform. This argument is old and has little effect in the real world.
You seem to no nothing about DotGNU. The project's goal is to create a free software web platform in much the same way the GNU project set out to create a free unix-like platform. One could argue that GNU/Linux has helped SCO, ATT, or HP to improve their commercial unix, but somehow I think they would all disagree.
And to revisit your issues with mono, claiming that C# and MSIL support for linux is helping microsoft more than it is helping anyone else is similar to saying that java support on linux is only good for Sun. I just don't see the evidence or reasoning.
Your tie in with QT makes no sense. I think you are missing something important. QT and GTK+ are completely unrelated to the webservice and binary portability arenas where mono and dotgnu are. Incidentally, there are libraries to use QT and GTK+ from C#.
Re:It's simple... (Score:2, Insightful)
> with making a mono and dotgnu creating webservice
> platforms and C# portability?
Nothing at first. My intention was to highlight that in the past, far less dangerous license problems led to the Gnome project and ironically now, one of the major supporters of Gnome, Ximian, is heavily backing Mono and even somewhat pushing Mono towards Gnome.
> one can say the same thing about php and perl
> helping the MS server platform, gcc supporting
>
Re: It's simple... (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed. Does anyone else get the impression that M$ is getting other folk to code up, for free, their bait in a massive bait-and-switch operation?
Re:It's simple... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to disagree with you there. You personally may think that the whole purpose of open source is to promote Linux to the uninitiated. I disagree.
Freedom is the reason for Op
I don't think so... (Score:4, Insightful)
As for "just System.*" being an open standard, it's important to realize that comprises all of
Re:I don't think so... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know. I am trying hard to think of a company that partnered with MS and didn't get backstabbed and for the life of me I can't think of one. I am sure each and every one of those companies said to themselves "I think MS acually sees the light now and despite what they did to those other companies I am sure they won't screw us".
A few thoughts.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Another thought. Suppose they did `take it away'. What good will that do them? How many languages are there which duplicate or mimic large portions of basic C syntax and structures? It seems to me that all the Mono folks would need to do is declare that they were developing a new language using syntax similar to C#.
They could call it `D-flat'. :-)
Re:A few thoughts.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The
ECMA submittals *ALSO* subject to patents (Score:5, Insightful)
*and of course, the the USPTO, "novel" means "anything a 18-month old baby couldn't have authored."
Re:ECMA submittals *ALSO* subject to patents (Score:4, Informative)
Re:ECMA submittals *ALSO* subject to patents (Score:2)
This standard is too narrow to actually be what the USPTO has used.
PARC (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Older coders welcomed where needed (Score:4, Informative)
They did. They waited too long to enforce the patents. Xerox totally bungled their chance to become Microsoft.
Call me stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it faster? No
Is Development Faster ? No
Is it cross platform ? No
Does it do things that other languages cannot? No
Is it Encumbered By Patents? Yes
Sure makes me want to use it....
Re:Call me stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Compared to what? Plain C, compiled by a highly optimizing compiler for a certain platform? No, of course not. JAVA? Maybe. Interpreted languages without bytecode support? Maybe.
> Is Development Faster ? No
Yes, on Winodws with visual studio. At least compared to plain C with a texteditor. This also requires use of all the non open stuff of course.
> Is it cross platform ? No
In theory yes, which makes it seem interesting at first. But:
> Is it Encumbered By Patents? Yes
Yes. Tha
Re:Call me stupid (Score:2)
I can think of one reason (Score:2, Interesting)
Um, a lot of companies in Austin have it on their "skill required" list, and the Austin outlook for paying jobs right now is close to zip-point-squat. That's a good reason.
Perhaps it's the only reason. But it's still a reason.
DT
Re:I can think of one reason (Score:2)
Re:I can think of one reason (Score:3, Interesting)
It all depends on what makes you more happy. Are you happy every day when you go to work or not? If you are going to be miserable coding in a windows environment then don't do it. The money is not worth it if you spend your entire day miserable and then come home and take it out on your family.
Re:Call me stupid (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a programmer / project manager ( / DBA, etc. ) for a very small shop. We write in house programs for specific industry requirements.
We've done stuff in Java; as an OOP advocate, I love Java. As project manager, I get blank stares from programmers that want the equivalent of visual basic to work in. We've now standardized on C#.NET. The programmers still look a little lost when I emphasize OO practices, but they're real happy with Visual Studio to hold their hands.
So,
Is it faster? Perhaps.
Remember, in a rich client GUI environment,
Is Development Faster ? YES.
Bash them all the you like. Microsoft's development tools have always been good. The Visual Studio suite is much better than any equivalent product I've seen.
Is it cross platform ? No
Yes, a big no here. However, expect to see the CLR running on platforms other than straight up Windows in the future. In the end, when most commercial clients run Windows this is more of a selling point than a detriment.
Does it do things that other languages cannot? No
Well, this can pretty much be said of any language. As a Java programmer, I really enjoy C#, it's does the same thing as Java, it just does it quite well for Windows.
Is it Encumbered By Patents? Yes
So? For OSS this doesn't fly, for the boss, this isn't really a consideration.
Re:Call me stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
Rich Client native gui, here you have two other cross platform choices..wxwindows and SWT both which offer native, fast gui's.
Microsoft Visual Studio the best? You obviously have never used any tool from Borland which absolutely stomps a mud hole in anything that MS has ever built.
Most commercial clients might run windows but I can tell you for a fact it it does not run on Linux we ain't buying it in our shop(sounds like I just shot your selling point all to hell). If you like java and you like C# and you sell software why on earth would you lock yourself to a platform.
Re:Call me stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
As for fast GUI, if you are only developing for windows why not just use the WinAPI directly without going through a VM. If you want a cross platform solution try wxWindows or Kylix. And speaking of Kylix, Borland are THE leaders in RAD tools and have been for years.
I'm still trying to figure out what the whole point of C# is. It's similar to Java, but it is not cros
Re:Call me stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
C# is MS's answer to Java: MS claimed (initially) that C# is totally portable, yadda yadda yadda.
Reality is they're just providing an excuse for MS weenies to justify sticking with MS instead of using Java or even PHP (for smaller projects) or whatever.
Re:Call me stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Measuring speed is difficult, but to give you an example, the Mono C# compiler compiles itself on 3.5 seconds (50,000 lines of code).
2. development is faster, I would say 3x to 6x depending on the task. In the case of ASP.NET vs J2EE, we know from two studies (ours and Forrester/Giga) that it is 20-28% more effective (see my blog for details).
3. Is it cross platform? Yes, it is. The Mono C# compiler was originally built/compiled on Windows. Today, it does not matter. We routinely run large applications (web services, console, gui) on it.
4. It offers plenty of functionality that is hard to find elsewhere: cross-language interop, unified GC/threading/io
5. Patents: the ECMA core has been freed of any patents, see: primates.ximian.com/~miguel/tmp/map.png
Re:Call me stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you are doing a good job as programmers, but I have always been a bit worried that you are helping MS to slay Java. To me it seems they are fighting really hard on two fronts now, against Linux and against Java. If they manage to get
Even if it is Linux that becomes the favoured platform for
I'm sure Sun are no angels, but I happen to like both Linux and Java, so...
Re:Call me stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
My impression is that you are still perpetrating the CLR/Dotnet bait-and-switch policy, where the status of the CLR in terms of standardization and patent encumberances is used to misleadingly imply that the whole of Dotnet is similarly standardized and (supposedly) unencumbered by patents.
In other words, you have not been able to progress or resolve the fundamental issue here in over two years, when similar discussions took place here and in other forums.
If you have more recent information regarding Microsoft's position then you are more than welcome to share it with us. However, until such time as the IP risk has been adequately addressed, we would appreciate it if you refrained from further misleading the OSS community in this regard.
Re:Call me stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
No, reread what he wrote. Miguel quite clearly stated, and he even has a pretty map to show it even more clearly, which parts are free of patents and which parts are not. This is common knowledge. It's in the FAQ.
Mea
MS not helping .NET development now (Score:5, Insightful)
Until .NET is installed on enough desktops, it is going to be difficult to justify developing distributeable applications with it.
Re:MS not helping .NET development now (Score:4, Informative)
I am probably wrong on this, but i think the
the runtime is getting out there. More and more things will start to require it.
Re:Longhorn (Score:4, Informative)
Incredible features? What, you mean like wiggly windows?
I mean vector-scaled, hardware-accelerated graphics. An abandonment of Win32 for
So far, Longhorn seems to be additional eye candy+a database-like filesystem.
Well, then you clearly haven't even bothered reading up on it.
Now, Longhorn will maybe come out in 2005, maybe 2006. By then we'll have a db filesystem for Linux and Linux desktop will be able to match Windows (and OS X) eye candy...
I doubt it. Not as long as we're stuck on X11 + xlib + window manager + desktop environment + conflicting windowing libraries and inconstent interfaces.
* snip three reactive paragraphs about my sig *
Re:Longhorn (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what I said: eye candy. Well, this is coming to Linux as well, though in my view it really is icing on the cake, and nothing more.
An abandonment of Win32 for
So I guess the Longhorn version of MS Office will run on Linux (+mono) after all!
A restructuring of the concept of files, getting rid of "drive letters" and such. Everything from the ability to add and remove RAM without rebooting, to XML scripted modular custom installations.
Apar
Re:Longhorn (Score:3, Insightful)
Doubtful.
How so? If Office Longhorn uses
Why wouldn't you consider him a reliable source of Windows information? Considering he has actual sources inside Microsoft and all.
This is exactly why I don't consider him reliable: he is much too close to Microsoft to be objective. In other words, he often (IMO) acts as a
Article is old (Score:2)
Unless someone can produce an actual granted patent number for this, then it's still "nothing to see, move along" for the time being.
-- Rhys Weatherley, author of DotGNU Portable.NET.
Open Source Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (Score:4, Funny)
The conditions necessary to obtain a published patent application are these: (1) file one and pay a filing fee, including the proper formal documents (like an inventor's declaration; and (2) wait 18 months. An application creates no presently enforceable rights, and none will accrue until the patent actually issues.
Indeed, by beginning with the wildly broad claims (and they are pretty astonishing, I'll admit), any narrowing amendments entered during prosecution are likely to give rise to a much more limited patent.
Let's not get hysterical before there is something to get hysterical about. The
Fears regarding the quoted paragraph [0101] are misguided. It is routine boilerplate and primarily precatory, of virtually no importance concerning the meaning of the claims.
I am told that some of these new decaffinated brands are just as tasty as the regular stuff. Let's not go nuts, at least not before there is a reason to go nuts.
dealin' with the devil (Score:3, Insightful)
<disclaimer> no, billyg and the boyz are not the devil, nor are they evil.</disclaimer>
.NET is not worth cloning (Score:5, Insightful)
But there are other ways to reach the same end. Python + a UI toolkit is a biggie. It's even more modern than C#, which is hopelessly mired in the 1990s philosophy of very strict object-orientation (Python is much looser in this regard). And it's interpreted, so you can incrementally build and test code, while still having all the same general benefits of
Re:.NET is not worth cloning (Score:3, Interesting)
I think Python/PyGTK/PyGlade is great. But let's be realistic:
Who couldn't see this coming from a million mil... (Score:2)
An eventual attack by Microsoft of some sort, be it fuzzily defined protocols, patents, or something critical they 'forgot' to document was inevitable.
I actually figured that Microsoft would let Mono go on a bit longer before slamming the lid, and would have let the Linux community waste more effort and become more dependent on it.
I had an optimistic hope that perhaps Icaza was clever enough to walk a tightrope and come up with an u
Let's just get this over with (Score:3, Insightful)
The community should ask Microsoft to issue a direct agreement and public announcement that they will not pursue patent attacks against Mono and DotGnu for any part of the
If they won't do it, then the projects aren't safe and people have enough information to know to avoid them. Even if the lawsuits don't have merit, who wants to spend time in court that they could be spending on something more constructure (Like Parrot or OSS Java later this year if Sun follows through on its promise)
Until they clarify their position (and theirs is the ONLY one that matters), I would just assume they are doomed.
This is probably not the answer you expect (Score:5, Insightful)
I highly recommend you stick to Java.
All our major projects are developed under J2EE and we first use Tomcat as it's free. Later we switched to BEA because it has better performance; years later we changed our deployment to Oracle App servers for Linux because Oracle offered some attractive discounts for their Linux initiatives. We saved huge amount of operational/maintenance budge in switching from UNIX/Windows to Linux.
All of the migrations took us very minimal efforts because all J2EE platforms are pretty much agree on the same standard. Sweet isn't it?
I don't think you've such a freedom in
(Ok Ok, I know SUN is holding the balls of others with that J2EE certification, but you can see their difference.
NO PATENT EXISTS! (Score:5, Informative)
It remains to be seen whether the
In fact the whole patent application is written so poorly that I can't see it being granted in anything like its present form. Maybe there is a way of patenting an API but this ain't it.
The other side of the story (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, they opened up the basics that open up the platform, but does Linux/anything else really need WindowsForms/ASPX/ADO.NET/Whatever else that's not covered?
Imitation is nice, but I'm assuming that there are other ideas that can be explored and potentially take a twist for the better?... really, The beauty of the whole thing is if you write your own stuff that isn't legally ambiguous then you control where it can go so instead of a windows focused WindowForms you can have a Windowing library that is more generic and say works across several platforms and perhaps even windows... So, instead of ASPX you could hook up an "enhanced" PHP, use another dataset API instead of ADO and write a better windowing api, and that way your on stable legal terms instead of taking risks on ambiguity.
Mono's approach is somewhat on the right direction, they're basically copying down to the letter (with some creative license) and if a legal issue appears they'll just change the affected parts.
But that's just my 2 cents.
GNOME distribution with Mono is *STILL* DANGEROUS (Score:3, Interesting)
There is one thing that I know.... (Score:3, Insightful)
There was an anonymous coward who posted claiming to be a lawyer who said that these patents wouldn't effect MONO but he didn't elaborate. I have got to be skeptical.
The bottom line is: It is never a good idea to give Microsoft the option of crushing you. No one really knows what Microsoft will do except whatever it is, it will for sure be in their own best interest.
Patents enforced (Score:3, Informative)
1.
Thankyou for reading.
Tongue in cheek, and I know this needs to be considered as part of risk planning, but as far as I'm aware, there has never been legal action based upon patent infringement from Microsoft - and not from lack of opportunity I suspect. Give some credit where credit is due.
Waiting for the Java patent stories (Score:4, Interesting)
Guess I shouldn't hold my breath.
People should know better (Score:3, Insightful)
This is you getting fucked.
Any questions?
Look at it from the strategic point of view (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the revenue model for
Bottom line: Microsoft will likely allow Mono (as they have so far) and DotGNU until applications utilizing it on Linux reach critical mass. At that point, Microosft will probably start charging royalties to commercial developers (either per programmer, or rev share).
Will Microsoft forbid
Devil's Advocate note: I also wonder if they'll try to stop it now because if they let it go for too long without challenging it, the courts might say they didn't defend it for so long that they lost their chance (but I'm not a lawyer).
Finally: Why use
Patents can kill, so can EULAs (Score:3, Insightful)
On the technical side
But, it would be good to note that nothing that
My guess is that this is simply what MS is betting the farm on in order to move away from Win32 and at the same time corral developers and customers into staying with Windows. I read the EULA for VS.Net2003 and it seems you can neither publish benchmarks nor develop Office applications with it.
Are you sure you want to go down that road? Hasn't SCO been an eye opener enough?
Re:Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing you can patent is an algorithm, not functionality. If you get a really broad patent on the algorithm, you might have a case, but it's a pretty weak one (since you may lose the patent). As I see it, software patents really aren't worth the trouble, since the only thing they really protect is your algorithm for doing something, but it tells everyone how you do it (making it easier to copy functionality). If MS does sue, who would they sue, and what would they get? It's pretty much guaranteed that they'll spend more in legal fees than they'll ever see if they win.
Re:Answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Bass Ackwards (Score:5, Interesting)
No, the courts have become very tolerant of patents with vague claims. A recent (upheld!) example is the patent on a credit-card-sized PDA, which was upheld as applying to a non-credit-card-sized PDA even though the patent didn't even describe how the small size was to be achieved.
Re:Answer (Score:2)
IANAL, but before you use the case of SCO threatening users to refute me, remember their threats are based on copyright law. Since the users are not, by and large, distributing Linux, that threat is ridiculous. Patent law is a different animal
Re:Answer (Score:3, Insightful)
algorithm
n : a precise rule (or set of rules) specifying how to solve some problem
Sounds like a method to me... But just to be sure, let's check the thesaurus:
...machine, method, principle, process...
Yup, an algorithm is a method. Algorithm = Method, Algorithm != Code (code is an implementation of an algorithm). You can patent the algorithm, and copyright the implementation of the algorithm, but you can't stop people from finding another algorithm that accomplishes the same task
Re:Get a Lawyer? (Score:2, Insightful)
>> appropriate forum to ask legal questions?
A lawyer can never answer yes or no 100% of the time. They can give best guesses, and contribute ideas on what to do to not get sued (poor grammer alert) but anyone can sue for anything.
Re:Get a Lawyer? (Score:2, Insightful)