<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet title="XSL_formatting" type="text/xsl" href="rss_style.xsl" ?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
        <title>ZDNet Blogs</title>
        <link>http://blogs.zdnet.com</link>
        <description>ZDNet Blogs Focus: Software Patents</description>
<item>
<title>TiVo judgment is fascinating, yet frightening</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=516</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:08:29 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Ed Burnette</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=516</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Ok, I know most people would not consider a 37-page legal opinion "fascinating". But as a computer science major and armchair software patent quarterback (not to mention long-time TiVo fan), that's exactly how I'd describe today's written decision by the US Court of Appeals  in which they ruled that EchoStar (Dish Network) infringes on TiVo's "time-warp" patent. I mean, how can you not appreciate passages like this one, which delves into one of life's great mysteries: is the word "an" singular or plural? As a general rule, the words    a    or    an    in a patent claim carry the meaning of    one or more.     That is particularly true when those words are used in combination with the open-ended antecedent    comprising.    ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Parsing the details of the Microsoft-Novell pact</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=5169</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2007 07:07:52 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Larry Dignan</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=5169</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Novell dropped its annual report Friday and with it three exhibits offering details of its SUSE Linux pact with Microsoft.    Two key points:       A lot of the good stuff about the partnership was redacted, opening more questions.    The third version of the General Public License seems to have some teeth--at least enough to worry Novell a bit.     And while it's suspicious that Novell dropped these filings late Friday before a long weekend, I'll give the company a pass. The filings were ridiculously late due to stock options backdating so why make the Securities and Exchange Commission wait? Just get the filings over with already--it's not like we didn't know they were coming.   Now let's get to the money shot: Novell ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Novell publishes details on its Microsoft patent deal</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=477</link>
<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2007 08:43:45 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Mary Jo Foley</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=477</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Novell has posted to the Securites and Exchange Commission (SEC) Web site redacted versions of the company's patent, business and technology agreements with Microsoft, which it signed in November 2006.    Novell officials said earlier this week they would post these documents before the end of May. The company released the filings late on May 25, the start of a three-day holiday weekend in the U.S.    Did anything juicy make it past the "marked as confidential" cuts? Groklaw has  highlightsof some of the documentation specific to the Microsoft-Novell patent arrangements:    "If the final version of GPLv3 contains terms or conditions that interfere with our agreement with Microsoft or our ability to distribute GPLv3 code, Microsoft may cease to distribute SUSE Linux coupons in ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Can Novell get its good name back?</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1077</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 09:04:20 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dana Blankenhorn</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1077</guid>
<description><![CDATA[While I believe fully in the consensus process there are times when you have to make a choice.    Hillary Clinton faces such a choice today. You're either for the war or agin' it, girl. Don't talk about future planning. No long words like efficacious, either. Yea or nay.    Novell faced such a choice six months ago. Microsoft offered it a fat check for its corporate soul.    Novell took the check.    Now it wants a do-over. Novell promises to (finally) share the full agreement. It couldn't before because, you see, it was being investigated for back-dating stock options, which should tell you all you really need to know.    Oh, and Novell insists it's not for software patents, that it's supporting the EFF's efforts to challenge what ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Microsoft forces hard questions on open source</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1075</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 06:59:55 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dana Blankenhorn</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1075</guid>
<description><![CDATA[A Microsoft spokesperson "confirmed it has no immediate plans to sue" over patents. In a statement mailed to ZDNet UK, Microsoft confirmed it would not litigate for now.    No immediate plans. For now.    Open source is getting played.    Microsoft is holding a sword over the head of all open source users, and all open source developers, a sword its lawyers may wield at any time to bankrupt start-ups and send programmers to the poor house.    A lawsuit by a giant company such as Microsoft is a life-changing event. Everyone knows it. We all want to avoid it.    So what is this "no immediate plans for now" nonsense? You either have a case or you don't. You either sue or you don't.    Here's the truth. Microsoft does ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>New Microsoft-funded study finds developers don't want GPL to cover patent deals</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=462</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 06:55:10 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Mary Jo Foley</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=462</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft is expending an awful lot of time and energy to try to derail the next version of the Free Software Foundation's General Public License (GPL). On May 22, yet another in a long line of Microsoft-commissioned open-source studies made its debut. The latest, conducted by Harvard Business School professor Alan MacCormack in conjunction with Keystone Strategy Inc., is titled "A Developers Bill of Rights: What Open Source Developers Want in a Software License." You probably can guess what the study concludes, given Microsoft's decision last week -- in the name of attempting to derail the looming GPL version 3 -- to claim that open-source software violates 235 of its patents. The Bill of Rights study found that rank-and-file open-source developers don't want ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Microsoft and patent claims: 'Business as usual'?</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=458</link>
<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2007 06:59:15 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Mary Jo Foley</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=458</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Bill Hilf, Microsoft's General Manager of Platform Strategy, has finally blogged about Microsoft's decision to go public with  its claims that it has found 235 patent violations by open source software on various Microsoft products.  "Our IP strategy has not changed," said Hilf and Microsoft's head of the company's open-source-software lab, Sam Ramji, in a blog posting dated May 18. "Where we have unique and valuable intellectual property (as indicated by our high scores on the science strength of our patents) we will seek to license it to commercial entities (such as Samsung and Fuji Xerox).    "It   s not us versus the free world. It   s about commercial companies working together around IP issues     it   s business as usual," the pair added.  Hilf and ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Microsoft Windows and Office violate 532 patents?</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=308</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 07:52:36 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Ed Burnette</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=308</guid>
<description><![CDATA[By now I'm sure you've all read about Microsoft's latest attempt to slow down open source software adoption by asserting that Linux and other open source software violates 200+ of their patents. This isn't the first time they've made such a claim, nor will it be the last.    But what if I told you that Windows, Vista, Office, and other software from Microsoft violate 532 patents? Would that make you any less likely to use Microsoft software? What if I claimed the following alleged violations:     Windows core operating system: 132   .NET framework: 91   Windows/Vista GUI: 83   Microsoft Office: 159   Other: 67    These numbers sound reasonable, don't they? As Linux trademark holder Linus Torvalds told InformationWeek:  It's certainly a lot more likely that Microsoft violates [more] patents than Linux ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Which is the better investment, IBM or Microsoft?</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1052</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2007 07:50:54 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dana Blankenhorn</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1052</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Here is a fun fact to know and tell.    Let's say that, with the corks popping at Y2K, you made a bet with your rich Uncle Jerry.    He would pick a stock, you would pick a stock. Whoever's stock had done better when he passed on would control his fortune. He would give it to God. You would give it to yourself.    Well, if your Uncle passed on yesterday, the poor won.    Since January 2000, IBM stock is down 1.76% in value. But Microsoft's stock is down 47.07%. (Check it out with the Google.)    Now, unfair you say. What about the dot-bomb? But if you look at the chart produced by comparing IBM and Microsoft shares, since January 2000, there is no point in time, ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Microsoft: A law firm pretending to be an army pretending to be a software company</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2463</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 06:58:11 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dana Gardner</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2463</guid>
<description><![CDATA[SCO failed, so now Microsoft has to do the heavy lifting itself to undermine open source software's legitimacy. Actually, Microsoft prefers to undermine Red Hat's legitimacy. Or OpenXchange's. Or your company's.    The latest moves by Microsoft, however, give them away. Stripped of their proxies, their moves are now more clearly understood to be essentially military. And you are the civilians caught between Microsoft's lawyers and their quarry.    The details are now trickling out that Microsoft has real numbers -- some 235 patents across dozens of open source products -- that define the purported assault on its intellectual property. And like SCO, they can't tell you how you offend. You just need to know that you offend. You should also now know that ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>GPLv3 the impetus for Microsoft's latest Linux attack campaign</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=437</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2007 04:35:47 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Mary Jo Foley</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=437</guid>
<description><![CDATA[With one stroke, Microsoft has ended any illusion that it planned to try to build bridges with the open-source community. And it appears the primary reason for Microsofts decision to go back on the public attack against Linux and other open-source software is the looming Version 3 of the Free Software Foundations General Public License (GPL).  In a newly published interview with Fortune magazine, Microsoft licensing officials go on the record claiming that the company believes free and open-source software infringes on 235 of Microsofts patents. At the same time, Bill Hilf, Microsoft director of platform strategy -- and the companys main liaision to the open-source community -- was quoted on a tour in Southeast Asia as saying that ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Microsoft: Free and open source software violates 235 Microsoft patents</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=436</link>
<pubDate>Sun, 13 May 2007 04:46:29 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Mary Jo Foley</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=436</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft finally has thrown down the gauntlet and is claiming publicly that free and open-source software (FOSS) violates 235 Microsoft patents.  That tally comes from a newly published article in Fortune. In that article, Microsoft licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez wouldn't talk specifics. He declined to specify which Microsoft patents are being violated or how "lest FOSS advocates start filing challenges to them," according to the Fortune article.  Nonetheless, Gutierrez claimed that Linux is violating 42 Microsoft patents. Linux GUIs (graphical user interfaces) violate 65, Open Office violates 45, various free/open e-mail programs violate another 15, and assorted, sundry free/open-source software programs violate 68 Microsoft patents, Gutierrez said.  That total is quite different from the last alleged count ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>The straw men of open source</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1038</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 07:26:59 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dana Blankenhorn</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1038</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Yesterday Michael Dell gave in to a straw man argument. (I assume that's Ray Bolger at the right.)    The straw man in this case is the Microsoft-led argument that using Linux carries patent risks. It doesn't. But signing on to the idea that it might is like my running bet that I'll die next year. It's insurance.    The paranoid customers who expect or demand such insurance may never use Linux anyway, but Dell figures the risk is minimal, and it can still offer popular distributions like Red Hat and Ubuntu, so why not?    The reason why not is it gives the straw man argument power. It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.    There are many such straw men in open source. The idea that open ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Sun preparing answer to Flash, Silverlight?</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=300</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2007 02:14:58 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Ed Burnette</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=300</guid>
<description><![CDATA[The details are a closely guarded secret until JavaOne opens next Tuesday. But all indications point to some kind of response from Sun to Adobe Flash and Microsoft Silverlight.    [Update: And here it is: JavaFX takes center stage at JavaOne --Ed]     I admit this is based on 2 parts information, 4 parts speculation, and 3 parts wishful thinking, but a few hints of what this response might look like are available for all to see if you know where to look. You can check back on how well I did at prognosticating next week.    One part of the answer could be Chris Oliver's work with F3 (Form Follows Function). For demonstration purposes, Chris has converted a number of Flash and SVG examples ... ]]>
</description></item>
</channel>
</rss>
