Re: why Microsoft really opposes Open Source
From: Richard Heathfield (dontmail_at_address.co.uk.invalid)
Date: 03/09/04
- Next message: gswork: "Re: rant -> your religion gets bashed here ... [long]"
- Previous message: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Dijkstra gets it wrong [was: Re: D gets it right]"
- In reply to: TLOlczyk: "Re: why Microsoft really opposes Open Source"
- Next in thread: Charles Shannon Hendrix: "Re: why Microsoft really opposes Open Source"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 08:05:34 +0000 (UTC)
TLOlczyk wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:16:31 +0000, Dave <recneps.w.divad@elcaro.moc>
> wrote:
<snip>
>>It's anyone's guess of course what will happen in the US courts when
>>such a patent meets interoperability reverse-engineering head on.
> I would love to see it get to a court. The patents are clearly illegal
> precisely because they hinder the equivalent of "fair-use".
>
> But if MS decides to sue the kernel maintainers for patent
> infringement, will they be able to fight,
Why bother? Support for FAT* and NTFS is surely just a courtesy measure for
people who still have some strange reason to use MS software as well as
Linux software. (Perhaps they're still in the process of porting, or have
some other possibly valid reason. But porting can be done via FTP. It
doesn't need filesystem interoperability.)
> or will they just remove
> FAT, FAT32, NTFS support from linux just to be rid of the hassle?
Let's hope so. What's the point in supporting antiquated proprietary
filesystems?
> In effect MS position makes interoperability illegal, because they
> cannot be challenged in court.
> The reply-to email address is olczyk2002@yahoo.com.
Sig block still broken, I see.
-- Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk "Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999. C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
- Next message: gswork: "Re: rant -> your religion gets bashed here ... [long]"
- Previous message: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Dijkstra gets it wrong [was: Re: D gets it right]"
- In reply to: TLOlczyk: "Re: why Microsoft really opposes Open Source"
- Next in thread: Charles Shannon Hendrix: "Re: why Microsoft really opposes Open Source"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|