Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Microsoft

Microsoft Leaves U.N. Standards Group 246

Posted by timothy from the straightforward dept.
pk2000 writes "Microsoft withdrew from a United Nations software standards group for commerce. 'Unfortunately, for now, we have made the decision to stop participating in U.N./Cefact for business reasons and this serves as notification of our immediate withdrawal from all U.N./Cefact activities.' This might be connected to Microsoft's intention to build up its patent portfolio. Currently it has about 5,000 patents and seeks to at least double this number by the end of 2005."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Leaves U.N. Standards Group More

Microsoft Leaves U.N. Standards Group

Comments Filter:

  • Nice! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ghettoboy22 ( 723339 ) <scott.a.johnson@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:22AM (#10065892) Homepage
    The more and more they isolate themselves with proprietary technologies the more they cut their own throats.

    Once their corporate clients realize a decision to go MS is a decision to STAY with MS for a LONG LONG time, that TCO will get a hard second (and third) review.

    • Re:Nice! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nautical9 ( 469723 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:26AM (#10065909) Homepage
      Yes, but it's when the good times turn into bad ones that they'll begin actually using their patent portfolio aggressively to keep their share value up. If you thought SCO was bad...
      • Considering the amount of novalties presented by M$ through their software, how many of these 5'000 to 10'000 patents will actually hold up in court? Could this be a way to increase stock price in short term?

      • Re:Nice! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by flacco ( 324089 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:50AM (#10065997)
        Yes, but it's when the good times turn into bad ones that they'll begin actually using their patent portfolio aggressively to keep their share value up.

        ...and the end-game to that will be that foreign governments will pull out of software patent agreements. advantage: F/OSS.

      • Re:Nice! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Tim C ( 15259 )
        The same can be said of any large company. None are immune to changes in fortune. IBM, for example, iirc holds more software patents than any other company in the world.

        Sure, they're "on our side" now, but in the future, who knows? They may revert to their bad old ways if given sufficient incentive/reason.
        • "The same can be said of any large company. None are immune to changes in fortune. IBM, for example, iirc holds more software patents than any other company in the world."

          The difference of course is that IBM actually engages in (or has in the past) research, both of a software kind and otherwise, while Microsoft has a division called research which works on experimental chat programs. That is not to say that Microsoft doesn't have some sharp software people of all kinds, but their emphasis has never been
          • While that may or may not be the case, it certainly wouldn't make me feel any better about being sued by someone. I can't see myself thinking "Well, at least they do do real research" while trying to work out whether or not I can afford to fight the case, or will just have to give in and take it.

    • Re:Nice! (Score:2, Funny)

      by JamesKPolk ( 13313 )
      "The more and more they isolate themselves with proprietary technologies the more they cut their own throats."

      Isn't that what Leia said just before millions died on Alderaan?

    • Re:Nice! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:50AM (#10066000)
      That's interesting. This kind'a reminds me of how the USA is isolating themselves more and more.

      Does this mean that the USA is cutting its own throat too?

      • Re:Nice! (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:58AM (#10066030)
        No because the US is good. MS is bad.

        Repeat that a couple hundred times per day and you'll feel fine like the rest of us.
        • No because the US is good. MS is bad. Repeat that a couple hundred times per day and you'll feel fine like the rest of us.
          • The US is good. MS is bad.
          • The US is good. MS is bad.
          • The US is good. MS is bad.
          • ...
          • ...many more iterations deleted...
          • ...
          • The US is good. MS is bad.
          Thanks! Now I feel all warm and fuzzy inside and can go on leading a happy, healthy life.
      • No it's just that before long, all government funding will go to the ministry of offence^H^H^H^H^Hdefense, then that ministry will kill of all citiz^H^H^H^H^Hterrorists and robots that kill everything that moves will roam the streets (because if it moves it's clearly terrorist), and we'll have finally thought of the children (which then will lie dead in the street riddled with at least 1 bullet per child)

        damn I need to wake up

      • Re:Nice! (Score:2, Interesting)

        by jav1231 ( 539129 )
        Isolating one's self from the U.N. doesn't equal isolating one's self from the world. The U.N. is a joke. Anyone who would put Libya at the head of their Human Rights wing is a moron. Hey, I don't like M$ either, but maybe they just realized the U.N. sucks. Okay, okay, I'm sure they have monitary motive.

    • Re:Nice! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Darkman, Walkin Dude ( 707389 )

      Um, no you kinda missed the point there chief. With no microsoft at the table the standards group has no teeth, no point, and now is effectively worthless. Case in point, see internet explorer.

      I don't know why it happened, but its probably the same thing that always happens when a bunch of academics start dickering with businessmen. The academics get all excited that they're in toe to toe with "the man", and the businesspeople get tired of debating in circles, quietly pull out, and circumvent around the g

      • Re:Nice! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dan Ost ( 415913 )
        Well, it's only teethless until the UN gives a mandate that all software used
        by the UN must support these open standards. Then if MS doesn't implement them,
        they're shutting themselves out of the UN's market and everyone else who must
        be able to do business with the UN.

        This is the same reason that F/OSS wins in small governments are really big
        wins.

  • Heh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cbrocious ( 764766 )
    It's not suprising, but it's somewhat disappointing. MS was looking like they may be good to the community (and industry) for once. That didn't go far...

    • Re:Heh (Score:3, Interesting)

      by smittyoneeach ( 243267 ) *
      If the market reacts unfavorably, they'll change course.
      Money is to MicroSoft as votes are to politicians.
      Or, paraphrasing a bumper sticker I saw the other day, 'Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat, and non-market considerations drove a Microsoft decision'.

  • Makes Sense? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:25AM (#10065906) Homepage Journal
    I think it makes sense. With alternatives to Microsoft products going strong, it is not in Microsoft's interest to standardize and create interoperability.

    You will see that, historically, standards supported or developed by Microsoft are mostly those that enable Microsoft products to work better, whereas support for standards that enable interoperability of MS products with other products has been lacking, if even considered at all.

    • mod parent up (Score:3, Insightful)

      by poohsuntzu ( 753886 )
      This is something we need to keep in mind while all the flames and MS troll rant. Microsoft is making a buisness descision, because it is a buisness and not a local geek club that does this in their spare time. Good or bad, we can't expect them to suddenly shake hands with Linux and begin working on universal standards for OS interopolbility because that is a buisness killing move and against the very reason buisness competition even exists in the first place.

      • Re:mod parent up (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:31AM (#10066156) Homepage Journal
        working on universal standards for OS interopolbility because that is a buisness killing move and against the very reason buisness competition even exists in the first place.
        Nonsense. You can have interoperability and standards. Consider, say, the power sockets in your house. In every country there is a well defined standard for plugs (sure, we'd like it to be the same for each, but thats not important) and everyone's plugs fit that socket.

        There's still competition. Some make robust, expensive plugs for important equipment that can't afford to fail. Some make cheap plugs for budget consumer kit. Some make plugs with groovy features like circuit breakers and easy fuse access. They compete with one another, and yet none feel the need to breach the standard for how a plug should interact with the socket.

      • Re:mod parent up (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hachete ( 473378 )
        A "business decision" by a monopoly which is doing all it can to retain it's monopoly. Then it comes less of a business decision than a decision of State.

    • Here goes my karma (Score:5, Insightful)

      by violet16 ( 700870 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @07:13AM (#10066317)

      It's very rarely in the interests of a dominant entity to engage with a group like the UN. Whether you're talking about international law and the United States, or IT standards and Microsoft, you have the group wanting everyone to play by the same rules and the dominant player wanting to leverage its advantages.

      Doesn't mean that Microsoft (or the US) is bad; that's just logical behavior for an entity in a dominant position.

      Now I've just drawn a comparison between the US and Microsoft, so I know my karma's shot to hell.

      • Just because you know that certain behavior is to be expected of certain entities doesn't mean you can't still judge that behavior and the entity bad.

        "Sure, the Devil enslaves souls for all eternity, but that's just to be expected, it doesn't mean the Devil is evil..."

        "Sure, Microsoft abuses their monopoly and sabotages standards efforts, but that's just to be expected of large corporations in their position, it doesn't mean they're wrong.

  • One can only hope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:27AM (#10065912)
    One can only hope that MS' refusal to adhere to real standards will backfire. I just hope that corporations and governments aren't to dumb to realize that it is them who have to pay the prize for MS' tactics.

    On the other hand, once patent laws are the way MS and others want them to be world wide open standards will simply not matter anymore. What a bright future lies ahead for freedom of information and freedom of choice...
  • If you even glance at UN/CEFACT's Mandate [unece.org], it reads like a mission statement for GNU/Linux. Words like "inclusive", "help", and "free" (as in trade) won't inspire confidence up in Redmond.

  • They win (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tuxlove ( 316502 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:28AM (#10065916)
    With this many patents, Microsoft will win. Their intent is to kill all competition/freeware by patenting everything remotely interesting to them. They don't even put their name on any of their patents until they issue, so it's really hard to spot them. There's no telling exactly how many, or which patents they have in process at any time, unless you do a lot of educated snooping at the USPTO. And that tells you nothing about their international patents. Their pulling out of the organization will have little impact for them.

    • They can't even win the battle, much less the war (Score:5, Insightful)

      by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:52AM (#10066005) Homepage Journal

      They only win if the rest of the IT industry and society accept that it's reasonable to allow one company to "patent" such obvious ideas as timed clicks, TODO lists in code, etc. -- especially concepts that have been in use for years or decades.

      So Microsoft bought their way out of penalties, can force the USPTO to approve bullshit patents, and has a few billion in cash.

      Just how much do you think that matters when the other side of the court has IBM, Sun, HP, Novell, Cisco, Oracle, Sybase, ... and they all see more benefit in OSS and a shared technology stack than a lock-in for one vendor.

      • No, they will win if people like you are supporting OSS. Both those issues - timed clicks & TODO lists in code - were reported as sensationalist headlines on /., but if you drilled into the patent, they were far more detailed than the /. groupthink headlines would have you believe and were genuinely patentable ideas, and not decades old.

        Whether or not you fundamentally agree with software patents is another issue altogether, but they are playing within the rules.

  • It would appear to be Microsoft vs. The Rest of IT (Score:5, Insightful)

    by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:32AM (#10065932) Homepage Journal

    In this corner, we have Microsoft with a platform-specific lockin solution designed to drain business revenue without actually committing to fix reported problems.

    In the other corner, we have IBM, Sun, HP, Novell, RedHat, Mandrake, Oracle, Sybase, and a few thousand other vendors supporting full POSIX stacks, international and national standards, and essentially working on the philosophy of building from a shared technology foundation.

    While Microsoft may have bought their way out of court-imposed penalties by delaying the case until a change of government occured, they can't buy their way out of the opinions and mistrust they've built for the past 2-3 decades.

    As they've refused to compete on quality, reliability, security, and performance of business solutions, what choice does Microsoft have except to try to use the courts and barratry to survive?

    After all, they can't accept (or perhaps can't grasp) a service/quality based market. Their whole mindset is package and sell, not long-term services and support that generate stable revenue instead of bursts during purchase/upgrade cycles.

    Business hates upgrades. A minor patch for an existing release means much lower retraining and deployment costs.

    Consumers love upgrades, they get a whole bunch of new gadgets, features, toys, and shiny icons.

    It's simple: Microsoft can service one market or the other, but not both. Any attempts to use their IP portfolio for barratry are likely to get them pimp-slapped by the vendors I mentioned above: they don't like Microsoft's intrusions on their turf any more than Microsoft want's Linux on the desktop.

    • Exactly. Thats why Windows NT was seperate from Windows 9x. When they merged at XP the seperation of buisness and consumers was lost. You may say that home and pro keep them seperate but home is just a crippled version of pro.
    • Now, it's MS against the rest of the world. However, it hasn't always been that way and won't always be that way.

      ``In the other corner, we have IBM, Sun, HP, Novell, RedHat, Mandrake, Oracle, Sybase, and a few thousand other vendors supporting full POSIX stacks, international and national standards, and essentially working on the philosophy of building from a shared technology foundation.''

      That coalition will only last as long as there is a common enemy. After that, there will be a new era of Unix Wars, a
      • So far, the bulk of people and businesses seem to be quite happy with Microsoft's solutions. As long as features equal quality, fewer crashes than the previous version equal reliability, service packs and managed code equal security, and "it works without hours of prodding with configuration files" equals performance, I don't see that changing. Sure, there have been more and stronger voices against Microsoft, but most people have either the "works for me" or the "everyone else uses it" attitude. The people
      • ``After all, they can't accept (or perhaps can't grasp) a service/quality based market.''

        I think they grasp it rather well. Instead of shipping a software package that needs a system administrator to work well, they ship software that any idiot can work with, and they handle all the issues for you. Not enough features? Not secure enough? Not enough "seen on the net" buzzwords? Don't worry, it will all be fixed in the next release. Just sit back and relax.

        You're kidding, right? Microsoft is constantly

      • RAMMS+EIN, I just wanted to mention I like the way you think. I might not agree with your conclusions, but I like your approach anyhow.

        P.S. The difference between the *nix "coalition" and the old Unix fragmentation is that the coalition is driven by agreed-on standards. Business is like people -- it has to learn and grow. The vendors I mentioned see the potential of a services-based business model and realize it's a better fit for the industry. Like the buggy and whip makers, those companies who resi

    • Some "consumers" loathe upgrades, though (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Craig Ringer ( 302899 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:24AM (#10066129) Homepage Journal
      I know a lot of users who hate upgrades, as they'll inevitably mean slower, more bloated and often less reliable software that makes it harder, not easier, to do the things they need to do.

      That's if the upgrade even works.

      Many people "upgrade" only when forced kicking and screaming by external factors such as format and protocol changes or hardware failures. I don't blame them, though personally I'll often prefer to upgrade.

    • Re:It would appear to be Microsoft vs. The Rest of (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BarryNorton ( 778694 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:37AM (#10066180)
      platform-specific lockin solution [versus ...] IBM, Sun, HP, Novell
      How short people's memories are...

      • Not at all. GNU was started in response to the lockin of IBM, AT&T, DEC, Pyramid, and others. Microsoft wasn't much more than Bill Gates' brain-fart at the point GNU began.

        In fact, Microsoft began their approach to marketting from the same perspective as GNU: freedom from the big vendors and outrageous licensing fees.

        What both were really saying is that competition is good for business. It leads to better solutions.

        What Microsoft forgot is that business only benefits when the better solutions

        • Very much agree with what you're saying... but it doesn't answer why you think IBM, Sun, HP and Novell have changed; where they get their chances they'll still play the proprietary game (as previously evidenced by CICS, Java, IPX/SPX etc.).

          And it's not like Microsoft haven't gone the distance with some collaboratively-designed open standards: I'd nominate SOAP as an example.

          It's my opinion that all of these companies have exactly the kind of schizophrenic approach to standards that makes business 'sense'.
    • Business hates upgrades. A minor patch for an existing release means much lower retraining and deployment costs.
      Consumers love upgrades, they get a whole bunch of new gadgets, features, toys, and shiny icons.

      Maybe they should have stuck with their Windows NT and 98 philosophy. One OS for business, with a long time between releases but lots of nice security and bug patches. One OS for consumers, with frequent releases (95/98/ME) and few bugfixes.

  • Sounds familiar.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by miketang16 ( 585602 ) * on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:33AM (#10065934) Journal
    Nice to see Microsoft taking a page from the good ol' Bush book of foreign relations and getting rid of those UN pussies.

  • Time for some quick action (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:35AM (#10065939) Homepage Journal
    Anti software-patent groups in the EU should seize on this, and note how Microsoft's use of its patent portfolio is so demonstrably at odds with the public interest.

    What could be more in the public interest than the commoditisation of web services?

  • Someone needs to be able to overrule patents.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dogers ( 446369 ) * on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:41AM (#10065969)
    Companies that join working groups should be forced to say "right, these are my patents, i'll share with you and if i pull out, i cant use them against you".

    If Microsoft start patenting things the group is working at making, waiting until the standard is out to start suing (Hi, my names Rambus, id like to help you with your DDR tech!), or perhaps even joined, had a look what the groups doing, realises they have patents that covers it then pulls out.. ooh, i'll be angry! :/
    • Companies that join working groups should be forced to say "right, these are my patents, i'll share with you and if i pull out, i cant use them against you".

      If this were the case, I think companies would stop joining working groups!

    • CSS & W3C (Score:5, Interesting)

      by zonix ( 592337 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:33AM (#10066164) Journal

      If Microsoft start patenting things the group is working at making, waiting until the standard is out to start suing (Hi, my names Rambus, id like to help you with your DDR tech!), or perhaps even joined, had a look what the groups doing, realises they have patents that covers it then pulls out.. ooh, i'll be angry! :/

      Well, Microsoft did patent - behind the other members' backs - Cascading Style Sheets during the time the standard was developed at the W3C. Shortly thereafter they left the W3C.

      z
      • While that's true, I suspect it went more like this:

        Group A at MS joins the W3C, with official blessing, as a representative of MS.

        Group B, meanwhile, applies for a patent that covers (doubtless amongst other things) CSS.

        At some point, either Group A, their sponsor, or someone of a similar ilk discovers this, decides that there's a conflict of interest (or that there could be perceived to be one), and decides to leave/orders Group A to leave the W3C.

        Sure, it sucks, but never forget that MS, like any lar

  • Will there really be a patent war? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:42AM (#10065972)
    I mean, why would Microsoft do something that would bring so much criticism and ill will upon them? Engaging in a patent war of any kind will:

    1) Really not help their case in terms of the whole monopoly thing.
    2) Tell everyone that this company is on its way out, and treat it accordingly. When a company starts working the legal system to pay the bills, you know it's ready to sink.
    3) Piss off countless unwashed computer/information systems people who have grown fond of application X, which may have to stop development due to legal fire from Microsoft.
    4) Call into question a lot of Microsoft's more questionable patents.

    On the other hand, why would they amass such a huge patent portfolio if they don't intend to use it? Perhaps just to ensure that nobody can use those silly patents against them? Hrm.

  • Out in flames? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Zorilla ( 791636 )
    Of course, a tech company leaving the U.N. Standards Group wouldn't be their first choice of business strategy. With this and patent hoarding, it's getting easier to see that Microsoft is fighting just to remain at the top at all costs.

  • How is this different (Score:5, Interesting)

    by downbad ( 793562 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:46AM (#10065986)
    from when Sun withdrew from ISO/IEC and ECMA because they didn't want to give up any control over Java?

  • Amusing, isn't it? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 59Bassman ( 749855 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:53AM (#10066009) Journal
    Hard to believe that this comes on the same day that Microsoft is asking "What would it take to make you want to collaborate with MS on Open Source projects?"


    Now I'm no fan of the UN at all, but stuff like this is why folks don't want to collaborate with MS. Note to Microsoft if you're even listening - the Open Source community wants open standards. By continuing to try to close your file formats and program standards, you are continuing to motivate those who would like to see you out of business.


    I guess the whole "team up with MS" was a pile of BS, anyway. Now they can say "OSS hates us, we tried to play nice, therefore we have no qualms about going them after with patents".

  • Who... what... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:55AM (#10066015)
    But wait... don't we hate the UN here on slashdot? And we hate MS... ow... so confused now.

    Someone tell me what to think here.
    • OK, I'll tell you. The UN is bad without evil intentions. MS is bad with evil intentions. Pick the one you think is worse.
    • Nope.

      The idea of the UN is great, an open group of nations deciding on fair and peaceful ways forward for the world. The current implementation of the UN sucks but that is another matter.

      The idea of Microsoft is bad, a closed company deciding on unfair and uncompetitive ways forward for the world.

      One good, one bad; are you less confused?

  • What it means (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:55AM (#10066017) Homepage Journal
    This might be connected to Microsoft's intention to build up its patent portfolio.
    Why? If their patent becomes a standard, it's just more profit for them.

    The real problem is that Microsoft just doesn't get along with standards groups. Witness their history with XSL, Kerberos, ISO character sets, etc., etc. They go in determined to be good, cooperative techno-standard citizens, but always reach a point where continuing to participate means they can't do things exactly their own way. And they always want to do things exactly their own way.

    You almost can't blame them -- the industry is dominated by emotionally immature technogeeks who always have to have their own way. Unfortunately, MS has the financial clout to make their tantrums into defacto standards.

    • Re:What it means (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kahei ( 466208 )
      Witness their history with XSL

      Don't know anything about that.

      Kerberos

      Hm, don't know anything about that either.

      ISO character sets

      Aaah, I _do_ know something about that. Specifically I remember the years of waiting for ISO to come up with sets that actually had needed characters while MS at the same time was listening to users and making the appropriate character sets, sticking as close to ISO as they could while still actually empowering users to communicate with each other.

      THAT, and not 'finan

    • Re:What it means (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      > Why? If their patent becomes a standard, it's just more profit for them.

      If you read carefully the cnn article about quiting the standards group, this is exactly the reason why they quit. "[MS withdrawal] stemmed from a set of thorny issues over control of intellectual property that is being contributed to the standards-setting effort.". They want to patent a standard and then charge everybody for using it, and the UN standards group (thanks god :) doesn't like that. I suspect that thay will try the

  • Wow, this could be a big problem. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:57AM (#10066023) Homepage Journal
    You know, a lot of times when companies go under, they start to use their patent portfolio in a last kamakazi attempt to drag everyone else down with them. Perhaps Microsoft sees the writing on the wall, and realizes that things are going to go so well for them in the future.

    This could cause huge problems in the IT world...

  • In the future... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lostie ( 772712 ) * on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:58AM (#10066026)
    Microsoft have enough money, time and resources to patent pretty much anything in the future, and it looks like they're going to try and file as many patents as they possibly can.

    This will be very damaging for the entire rest of the software industry including open-source - I mean you're going to have to think harder and harder to come up with a new software idea that Microsoft hasn't already thought of and patented...
    Patents were introduced to level the playing field for the little guy with a big idea, helping him to compete with the giant corporations - what Microsoft is doing is exactly the opposite. The entire patent system needs to be overhauled before its too late.

    • Re:In the future... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by drawfour ( 791912 )
      Patents were introduced to level the playing field for the little guy with a big idea, helping him to compete with the giant corporations

      Patents were introduced to give a creator control over his "big idea", regardless of corporation status. It's all about who comes up with it FIRST. Little guy or big guy.

      Now, you can argue that even if the little guy patents something, a corporation can sick its lawyers on him until he gives in, but that's not an issue with patents or with the USPTO -- that's an iss

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:01AM (#10066047)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • "moving away from Microsofts expertise" (Score:3, Funny)

    by tod_miller ( 792541 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:03AM (#10066055) Journal
    but a company representative said that the decision to withdraw was a "question of priorities" and that the focus of the standards body was moving away from Microsoft's expertise.

    babelfish.av.com
    Bullshit > english

    Out priority is to make money by keeping buteforcing the patent system, and training genetically modified lawyers to enforce them in the future.

    We are not known for our expertise in playing fairly, we preffer a borderline illegal approach to doing business.

    Open letter to Microsoft:

    Dear Microsoft,

    Suck on my chocolate salty balls,

    Hot lovin',

    Chef.

  • Must be a 'Merican company (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SlashDread ( 38969 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:13AM (#10066093)
    Not to start a euro flame war or anything, but "If your not with us, your agains us" comes to mind.

    Next you will hear Ballmer refer to UN software standards as "old-tech".

    "/Dread"
  • Apart from the digging man [unece.org], who is a member of CEFACT?
    • All sorts of groups support UN CEFACT and ebXML. OASIS is a major supporter of ebXML. The Oasis membership list is impressive, see http://www.oasis-open.org/about/ I have looked at some of the CEFACT reports and they have long lists of members (people) that come from a wide range of financial insititutions, manufacturers, governments, standard organizations from industrial nations (like ISO, ANSI and ECMA) as well as representatives of poorer nations that want to make sure that the standards will help th

  • This is a good thing (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I've been involved a little bit with the UN's EDIFACT body, and I believe the whole idea of the UN responsible for technical standards is fundamentally flawed.

    Its primarily a political body, and really, politics have no purpose in what is supposed to be a technical arena.

    That's why EDIFACT has lost out to other non-UN bodies now that XML has come to the forefront. Nobody is going to the UN on purpose these days.

    So I say good to MS for stating the obvious.

  • You guys are paranoid! (Score:5, Funny)

    by SetupWeasel ( 54062 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:37AM (#10066182) Homepage
    No company would use "intellectual property" to hinder competition and litigate against its own customers.

    I mean really guys. You totally need to take some Prozac or something. This could never happen.

    Companies love their employees, competitors, and their customers. They always try to do what is best for everyone!

    And on the slim chance they didn't, our legal system is more than capable of putting any company in their respective place!

    GOD BLESS AMERICA!

  • Is this a bad thing? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GaussianInteger ( 772028 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:43AM (#10066204)
    For those who actually read the article, it was stated that Microsoft, when it was in the standards union, was pushing for standards that would benefit them (not open Gnu/GPL standards). With Microsoft out of the consortium, they'll have less influence on the standards that the world decides to make, and in the end, lose say in standards that may become very popular.

    Even better would be if MS made their own propreitary objects to compete with the UN standards, and LOSE (a la IPX and Novell). Because now not only do they lose say in something that's popular, they also wasted time on their own protocol that nobody uses.
  • ...ever heard of a little thing called prior art? As far as I know, you can't just patent something that a person invented years ago, but failed to take out a patent on, because their work counts as prior art. Is this not the case?

    Really, whatever the situation, it's past time that things were fixed so that you can only have patents on things which are demonstrably yours.
  • People copy success. And if people can copy what Microsoft is doing, without going head-to-head with Microsoft, they're going to do it. And patents are a potential way to mimic Microsoft without going head-to-head. (Or, if you ARE already going head-to-head with Microsoft, having your own patent portfolio could offer some defense.)

    The larger impact won't be Microsoft's patents, but their position as a trend setter in the industry. This sets the tone for a software world of greater patents.
  • This is an exercise in altruism - Let us first suspend all of our beliefs, open our minds and embrace the enigma that is Microsoft.

    We all know that the US patent office is overwhelmed with patent applications and that the back-log worsens everyday. Patent officials are basically rubber-stamping many of the patent applications through without checking for prior-art and relying upon the "community" to bring that to their attention. Further, we are in agreement that the system is in dire need of an overhaul
  • If M$ can't control it, they leave and will work to get around/subvert/ignore, any standards from this group. Standard M$ tactics. They have been consistant in working this way for years. Think of the battle for control of the web, what .NET is really about, they want all content on their standard format.

    Why would anyone be surprised?

  • While popular, I think the Rambus Jedec issues are more an example of the kind of disputes that
    IP standards can create then SCO.

    I fail to see the relevance of the SCO remark in this case. The SCOIBM case was totally different (and the suing of the individual users totally nonsense and legal wrestling at best)

  • Microsofts plan... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SQLz ( 564901 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @09:45AM (#10067379) Homepage Journal
    I heard this from a friend of a friend who actually is a Linux developer at microsoft. I know him as well, he is a complete dumb ass but...

    MS has rooms full of Linux computers with people learning Linux and open source software inside and out. Developers are tearing apart the source code to the kernel, KDE, Gnome, Apache, etc using/testing every little feature, making notes, and dicussing where they think the developers will go next. They even have people who monitor development mailing lists and forums.

    This is a direct quote:

    "The plan is no to patent where Linux is now, the plan is to patent where Linux is going."

    Technically, the MS stratefy is the 'head them off at the pass'.
  • You know, as more things like this begin to gather, i can't help but think this is the "quiet before the storm" here.

    The reason i feel this way: take a look at what they have been up to. They started looking at actually improving security (SP2), hey, it's a start. Longhorn is on the way - it's not going to be XP SP3 when it comes out. There is going to be stuff in there not seen before, might even be great stuff. Think IE isn't getting a face lift/massive-rewrite? Think again.

    They have begun the (succ

  • This is the death knell... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by greg_barton ( 5551 ) * <greg_barton@yaho ... m minus math_god> on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @01:58PM (#10070498) Homepage Journal
    This is the death knell for IT development and innovation in the United States.

    Let me paint you a picture:

    1) Microsoft patents as much technology as it can under US jurisdiction.
    2) If you want to make something new, and retain control over it, you must do it outside the US. The rest of the world will make IT innovation more attractive to the masses by championing open source and open standards.
    3) All non-Microsoft IT development goes overseas. (Heck, the labor is already being offshored. Just offshore the whole shebang.)
    4) US loses much of it's ability to innovate in the IT market.
    5) US becomes a technology consumer instead of a technology creator.

    This process is inevitable when so much greed is involved. Witness the US energy industry. By and large it is addicted to foreign sources. This is because of greed and an unwillingness to change the status quo. (i.e. moving to alternative sources other than oil.) Is being addicted to foreign oil a benefit to the US economy? Absolutely not. Is the control of all IT innovation by a central source a benefit to the US economy? Again, no. Does it matter to the short sighted corporations pushing these agendas? Nope. Not one bit.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.

Close