Microsoft Applies For .NET Patent 628
Wojina writes "Microsoft has applied for a comprehensive patent on what appears to be the entire implementation of the .NET CLR (Common Language Runtime) and the framework APIs. Microsoft's CLR is an implementation of the CLI (submitted to ECMA for standardization). Does this bode ill for the Mono project? See the CNET News story." And a chaser: Nept points to this interesting Microsoft-funded .NET obfuscation project.
Erm, isn't it just a virtual machine? (Score:4, Funny)
CNET Article Text (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft declined to elaborate on its plans for the patent, but intellectual property attorneys said that if it's granted, the company could dictate how, or whether, developers of software and devices can link to the
"It looks pretty broad," said Jeff E. Schwartz, a partner with McKenna Long & Aldridge. "It could be fairly significant."
The patent is one of several that Microsoft is applying for related to
IBM is the most prolific patent generator, topping the list of corporate patent awards for the last 10 years. Big Blue landed 3,288 patents in 2002, bringing its total over the past 10 years to more than 22,000. Lately, the company has been focusing on patenting technology related to its computing-on-demand initiative.
Patents have become an increasingly common way for software makers to exert control over their intellectual property. One of the concerns about the proliferation of technology patents is the impact it could have on standards development. Some developers fear the trend will let a few patent holders dictate the direction of standards.
It's unclear what effect the Microsoft
One person affiliated with the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), another major standards body, said it's difficult to comment on the
IBM said last year that it would not charge royalties on patented technology that is part of an e-commerce Web standard.
More and more, the patent debate is pitting companies like IBM and Microsoft--which are looking to patents to protect and recoup the millions of dollars they spend developing products--against members of the open-source and free software movements, which say the patent process stifles innovation by covering processes that are common on the Web.
People like Free Software Foundation guru Richard Stallman have urged boycotts of companies that aggressively enforce patents.
Meanwhile, Bruce Perens, a consultant and leader of the open-source movement, worries that Microsoft's patents could shut out alternative software development. "Microsoft is being careful to patent every aspect of APIs related to
Open-source developers are already hard at work trying to build open-source implementations of
Re:CNET Article Text (Score:5, Insightful)
They may also be doing it to prevent or reduce somebody else from filing a similar patent against them. IOW, protecting their own ass from stupid lawsuits. Thus, it is kind of hard to assertain the real motivation behind such.
Re:CNET Article Text (Score:3, Insightful)
But we can infer based upon prior actions. Microsoft has a long history of taking predatory, underhanded actions against anything they percieve as a threat to their domination of any industry that interests them.
Examples please (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Examples please (Score:5, Informative)
The effect of patents and copyright in combatting Linux remains to be investigated.
Examples from Here [ffii.org] include:
ASF: changing copyright rules by means of patents [ffii.org] Microsoft has prohibited a Free Software programmer from writing import/export filters for its Advanced Streaming Format (ASF). The programmer wanted interoperability with a format that Microsoft is promoting. But for Microsoft, interoperability is in this case doubly disadvantageous: besides reducing the lock-in effect, on which Microsoft's platform strategy relies, it also can circumvent the locks on unauthorized copying, by which Microsoft wants to attract content providers to its ASF platform. Whereas in the DeCSS case a court ruling was necessary to enforce new draconian copyright provisions of the highly disputed Digital Millenium Act, in the ASF case a simple patent suffices to achieve the same legislative goal.
and
Microsoft bars GNU software from interoperating with CIFS [ffii.org] During the 1st week of April 2002, Microsoft published a license for its new specification CIFS which it is trying to establish as a de facto communication standard. This license says that free software under GNU GPL, LGPL and similar licenses may not use CIFS. It bases this ban on two broad and trivial US patents with priority dates of 1989 and 1993. Preliminary search results suggst that these patents to not have EP (European Patent) counterparts. But there is nevertheless an EP patent which could possibly be used by MS for the same purpose. Critical network infrastructure such as Samba as well as new projects such as Mono seem to be affected.
There's also this [linuxuser.co.uk] account from Linux User (Warning: It's a pdf file):
Asked by CollabNet CTO Brian Behlendorf whether Microsoft will enforce its patents against open source projects, Mundie replied, "Yes, absolutely." An audience member pointed out that many open source projects aren't funded and so can't afford legal representation to rival Microsoft's. "Oh well," said Mundie. "Get your money, and let's go to court."
There are, I'm sure, other examples which could be provided, but this is just a small sample of Microsoft attitudes with respect to Patents and Free Software.
Re:Examples please (Score:5, Insightful)
The parent was mistaken in thinking that I had said Microsoft had a history of using Patent litigation as a means to chill Free Software, and in thinking that only a past history of filing patent suits against other companies was relevant in determining their intentions. I had said we can infer Microsoft's intentions based upon their past predatory actions. Microsoft's repeated criminal abuse of its Monopoly status, its actions towards Netscape, Java, DR-DOS, Stac, and countless other products, along with the threatening language they've used towards free software projects like those cited in my post, can be used to easily infer Microsoft's likely intentions.
It's entirely acceptable for any corporation to publicly declare that they would pursue patent infringement in court, because otherwise they would be opening themselves up to shareholder lawsuits. They have a covenant with shareholders to earn money, and not piss it away by allowing their competition to infringe on their patents.
It's entirely legal and acceptable yes, but it is not necessary to prevent shareholder lawsuits. Patents do not need to be enforced to remain valid, unlike Trademarks. Microsoft holds a number of very broad patents which any number of companies could be said to violate, and yet they are not enforcing them. The CIFS licence patent mentioned above is available for use royalty-free, as long as the software is not covered by the GPL or LGPL. By your logic, the shareholders should be sueing Microsoft for not charging royalties to every company making use of that patent, but that hasn't happened at all. And the same example does demonstrate Microsoft's use of patents to hinder the Free Software community.
Re:CNET Article Text (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe, but they have never used patents to do so. Based on some quotes from billg, I even get the idea that he's opposed to it.
Re:CNET Article Text (Score:4, Interesting)
Hitler didn't use chemical weapons in WWII because he was a soldier in WWI.
Re:CNET Article Text (Score:3, Funny)
Re:CNET Article Text (Score:5, Funny)
What a joke (Score:5, Funny)
Looks like they are patenting. The concept of client server computing.
Well it looks like we all owe them everything.
Where should we send the check?
Re:What a joke (Score:5, Funny)
You can PayPal it to bill.gates@microsoft.com
Or you can go to CompUSA and plunk $579 on Office XP Professional. It all ends up in the same place.
Lots of reasons why I want .NET to fail (Score:5, Interesting)
Lots of reasons why I want
It's benefits a criminal organization. Not one that's been found guilty of crimes once or maybe twice, but lots and lots of times. Those crimes are many and varied, but here's just a few of them: Stac Electronics v. Microsoft, DOJ v. Microsoft, Sun v. Microsoft.
P.S. If you want to split hairs, Stac v. Microsoft isn't a criminal action, it's doesn't stem from a criminal abuse of their monopoly like the other two cases. Instead it was just a case of a small company being driven out of business by willful patent infringement, theft of trade secrets, etc.
Microsoft isn't just one thing anymore. It's too damn big for that. I'm sure even Bill himself knows better than to think that he truly controls the whole ship because it's become big enough that he can't possibly know all the projects, people, etc. anymore. But even a really large company still has a kind of collective personality that it exudes and a large part of the personality both internal and external to Microsoft for many years now is that of a total control freak.
If they don't own it, if they don't control it, if they didn't create it, if it doesn't have a broad stamp from Microsoft on it, then they don't want it. Sometimes it's sufficient for the thing to merely exist and they'll refuse to acknowledge it, other times they need to actively stamp it out because they can't control it.
When was the last time you can remember Microsoft saying they supported a standard? That is, not something they invented and submitted a RFC for, an actual, take it off the shelf and re-implement it without renaming it or "improving" it so it doesn't work with anybody else standard. C++? Basic? HTML? A video or audio codec? Java? Anything?
I'm sure there's something, somebody will point out their excellent support for TCP/IP or something and I'm sure that's true. But if you were to look at Microsoft as a person in your life, you'd wonder what was wrong with him or her such that so much had to be controlled by that person.
When your business is selling the operating systems that 90+% of everybody uses, software development tools should not be a profit center.
Why should I have to plunk down a couple of thousand dollars for a "universal subscription" in order to have access to compilers and basic development information? Sun doesn't have to do that? On this point I'll quote from the
Marketing. Have you been "lucky" enough to catch one of the
So they are going to pull a page out of Intel's bum-bum-buh-bum "Intel Inside" playbook and try to sell the brand like it's sneakers and cola. Trust us, you'll look cool if you use it, and we'll keep hammering the brand on TV so somebody who doesn't have much tech savvy in your organization will ask you if you are using it, or have plans to port to it, or whatever, even if he hasn't got a clue what "it" is in this case.
They don't trust you. They don't like what they can't control and they can't control you. They can try and they always will keep trying but ultimately you are going to see them keep trying to do things and always keep a step towards the door just so they can bolt if they have to. Want to see what I mean? Go visit GotDotNet sometime if you haven't already been there. It's the grassroots community website that Microsoft put up to support
Ever been to SourceForge? Of course you have, everybody has because that's one of the hubs of all open source projects. You can go there and get the source of thousands of cool open source projects and it really serves the community well. There's even hundreds of projects now that list C# among their programming languages. So why did Microsoft feel compelled to create their own GotDotNet Workspaces that is clearly just a ripoff of SourceForge?
A few reasons are fairly clear: First, at many of their workspaces you don't get in unless they know who you are. Ever been stopped at SourceForge and asked for a name and password to look at a project? What about download binaries or source? No? At GotDotNet you will, lots of projects are marked with a lock. Second, forget about all those messy licenses that Microsoft might not approve of, you don't need to worry your little head about BSD vs. GPL vs. LGPL. You've got the one true workspace license that you have to agree to, or else you won't be putting your project there. Lastly, well it's kind of obvious, but it's really all about control isn't it. After all, if you aren't under their thumb, that has to be a bad thing. So a SourceForge that they control is pretty much a requirement, isn't it?
It's a really sad way for a lot of people to waste a whole lot of time rebuilding that which already exists. Wouldn't the whole computing world be a lot better if there wasn't a team of people, maybe a couple of teams of people building complete copies of
In the end, we'll all just be left with another way to do the exact same thing only in a different language. Lord knows the world benefits now from being unable to share media between France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the US, and Japan because we can't all speak the same language. I benefit every day from the fact that I can't read a Japanese manga I might enjoy or understand a TV show from Europe. Once you are done building this tower, go build a few more right beside it using Perl, Python, and Ruby too. They're all trailing behind in certain areas, we need to make sure the same set of stuff is reinvented and rewritten for all of them too.
Re:Lots of reasons why I want .NET to fail (Score:5, Insightful)
thats where miguel has gone wrong. you should not be investing in a project that relies on the continued good will of MS. especially if that project is esentially aiming to take some control away from redmond
"castles made of sand, melt into the sea, eventually"
hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, i think Apache can claim prior art...
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
When you file a patent you enter a negotiation with the patent office. You start by claiming the sun, moon and stars (i.e. claim 1 which you quoted). Usually you end up with considerably more narrow coverage. Sometimes you end up with nothing (no patent).
Re:hmmm (Score:4, Funny)
You're absolutely right. They're going to work on the stars next year.
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
All your moonbase are belong to us.
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
In other news...
Microsoft have recently announced funding for a new research project into the history of space travel. This will build up to culminate in a series of "one-off" TV shows hosted by former X-Files cast members, which will prove conclusively that man has never been to the moon.
A court case against NASA is expected to follow shortly, alleging that other "one-off" TV shows hosted by the same former X-Files cast members and describing man's visit to the moon were faked, and that Microsoft's reputation as the number one supplier of moon-based products has been irreparably damaged.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled Microsoft bashing.
Re:hmmm (Score:3, Funny)
They might have a case for that one. :^)
And a collective exclamation of.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And a collective exclamation of.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And a scolding is in order for Icaza and gang. Has history of M$ taught nothing to you? Do we (Linux/Apache/GNU) are server people, we need to learn from a desktop company how to put an XML wrapper around http requests!
Re:And a collective exclamation of.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And a collective exclamation of.... (Score:5, Informative)
What?! Oh I see, it's Icaza's fault that MS is trying to patent technology so vague that it even affects Apache.
Or are you saying that nothing is worth doing because someone may try and patent it later?
First of all, this patent only applies to "web services". Mono is so much more than that.
Second of all, Mono was started before this patent was filed, and it hasn't been accepted yet. Say what you will about the patent office, they still reject 75% of all patent applications.. why are you so sure this one will go through?
Re:And a collective exclamation of.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't even trust them then. Unless you've only been hitting Slashdot for the past week you couldn't have possibly missed the whole Sun vs. MS deal with Java. Legally binding document or not -- they'll still try and f-over the competition.
Now they're trying to get a legally binding document to help them cover Java, web services, XML, RPC, and SOAP by wrapping it up in somthing called
If it were IBM, Apple, or Sun I'd give them the credibility to assume they're patenting it to keep it from being non-controlled, and just letting the patent ride out so nobody else can patent it and enforce it. Not with Microsoft though; for them it's all about the short-term money.
STUPID? Well... (Score:5, Informative)
If not, I'd appreciate a reference where MS states the intention of making ASP.NET, Windows Forms, ADO.NET etc. ECMA standards.
Re:And a collective exclamation of "STUPID" (Score:5, Funny)
He wouldn't lie to me, would he?
Patents & Antitrust (Score:5, Informative)
... When a patented or copyrighted product is one of many products competing in a market, antitrust issues typically do not arise from unilateral conduct. However, when a patented or copyrighted product is so successful that it evolves into its own economic market, succeeds in garnering a large market share, or is essential to compete in a market, the antitrust laws and the intellectual property laws collide. The antitrust laws' primary purpose of preserving competition is frustrated when the holder of a patent or copyright exercises the exclusionary market power that comes with those rights.
The United States Supreme Court has yet to deal with these knotty issues, although the Court apparently is seriously considering doing so....
Cheers, Joel
Re:Patents & Antitrust (Score:3, Insightful)
So let's assume that Windows has evolved into its own economic market. The desktop user software market. Where does
So if they're in separate markets (they might not be, I'm not a market analyst), does the company itself, being a monopolist, justify denying them a patent upon a market they don't have a monopoly?
Re:Patents & Antitrust (Score:4, Interesting)
shooting themselves in the foot (Score:4, Insightful)
Chalk another one up for greed and mis-guided beliefs. IBM backs up their talk about not charging for their patents by donating software to open source. Until microsoft puts their money where their mouth is, they just lost a huge chunk of credibility.
It's just the web services part (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's just the web services part (Score:5, Insightful)
See http://www.scripting.com [scripting.com] for more info.
Okay (Score:5, Informative)
Question 122: Could patents be used to completely disable Mono (either submarine patents filed now, or changes made by Microsoft specifically to create patent problems)?
No. First, its basic functional capabilities have pre-existed too long to be held up by patents. The basic components of Mono are technologically equivalent to Sun's Java technology, which has been around for years.
Mono will also implement multi-language and multi-architecture support, but there are previous technologies such as UCSD p-code and ANDF that also support multiple languages using a common intermediate language. The libraries are similar to other language's libraries, so again, they're too similar to be patentable in large measure.
However, if Microsoft does patent some technology, then our plan is to either (1) work around it, (2) chop out patented pieces, (3) find prior art that would render the patent useless. Not providing a patented capability would weaken the interoperability, but it would still provide the free software / open source software community with good development tools, which is the primary reason for developing Mono.
Re:Okay (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody has far too much faith that the Patent Office will not issue a patent for that which has prior art. Sorry, but it doesn't look that way from here. The PTO may well grant a patent, even though it really shouldn't. Then what?
if Microsoft does patent some technology, then our plan is to [...] find prior art that would render the patent useless.
Which means a lawsuit. More specifically, it means defending against an infringment lawsuit brought by Microsoft. This is the sort of thing that the side with the deeper pockets usually wins, just because he can keep stretching things out and delaying final judgement. How deep did you say your pockets were? (We know how deep Microsoft's are.)
I've always been of the opinion that Mono was a misguided waste of development time and talent -- precisely because Microsoft could (and would) torpedo it before it became a real threat (and after it had soaked up a ton of open source developer time and "validated"
Patents are not retrospective (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Okay (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, MS has little to no history of suing for patent infringement. Just because they're filing for patents, doesn't mean they're automaticly going after mono. In this day and age tech companies are using patents as a way to keep score. "See, we're making major technological breakthroughs. We recieved X thousand patents last year." This would be an example of good publicity. Suing the Mono project when they're submitting
Re:Okay (Score:5, Funny)
Question 666: Will Mono ever be genuinely useful enough that Microsoft takes note?
No. Mono will be permanently between 60 and 75% complete. This should be enough to allow toy applications to run and advocates to trumpet our success, but far enough away that no Windows-oriented
Furthermore, we are sure that if some contributors ever bring us closer than 75-80% to source or binary compatibility with Microsoft
We've taken our inspiration from the other wunderkind Microsoft compatibility project, Wine. As most have noticed, Wine has avoided any legal or marketing attention from Microsoft due to systematic lack of useful compatibility. If RMS be with us, we achieve the same.
Re:Okay (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this is Microsoft's plan. If Mono has to chop out pieces, it'll kind of be like embrace and extend in reverse.
Instead of extending the standard to work uniquely with Windows, they'll force other platforms to retract so the standard works uniquely with Windows.
Other Details... (Score:5, Funny)
- The Blue Screen Of Death
- The 200-page EULA in a 5-line scroll-pane
- Solitaire as a Productivity Application
- FUD as a revenue-centre
Didn't they invent Al Gore also?This is surprises me (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the biggest obstacles for
Mono is evil (Score:4, Interesting)
Thats why Ximian is misguided. They actually help MS in their .Net marketing initiatives. Because of them, MS can point to an open source alternative and claim that .Net is kind of open. On the other hand, Ximian only release their code under GPL and GPL-like licenses, not under more permissive BSD license. My belief is that Ximian's business plan involves keeping this right to themselves, probably for sale later on - perhaps in a couple of years - when (if) .Net ever achieves dominance. If that happens, IT mega-companies (IBM and the like) would pay large sums for unrestricted access to a .Net lookalike, and only Ximian will have it. Ximian could dispel this by releasing their code under a BSD license. After all, the normal argument that applies to BSD does not matter here - MS already have their own .Net platform and have nothing to gain from Ximian's code.
Don't support .Net. And don't support Mono. They are Microsoft's whores.
Patent is ludicrous (Score:4, Funny)
The above is just as rediculous as the real thing.
--sex [slashdot.org]
Re:Patent is ludicrous (Score:4, Funny)
A bogus patent ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Raise your hand (Score:5, Funny)
All of those raising your hands, please contact me. I have an exciting opportunity for you. I'm trying to get some money out of Nigeria.
-Teckla
claims are insane (Score:5, Informative)
How are, for example, a web server (handles requests submitted by remote devices) and web browser (interface to present functions used to access resources) not covered by this claim? The next independent claim is:
Like, e.g. SETI@Home over TCP/IP? Or PVM [ornl.gov]?
Or claim 19:
...like, say, Mozilla.
Of course, there are dependent claims that try to make this more specific (ooh, using XML documents over a network, that's original). And, of course, the whole thing could be rejected by the patent office.
Still, it's like they didn't even make an effort to try and avoid the most obvious prior-art objections. Almost like they have complete contempt for the patent office, and confidence that no one will dare to challenge their multi-billion-dollar legal war chest if they ever do assert patent rights over someone. But no, that's crazy.
nope, independent claims should stand on their own (Score:5, Interesting)
In addition to the independent claims, you have a set of "dependent" claims, which are like "The device of claim 1, where [some more specific requirement]." These dependent claims serve three purposes:
I am not a lawyer, but I have worked with a number of lawyers to draft (non-software) patent claims and to deal with US and international patent examiners.
Can you patent the inventions of others? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously: Microsoft explicitly names the
Wow, they are patenting RPC and Web Browsers (Score:5, Insightful)
There is so much prior art for this claim it's not even funny.
But wait, it gets even funnier in claim #4....
4. A software architecture as recited in claim 1, wherein the application program interface comprises: a first group of services related to creating Web applications; a second group of services related to constructing client applications; a third group of services related to data and handling XML documents; and a fourth group of services related to base class libraries.
What?!! A network web service that can handle XML data using (said with pinky put to side of mouth) "CLASS LIBRARIES."
Hmmmmmm... Now where have I seen this before? Maybe Microsoft will try to patent a network service for sending and receiving text messages for the express purpose of communicating.
This is just another example of why software patents need to DIE! DIE! DIE! The sad thing is that about 50 guys had to waste their time writing this patent. Does anyone else see the irony of the first name listed on the patent, "Adam Smith"?
Adam Smith wrote in his famous book, The Wealth of Nations, "Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man or order of men."
Do you see the irony now? Today he would be be called an "ANARCHIST!" and he would definately be at home (somewhat) on slashdot.
Re:Wow, they are patenting RPC and Web Browsers (Score:3, Interesting)
50 guys? You must've never dealt with a patent lawyer. It takes one guy a couple of days to write 20 pages of that gibberish.
They're amazingly good at converting a simple diagram along with a couple of plain sentences into piles and piles of patent-speak.
Re:Wow, they are patenting RPC and Web Browsers (Score:5, Funny)
When we entered the room, we knew what it did, and the lawyer had no clue. When we left, we had no clue, and he seemed to be telling us what it did.
He really did research and stuff, real work he put in. But still its quite funny. They are English Obfuscators.
Re:Wow, they are patenting RPC and Web Browsers (Score:4, Informative)
Personally I had trouble understanding the claims one at a time. I have no clue as to what is actually covered here, and so far I have not heard from anyone else who has a clear idea, so it is a little early to judge whether there might be prior art problems.
Bzzzt. Broad claims can stand on their own. (Score:4, Informative)
See also my other post [slashdot.org] in reply to another person who was similarly confused about patent law.
wait a minute (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure it will fly. US Code title 35 Sec. 102 says something like
"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States"
Mono has been around since July 2001, but since it's half-done, does that count?
No MONO? Great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No MONO? Great! (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed.
One interesting angle is that an OSS VM can very naturally enforce open source. While Java bytecode can be turned back into source code, minus the comments and some stylistic info, an OSS-centric VM could have a bytecode that was exactly equivalent to the source code. This way, it would be effectively impossible to ship anything other than the source.
It's been obvious for 40 years (LISP) or maybe 55 (Turing's ACE Report) that programs-are-data, and tools today like IBM Eclipse go as far as they reasonably can to treat Java this way.
OSS has the opportunity to steal a march on Java and Dotnet and converge the worlds of users and developers. This is a natural evolutionary step, but OSS is only model that has a strong reason to promote it.
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the reasons that Mono got peoples' backs up was that high-quality efforts such as Kawa and Parrot were already well established, and both of these targeted a number of different languages.
There was no need to copy Microsoft verbatim, since the goal of complete portability and interoperability (e.g. Photoshop for Linux) was very unlikely to be achieved. Therefore, development should have continued with one of the existing projects, incorporating any new ideas as appropriate.
One aspect that you gloss over is the utility of having the intermediate language ("bytecode") close or equivalent to the source language. The clear trend of modern development tools is to rely on introspecting components and representing them as source, even if only as an API. These kind of advances are precluded if you have a large gap between the two.
Yes, you should stop work on Mono now as you may be making users liable to lawsuits from the owner(s) of Dotnet patents.
No, SAMBA should not be halted, since protocols are much harder to patent than code, although Andrew Tridgell has certainly recommended inventing a new CIFS.
Java Obfuscation (Score:3, Insightful)
.NET? (Score:4, Funny)
Typical Microsoft Strategy (tm) (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Typical Microsoft Strategy (tm) (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people like yourself are fundamentally opposed to RAD/IDE based development... I never said anything about RAD/IDE. I have authorized the purchase of Borland's products at my company for at least seven years. Their entire marketing strategy centers around RAD/IDE development. My post opposes .NET because I believe that at least one objective at Microsoft is to screw the computing community once again, not necessarily because of technical advances made since Win32 was designed, but because other companies have begun to offer Win32 APIs on platforms that compete with Microsoft's. By starting this .NET fiasco and closing all the legal loopholes from the start, Microsoft once again succeeds in holding back the entire community. And I refuse to fall into their trap.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Walling off .NET (Score:4, Interesting)
If it covers any similar system, and the patent is granted as-is, that would be bad for the Mono project. But if it just covers the
It would be nice if Mono projects could talk to
This action by Microsoft really reminds me of IBM's Microchannel. Before Microchannel, anyone could make hardware cards compatible with IBM computers (ISA bus). The Microchannel PCs (the PS/2 series) were different: you had to license patents from IBM to make cards for Microchannel. IBM probably thought they would be able to lock customers in, but what actually happened was that people voted with their wallets for non-Microchannel solutions. Microchannel drove customers away from IBM and towards IBM's competition.
Does anyone really need
steveha
Patent Everything NOW (Score:5, Insightful)
No biscuit (Score:3, Funny)
what .NET is (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway what is .NET? .NET is _not_ platform independent. You're definitely expected to run it on a Windows server. And to access it with IE. In fact it generates code (this particular code I don't think you can even get at) that makes it favor IE - it writes Javascript functionality for you on the fly but if you're what it calls a "downtarget" browser -- anything but IE - some things are not as nice. For instance validations that in IE happen on the client require a server trip; things like that.
It is supposedly "language agnostic", which means that it can subclass a VB.NET parent in a C# child. This agnosticism only extends to the languages MS has supported for it, namely VB,C#,C++(which is in some way I don't know the details of non-standard C++ in order to be .NET compatible) and J# (if anyone uses J# please tell me I'd be surprised)
What .NET really is in my opinion is a supercharged development tool, and a respectable new language. C# is actually pretty cool, they hired the guy that was the brain trust for Borland Delphi and copied lots of Java ideas - but hey Java is very much a copy of C......But the main thing is it is a very nice environment to code in. You can make a call to SQL Server (of course non-MS databases need not apply for this) and step through the code going through VB and C# function/object calls and then step through the SQL proc all without skipping a beat. And there's lots of type-ahead type things. If you define a function or a class method when you make a call to it the args are displayed. The debugger is very nice, you can roam through the code with a mouse and variables show their values as you pass over them.
I guess what they're going for is convincing tech managers that their programmers will be sufficiently more productive with their stuff to make up for the license costs. I try to find open-source equivalents for any features I like in the MS stuff, there are some respectable things like DDT (I think - the C/C++ debugger) - many emacs packages, JDEE in particular - Wing for Python (not open source though) - but the MS stuff really has some nice features for coders. You can get used to it.......and then news like this comes out and you remember what MS is all about.
Microsoft patenting INTEROPERATION of components (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's CEOs have made it "patently" clear [ffii.org] that they intend to restrict competing .Net implementations by cultivating Microsoft's patents, such as United States Patent Application #20020059425 "Distributed computing services platform" [uspto.gov] which covers the design and inter-operation of .NET based implementations.
Although there is prior art examples of individual technologies such as the JVM etc, Microsoft patents such as the one mentioned, define and claim the interoperation of the components, in such a way that any re-implementations will be sure to be covered by the patents. This remains true even for the Microsoft specs submited to standard
In comparison, Sun has granted the Apache and all open source developers FULL access to the specs, test kits and granted the full rights to develop competing products under the JSPA [apache.org] . Sun has also fully pened up the Java development standards process under the new Java Community Process (JCP) [jcp.org] . Even to the point of granting full open source re-implentations of J2EE such as JBoss [theregister.co.uk] ...
There those that claim that .NET is open to re-implementation, but until Microsoft make a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA, any .NET reimplementation represents a pending legal mindfield.
I have been planning to develop with .NET (Score:3, Informative)
I like developing on Windows as long as the tools are good, and despite the early bugginess of VS
Sorry to say it, but I told you so (as did others) (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft still makes more off Windows sales than anything else -- don't forget that. No matter how ubiquitous Office is, Windows is the cornerstone of the Monopoly. By filing for a patent on
This also bodes pretty badly for
Don't believe me? What shop that isn't pure Microsoft would even consider jumping onto the
It's a stupid move for Microsoft, if they intend to expand and defend their monopoly. It's also a move that projects like Mono and
Tcl-DP is prior art (Score:5, Informative)
Claim 1 reads:
Tcl-DP provided an application configured to handle requests submitted by remote devices over a network (the RPC server), and an application program interface to present functions used by the application to access network and computing resources of the distributed computing system (the dp_RPC command protocol). The client application mentioned in the dependent claims is provided by any application configured as an RPC client.
Don't Panic - Yet (Score:5, Informative)
First, this is a patent application, not an actual patent grant. I doubt that the application would last very long in its current form - it's too broad, even by the USPTO's narrow criteria for broadness.
Second, because Microsoft is standardizing this technology through the ECMA, as an eventual lead-in to ISO, they will be in a difficult position if they start demanding royalties or playing RAND games.
They backed off on the Kerberos thing, and they could be made to back off here too - blatantly targetting the only two competitors in the CLR space (Mono and Portable.NET) won't win them any PR points.
Third, most of what is discussed here has precedents in prior art. If Mono and Portable.NET infringe, then so does the JVM, and that's definite prior art.
We perhaps need to organise a bit to lobby on this one, but it isn't the end of the world - yet.
More information on Portable.NET here [southern-storm.com.au].
Ah, I love the smell of evil in the morning. (Score:3, Funny)
News Flash: "A new anti-trust law passed today requires microsoft ship its software with a new scratch and sniff sticker on all of its products. Lawmakers apparently want consumers to be able to smell the Evil that is Microsoft before making their purchases" But Chairman Bill Gates likes the smell so much that he is painting he new estate in florida with a paint modeled on the scratch and sniff stickers.
News Flash later that day: Microsoft is reportedly trying to aquire a patent on the smell of evil, The odor of fear and the stench of stupidity, all reported important for its next product release.
Here are the APIs (Score:3, Insightful)
From the patent (supposedly 94 namespaces):
System.Windows.Forms System.CodeDom.Compiler System.ComponentModel.Design System.Configuration.Assemblies System.ComponentModel System.ComponentModel.Design.Serialization System.Configuration System System.Net System.Collections System.Globalization System.Net.Sockets System.Collections.Specialized System.Xml.Schema System.Xml.Serialization System.Xml.XPath System.Xml System.Xml.Xsl System.Data.Common System.Data.OleDb System.Data.SqlClient System.Data.SqlTypes System.Diagnostics System.DirectoryServices System.Drawing.Design System.Drawing.Drawing2D System.Reflection System.Drawing System.Drawing.Imaging System.Drawing.Printing System.Drawing.Text System.EnterpriseServices System.IO System.Resources System.IO.IsolatedStorage System.Messaging System.Reflection.Emit System.Runtime.CompilerServices System.Runtime.InteropServices.Expando System.Runtime.InteropServices System.Runtime.Remoting.Activation System.Runtime.Remoting.Channels System.Runtime.Remoting.Channels.Http System.Runtime.Remoting.Channels.Tcp System.Runtime.Remoting.Contexts System.Runtime.Remoting System.Runtime.Remoting.Lifetime System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging System.Runtime.Remoting.Metadata System.Runtime.Remoting.Metadata.W3cXsd System.Runtime.Remoting.MetadataServices System.Runtime.Remoting.Proxies System.Runtime.Remoting.Services System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Binary System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters System.Runtime.Serialization System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Soap System.Security.Cryptography System.Security.Cryptography.X509.Certificates System.Configuration.Install System.Security.Permissions System.Security System.Security.Policy System.Text System.Security.Principal System.ServiceProcess System.Text.RegularExpressions System.Threading System.Timers System.Windows.Forms.Design System.Web System.Diagnostics.SymbolStore System.Management System.Management.Instrumentation System.Web.Caching System.Web.Configuration System.Web.Hosting System.Web.Mail System.Web.Security System.Web.Services System.Web.Services.Configuration System.Web.Services.Description System.Web.Services.Discovery System.Web.Services.Protocols System.Web.SessionState System.Web.UI System.Web.UI.Design System.Web.UI.Design.WebControls System.Web.UI.HtmlControls System.Web.UI.WebControls System.CodeDom System.Data System.EnterpriseServices.Compensating.ResourceMa
legally irrelevant, but shows bad faith (Score:5, Insightful)
However, this patent shows bad faith by Microsoft. If Microsoft wanted C# to be perceived as an open language and core set of libraries, this is the last thing they would want.
Where does this leave us? We have two companies, Sun and Microsoft, that are engaged in some bizarre battle to try and control the software industry. Both have attempted to get patents that allow them to use the patent system to control who implements the language and how (yes, Sun has patents on key aspects of Java). Both are trying to keep control of the software, APIs, and future language evolution. And what is particularly ironic is that all this battle is about decades old technology.
What does this mean? Both open source and commercial users should say "no thanks" to both Java and C#. We need to get back to a model where programming languages and libraries are standardized through open standards processes and where the core language and APIs and are not covered by patents. C, C++, Smalltalk, Ada, and many other languages have shown that this is possible. In fact, had Sun not derailed and preempted the adoption of those other languages with promises of a bright Java future (on which they have failed to deliver), we might well be using some language now that is technically superior to both Java and C# and is covered by a truly open standard.
Re:legally irrelevant, but shows bad faith (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you misunderstood. I used to be a "Java fan" and am responsible for its adoption by several companies. But Sun has demonstrated bad faith and incompetence when it comes to Java over the last half dozen years: not only has Sun patented key aspects of Java, they have also pulled out of several standardization efforts, and they have failed to deliver essential technologies and enhancements that they promised.
I trust you've seen NZHeretic's post [slashdot.org]?
NZHeretic is wrong: it is unclear whether Java is open to reimplementation; Sun still holds key patents, for example, and those have not been dedicated to the public domain. But that question is academic anyway because key APIs (like Swing) are not suficiently documented, so you couldn't reimplement them without reading Sun's sources if you wanted to, and if you do read Sun's sources, you are bound by their source license.
Java is not the answer for open source development--Sun has demonstrated that amply since 1996. There is still some hope for C#: the Mono project is actually increasingly relying on non-.NET APIs. Unless the Microsoft patent also covers ECMA C# (which seems really unlikely), ECMA C# with Gnome libraries may still be a perfectly good and viable choice, whith fewer technical warts than Java and fewer legal problems than Java.
Now, if we are going to develop "the next" programming language or platform, let's look at your points:
Java is not a particularly well-engineered platform because many of its tradeoffs were driven by one environment (platform-independent, untrusted client software) and make no sense for a general-purpose language. And C# has copied most of those bad tradeoffs. Perhaps it's good that both Java and C# are removing themselves from the space of open, free languages: it might be best to start over with a simpler, better engineered system anyway.
PROTEST the patent as too general.... (Score:3, Insightful)
From the FAQ at the PTO:
#50 How does one file protest on patents that are pending?
Protests by a member of the public against pending applications will be referred to the examiner having charge of the subject matter involved. A protest specifically identifying the application to which the protest is directed will be entered in the application file if: (1) The protest is submitted prior to the publication of the application or the mailing of a notice of allowance under rule 1.311, whichever occurs first; and (2) The protest is either served upon the applicant in accordance with rule 1.248, or filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is not possible. For more detailed information on protesting a patent, you may visit our Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep.ht
Disclosure (Score:5, Informative)
Re:implementation? (Score:5, Informative)
If it did then GIF editors not written by Unisys wouldn't have to pay fees.
It's a patent on techniques for implementing .NET, techniques that must be applied to be .NET compatible.
I'm waiting to see Mono's reaction.
Re:Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Back up, most unix-ish C code can be compiled on any vaguely unix-like system with very little modification. I'd call that platform independence, wouldn't you?
Imagine that, and without the overhead of a bloated VM to slow things way down.
java's "bloated" vm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that C doesn't include a standard GUI API, and that many programs require GUIs these days?
Re:Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
> Back up, most unix-ish C code can be compiled on any
> vaguely unix-like system with very little modification. I'd
> call that platform independence, wouldn't you?
Very good point. Back in 1989-91, I was working on a 3D radiation treatment planning program, in C, that had to run under X11 on a DEC MicroVAX, HP, and a SGI, with their various flavors of Unix. The program had a single source, with all the platform dependent stuff (there wasn't a lot of it) isolated from the rest. Back then, platform independence (also known as portability) was the in thing.
Historical note: in the first year of that job, in a lab down the hall, was a pre-3.0 version of Windows. The poor primitive thing was still trying to figure out task switching. By the last year of that job, Linux was born.
> Imagine that, and without the overhead of a bloated VM
> to slow things way down.
Despite the VM and its warts, Java is still a pretty cool language. It would be quite amusing to run Java on one of today's computers side-by-side with a 1990 computer running a C program under X11. I wonder if advances in computing speed really compensate for having a VM?
"The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)
Re:Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, how can you really say 'Linux has had platform independant coding'? If it's actually platform independant, everyone has it.
--Dan
Realworld platform & solution independance ! (Score:4, Insightful)
The goal here is that once a developper has build a binary it is valid for each and every complient platform.
About
So, no, dotNet is not and will not be an competitor against Java platform on the "WORA" ground !
(WORA = Sun's Write Once Run Anywhere)
MS has clearly seen that Java new coding habits bring more productivity than previous technologies without compromissing the reusability of the solutions.
That's the reason, after leaving the Java project for policy reason, they 've decided to build a clone.
The fact they pushed the very core to any kind of standardization process only shows that they do no intend to standardize other part of the platforms (non-CLI APIs for instances !). This have a major impact over the potential portability of designed solution.
To explain this, if you want to design real world dotNnet solutions you are in a way or an other constraint to use the COM+ container (to get transact features for instance), by doing so, your solution become practicaly (but even virtually) Windows tied. Just because COM+ is not part of any standard stuff and is only implemented on Win32. Here is fact !
That's the reason i said earlier, mono is not real worldstuff ! It is fun : ok i can run a Csharp class or two
Here MS has done right pushing affiliates and spinnoffs to FUD the community
Want more fact ?
I got customer of mine whom first run their J2EE applications on Win2k but as soon as they realize if could not stabilized under load, they think of "what if we evaluate an other solution" ?
So we start to test and bench alternatives
At the end we came up with a high power rock stable : Linux with IBM VM, with Opensource J2EE appserver on the same hardware.
That was just amazing, cost were drastically down, stabillity was here and customer thanks lords to have choosen Java 2 years before !
Gess what, i love to have choice
If this application was running on dotNet what would be his choice ?
- Rebuild bottom-top a new application
- Go and pray for a miracle
- Buy a new cluster or blades
- Wait for Windows2003 SP2
That's why i do argue that Linux and Java are the killer team. Java legitimate the linux choice without having to tied the solution to yet another OS.
As a conclusion, i would like to publically thanks all the Java opensource community that brought us very brilliant and reliable software solutions (JBoss, Tomcat, ant, xalaan, Batik, jedit, !
Special thanks goes to the Jakarta Apache groups
-SLK
Feel the choice for liberty !
Re:Linux? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, and with the current state of the Patent and Trademark Office (as for the last few years), just about any patent applied for gets granted, especially if the applicant has deep pockets.
The PTO gets paid more for issuing a patent than for declining one, and the PTO is "self-funding". Furthermore, there's no penalty to the PTO if they're found to have issued a patent they shouldn't have (ie for prior art, obviousness, whatever) -- the penalty is all to those buying, er, obtaining the patent, and to the public for suffering bogus patents.
Re:Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
It is most likely that Microsoft are applying for the patent for purely defensive reasons. I have had many patent shits apply for patents on the work I have done, often many years after it became public knowledge. Getting the patent in first is always a good idea.
Microsoft might possibly go after Linux, but it is much more likely to go after Sun and Java. Their real beef is that Sun has been playing silly buggers with lawyers. That may not be such a hot move when Microsoft have the engineering power to out patent Sun.
While the broader claims of the patent are likely going to be rejected it is almost certain that some claims will be allowed. If so expect Microsoft to make the terms for Sun every bit as unreasonable as Sun's terms for Microsoft.
There is no reason to beat up Linux though, Microsoft does not want to get 100% of the market, they want more like 85% so they don't keep getting slammed for anti-trust issues.
Re:surprising? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dave
Re:Name Changing (Score:3, Funny)
maybe like:
Internet Explorer
SQL Server
C umm - Sharp
word umm - just word, drop the perfect part
You would think that they could at least inovate a product name. Rename MONO
Re:What a shock!? (Score:3, Funny)
New MS slogan: ".NET ain't done 'til Mono won't run."
Re:What a shock!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Goalie_Ca wrote:
Here's a scenario for you: Microsoft builds a platform independent next generation OS that runs on top of .Net, and because of Mono, on top of Linux. This OS is popular because people can run the same applications regardless of the underlying platform and hardware. It quickly gains a near 100% marketshare.
Then Microsoft pulls out all the Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 era tricks it pulled to rid the world of nonMicrosoft DOSes such as DR-DOS. Linux (and OS X if it runs Mono) is discredited and dwindles. As a mere formality (and to rake in a bit of extra dough), Microsoft pulls out its patents and kills Mono.
Endgame: Millennium [microsoft.com]!
Shinoda: "The age of Millennium."
Io: "What does that mean?"
Shinoda: "A thousand year kingdom. It wants to create a home for itself. There is one flaw in its plan: Godzilla."
"Godzilla 2000 Millennium" (Japanese version)
Re:Prior Art up the Wazoo (Score:3, Interesting)
I've also taken a PC-developed Java application and deployed it on a 64-way machine, achiving near linear scalability. Has anyone achieved similar results with Dotnet?
Re:uhhhhh (Score:5, Funny)
This is a pound sign: £
# is not. It's a hash. Most Americans seem to be confused on this, I hope this post clears it up
Besides, "C Pound" just sounds stupid.
It's an octothorpe, silly! (Score:4, Informative)
# is not. It's a hash.
And to think I've been incorrectly referring to it as an octothorpe all my life (except for that brief period when it was simply a "tic-tac-toe board"). I would never think to call C# "C sharp" unless I was talking about musical notes....
Re:Al Gore will have something to say about *that* (Score:3, Informative)
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Yea take it out of context and we have the rampant 'Al Gore Created the Internet' bullshit. All he is saying is that he took the initiative ( The right or power to introduce a new measure or course of action, as in legislation; as, the initiative in respect to revenue bills is in the House of Representatives. ) to support the creation of that network which you call internet.
Now; what does that mean. He isn't saying he made it. He isn't saying he thought it up. He's saying 'I thought this was a damn fine idea, and look! I was right, vote for me because we both use email!)
Please stop raping the dead horse that is this joke. Yes, amuzing at first, now all I can say is 'Get over it and look at the facts.'
Re:Who buys Obfuscated code? (Score:5, Informative)
This is where the obfuscators come in. They start renaming your functions, parameters, types, etc., but only in the MSIL that's in the assembly, not in your source code. There are other levels of obfuscation that some products support, but most of them will at least do this for you. If you don't think that's a big deal, go here [ioccc.org] to see for yourself. Staring at code that has all functions named "a1, a2, a3" and so one, combined with a similar naming scheme for other variables...well, it'll drive you to the bottle.
Many
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)