Posted on 03/08/2006 5:49:56 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
I already gave you a link where he said all patents were all harmful. Why didn't you apologize then?
You gave me a link where he said all software patents were harmful. Software patents, a small subset of all patents.
Do you get it now, or do I need to simplify it below first-grade level?
Red Hat Directory Server 7.1 (Not Fedora Directory Server) and Red Hat Console and Administration Server are both non-released code.
"remaun"?
You're cracking up.
Software patents are patents, why do you keep claiming otherwise?
That's it? Nothing that's actually needed, then.
Stick with insults flamer, it's the only thing you're halfway good at. Sun doesn't let the Chicoms walk all over it, like you Stallmanites.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=550
No wonder your China buds love linux so much.
http://asia.cnet.com/news/software/printfriendly.htm?AT=39146335-39001094t-39000001c
Doesn't matter. Your argument was (and I quote):
it's a full commercial product the Chinese get to copy, rename, resell,etc, all for free,Without those items, what the Chinese are using is not the full, commercial Red Hat product.
Which makes you a liar.
A quote from your second article:
"Microsoft has been on a charm offensive, including granting the government inspection rights over Windows source code and creating a new CEO position for Greater China."
Sounds to me like it's you guys who love China.
Bingo! Yet again!
Let's start a betting pool. The one who most closely predicts when GE will start posting penguin pictures with Castro hats on them wins $50.
Get some better proof and I'll admit there's a couple of utils left out.
They don't love them enough to allow them to rename their product "Red Flag", and then resell it without a dime back to them. Nothing comes close to that. Nothing could!
Quit being obtuse to avoid your losing. Saying I don't like the Ford Focus is not saying I don't like all Ford cars.
Software patents are a type of patent, and a type that neither I nor Stallman believe should exist. We have no problem with real non-software patents.
Read the history. Until 1981, the USPTO rightfully said that software couldn't be patented. Then a company sued (Diamond v. Diehr), and won, the Supreme Court deciding that software could be patented in this case because it was part of a larger actual physical process.
That was the foot in the door.
Because of that decision, by the mid 90s some software could be patented, but there was confusion. But 1998's State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group opened the door wide open, any software can now be patented, often for the most trivial solution to a problem.
GE, thank you for supporting judicial activism, helping to ruin our patent system and software industry (even proprietary software). Eolas should not have been able to sue Microsoft.
Bullcrap. To hear you tell it, secret, proprietary IP is the be-all, end-all of Microsofts business. And they're opening it up to the Chinese. Not because their software licenses require it, but so they can sell out to the Chicoms to make a buck.
Linux is shared because the license requires it. Microsoft's license does not, but they do it anyway.
Your arugment is ridiculous. "Microsoft is evil since they sell software to China, we just want them to have it for free." LOL, you and the commies think just alike, hate guys who have software patents, hate people who want to sell software instead of give it away, hate capitalists especially the richest guy in the world, etc etc etc. Take your BS somewhere else, it's a laughable sham at best.
YOU are a laughable sham.
Is Microsoft obligated to reveal their source code to the Chinese in order to distribute their OS? Of course not. They do it because they WANT to.
And again, you post a list of generalizations about me that you pulled out of thin air. Easier beating down straw men than dealing with facts, no doubt.
BTW, did you ever find those posts backing up the accusations you made earlier?
Microsoft only shared their source as a response to Linux. Without it, they wouldn't have shared squat.
And of course, allowing a peek under strict circumstances still in no way compares to giving them full rights to modify, duplicate, rename, resell, etc, like you allow the Cubans, Iranians etc to do with open source, who have no access to M s code.
Faking concern over MS's extremely limited sharing is ridiculous, and obviously the sham since you support giving software away completely for free.
"Microsoft only shared their source as a response to Linux. Without it, they wouldn't have shared squat. "
WAHHHHH!
They're only the most profitable company in the whole world, and they can't compete against poor little ol' Linux, which is, as you say, a crappy foreign clone of a real American operating system?
Seems like you need to make up your mind.
BTW, thought you were leaving?
BTW, did you find the posts that back up your earlier accusations of me? I'm still waiting for you to prove you're not a liar....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.