Microsoft has tried to lay claim to technologies such as IP and DNS.

It all sounds like M$ FUD to me.

Ironically, directly across from that quote were the following two links in the "More About Microsoft" sidebar:

"Microsoft Patches Critical IE Flaw"
"Failed Windows XP Upgrade Downs 60,000 UK Gov't PCs"

Kinda says it all.

Lee Kaiwen,
Taiwan

Yeah,I mean Microsoft must've released umpteen number of patches to cover flaws in previous patches! Now that, absolutely sucks.Microsoft has no moral right to even continue producing software,what with the kind of money they've looted by duping people.

P.S.Although this doesn't belong here,but still,since most forums are down,I'd like to convey my heartfelt sorrow on the passing of Dimebag.This is the greatest loss the metal community has suffered in the past decade.Rest in peace,my friend.

I believe Microsoft's struggle to take down Linux is as hopeless as RIAA trying to take down file-sharing. The Open Source development is spread all over the world, you can't possibly think you can target each and every one of the main developers, the companies and goverments that support such projects; and the countless end-users who spark the movement. I believe that with this risky move, Microsoft is digging its own eventual grave. Ironically, Gates is putting Linux on the spotlight for people who haven't heard of it before all this started.

At work i deal with 90% spyware and virus issues. I love how HP and compaq preinstall this hassle for you! then people ask me what i do to save my own butt. i simply tell them i use another OS and browser, and that i am more careful about stuff. they then want to know what other OS i use. i usally get asked if it is Mac and sometimes DOS. they then are shocked to hear I use neither, well i do have a mac too, and that my OS of choice is linux. they are even more serprised to hear it is free. most of these people don't have a clue.

one woman wanted me to do a redo of her system. she claimed not all the viruses where gone. well i turned it on and found all the software on the system was illegal. like winXP professional beta. i then told her that she really had no way to protect her self and she was lucky we didn't report her to microsoft.

now i personaly would not report her, and i don't think anyone else would. however if you are gonna be a moron and treat us badly because you can't get things your way. well then i don't really have a problem calling good old bill, even if i don't care for microsoft.

Can someone possibly explain in simple terms what patents would be violated by using Linux? Is that the talk of people suing over things like scrollbars and progress bars like I've heard rumors about?

Okay, my comment on this.
According to rules from WTO software patents are excluded. The only place were you have software patents accepted is currently the US. In the EU they want to start to allow this haveing strong resistent. But all the claims are even in the US not so easy to sue.
Though in my opinion the lawmakers should change the law, that the software sellers are responsible for the bug free functioning of their software as any other producer do. That would really help the world.

Cheers Lars

I agree with the view that "software patents" are absurd. If you ask me, patents should only apply to tangible things, not ideas and concepts. From my point of view it is absolutely absurd that patents are granted for "one click shopping" and the like. The current situation would be similar to Ford getting a patent for "a method of controlling the direction of a gasoline powered automobile" (ie, a steering wheel) and then suing any other car maker for violating their patents and infringing on their intellectual property. Weren't patents supposed to have the requirement that an invention be "non-obvious" in order to be granted? Just my 2 cents, as always. -- J.W.

Patents are awarded mainly to maintain a competitive edge in one's field of work.But in reality people acquire them to ward off insecurities.Now certainly if big corporations stand to lose a lot in financial terms-both monetary and market capitalization,they wouldn't want someone else making money off what they spent billions of dollars in making.But that's an old world industry perspective,restricted to hardware and machinery and anything that is material.It certainly doesn't hold true with software and knowledge.How daft is that?Why ould you ever restrict knowledge?

Just for kicks, here are some examples of patents that in my opinion should never have been even submitted to the US PTO, let alone awarded a patent.

Is a patent for the IsNot operator or a method for processing input from a command line interface really something that we need?

This article has 2 excellent examples of seriously questionable patents, one being a system to allow airline passengers to make a reservation for the toilet in mid-flight and my all time favorite, a patent for hanging a swing on a tree branch. Apparently the swing passed the "non-obvious" test because instead of swinging front to back, you would instead swing from side to side. Sheesh!! -- J.W.

LOL! wow... what a glorious day to live in the US... I think I'm moving to Europe... heh..

SCO stocks almost went belly-up on tuesday after a inside coup started and many upper-management revolted against SCO's stand on the open source community.

Do you have a link to this?

Just search yahoo news for it -- thats where i read it.

I looked it up and it was NOT FOUND!