Imafish says:

Microsoft wants to get rid of Linux. But it really can’t. It needs competition to avoid being considered a monopoly. So here�s my theory:

You may have heard that Sun is interested in buying SUSE Linux.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39162358,00.htm

Add that to the fact that Sun is immune from any patent lawsuit from Microsoft for the next ten years:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17627

And what have we got? Sun being the only Linux distributor immune from Microsoft�s patents. Thus, if anyone wants to use Linux and does not want to be sued, they have to go through Sun. And of course Sun will be more than willing to accommodate if they�re also willing to pay high service contracts.

Microsoft wins because the Linux threat would be greatly diminished. Sun wins because it would essentially control Linux.

James Dermitt says:

My theory is that Sun, Microsoft, IBM and all the big players are trying to manage Linux and it just is not managable. Now we have this patent issue and more positioning, posturing and of all things, waiting for the EU. Now Linux is facing lawsuits over 283 registered software patents. Here’s the problem, the way I see it. Nobody really owns Linux in whole, which is why it is open source. Besides this, Linux is a process and not a product. Sure there are Linux based products, but they are just branded packages. You could sell machines prloaded and just brand the hardware. Linux is a generic process, that requires a plan to implement as well as a machine to implement it on. Linux patent claims are just theoretical. Google has built an entire global business organization deploying Linux on servers and providing value for Internet users. Countless universities, businesses and institutions have successfully deployed Linux on networks, PC’s and even iPods on a global basis. Linux uses are not limited by vendors or computer manufacturers. Microsoft limits these vendors and manufacturers. This can hurt innovation and create financial losses.

It seems to me that the diversity of Linux installations would suggest that no standard set of rules goven the use of the process. In the end, a Linux user may unknowingly duplicate a patented process. Because of the open source code, this can be corrected by modifying the operating platform to change its characteristics and behavior on the computer system. This is unlike Microsoft Windows, which cannot be modified at the base code level. This customization of Linux constitutes a process, which is clearly distinct from Microsoft Windows which is packaged, marketed and licensed as a commercially viable product but is not provided at no cost for most consumers. Microsoft Windows enjoys popularity and is legally protected by law. Linux requires no such protections, since the process and code are generated by programmers, anonymous or otherwise and distributed for free or at a nominal fee for media and supporting books and documentation. The overall value of Linux is scientific instead of commercial. This distinction is important, because limiting expression for commercial gain ensures that both will suffer. Linux represents for many programmers and users a language permitting the human communication with machines to occur without service charges. The other side of this coin is that Microsoft Windows limits this language by generating instructions that limit the use of the computer system by the user, based on Microsofts parameters and closed code. As a result, the limits imposed by Microsoft make Linux useful for expanding the horizons of computing and discovery. As a result, Linux will help people solve new problems without the need for costly commercial software packages and upgrades. This makes Linux scientifically more important than a mere commercial operating system and ensures functionality because Linux will not be going out of business, because it isn’t a business. Linux is a process oriented platform for business, but is not dependent on any business or patent. Linux could be compared with an alphabet, but it isn’t that complex, yet. Microsoft Windows in comparison is simply ones and zeros and dollars and cents. Linux doesn’t face these limits and that means a very real risk. People will risk more on Linux than on Windows. Nobody bets against Bill Gates. We’ll soon see how many people bet on Google. Now who is suing who again?

James Dermitt says:

Lintel
In the late 1990’s I purchased a Gateway PC. Gateway could deliver the machine faster by shipping with an AMD processor. Intel, I was told was backlogged. I wanted an Intel machine, because my first PC was a 486/66 Intel running Windows, which provided good service. I didn’t want to wait weeks or a month for my new PC, because of Intel. My first PC was a Leading Edge. Today, Leading Edge is gone, Gateway has closed their stores and I still run AMD processors on machines I build from scratch. I think the bundling concept has run its course. Windows works fine for most users, but as Linux becomes easier it will become more common. If Linux machines are marketed stronger, like Linux distributions on CD with documentation are, this could advance Linux on the desktop rapidly. If Intel were to get more serious about Linux, like IBM has we could see Lintel rise as the new networked computing leader. In the networked economy, you must deliver faster, better and cheaper or face the music. Microsoft appears to be slower, bigger and as a result more expensive. What a swan song.

James Dermitt says:

Mike, If software patents are vague, the EULA are even more perplexing. I love this scheme. Lawyers write these things, end users all agree with them and only the lawyer who wrote the thing understands it. If it goes to court, the lawyers all debate what the EULA meant. This way everybody is protected, but nobody is sure what they are allowed to do, until the lawyers tell the judge. The judge gets confused and then the lawyers claim the law isn’t keeping up with the technology. This means work for expert witnesses, that tell everybody that the whole thing isn’t really that confusing, it is just vague. The lobbyists then work on more legislation and the Congress passes the law of unintended consequences, which results in new EULA’s that are more confusing than the legislation that the Congress passed. It all may seem vague, but that’s the whole point. Maybe all the legalese doesn’t seem to support what the end user thought he wanted, but the software knew what he wanted before he knew he wanted it. All that was required was his agreement that he wanted it, even though he didn’t understand what he was agreeing to in the EULA. If he got a bug, he agreed that it wsn’t the software company’s problem it was his.

John C. Dvorak says:

When it’s vague, it’s vague. What are you supposed to say. A lot of things are vague. AND, from the sounds of it, your Dad could have become an expert witness. You do it by finding some lawyers working on a case to which you can contribute, then offer your services. After that you get called on by others unless you suck. Is this any different than any other job in that regard? You ask around. I get asked a lot because my name comes up while they investigate a case and they run into my articles. But it doesn’t have to be passive like that. I don’t do it to make a living. Plenty of people do.

James Dermitt says:

Let’s do a more scientific analysis of the EULA. Here is a sample to start the process moving forward.

IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: By viewing these web pages, you (“the end-user”) agree to abide by the following conditions. Violation is punishable by law.

1. You will not copy, modify, duplicate, print, transmit, download, interpret, redistribute, evaluate, be inspired by, filter, decode, or otherwise reproduce elements of these pages.

2. You agree to only keep one copy of these pages on your computer at any one time. Viewing these pages with multiple browsers, keeping a disk cache, making printouts with a browser window open, having two people view the same browser window simultaneously, and thinking about one part of these pages while viewing another are strictly prohibited.

3. You will follow a strict Kantian interpretation of these pages. Attempts to view these pages in an ironic or post-structuralist fashion are strictly prohibited.

4. Reviews of these pages and comments to other people must be made in strictly dulcet, admiring tones. For example, “DAC 2001 is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful conference I’ve ever known in my life.”

5. You agree not view these pages on a Thursday.

6. Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother.

7. No guarantees are made as to the correctness, accuracy, pertinence, usefulness, or quality of the material on this website. In fact, there are several out-and-out lies. See if you can figure out where they are. We think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

8. By viewing these pages, you agree that this EULA voids all preceding relevant laws and EULA’s. You agree to waive your rights to sue DAC 2001 for any and all infringement. DAC 2001 will be viewed as strictly above the law, with all the equivalent rights (but not duties) of a sovereign nation-state.

9. This EULA will be considered binding even if you do not explicitly agree to it. This EULA will be considered binding even if you do not view these web pages.

10. The party of the first part shall be known in this EULA as the party of the first part. That’s pretty neat, eh?

11. You are already in violation of this EULA. You will surrender all assets, possessions, and children upon demand. Come to the stone bridge by the misty river at midnight and await further instructions.

Copyright � 2001 Aaron Hertzmann
http://www.stg.brown.edu/conferences/DAC/eula.html

Note: Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.
UPDATE: Microsoft urges automatic update for Windows security update
By Allison Linn, Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/2004-08-06-autoupdates_x.htm