Amazon Has To Pay Microsoft To Use Linux?

from the fud-fud-fud-fud dept

Every few years, Microsoft tries to convince the world that Linux violates its patents. Usually the company gives some arbitrary number of patents. However, when asked to show proof, the company goes quiet. It's the usual FUD. Last year was the first time the issue ever actually showed up in a lawsuit, when Microsoft sued TomTom, but for the most part, it's still not clear what about Linux infringes on Microsoft patents. Still, that doesn't mean Microsoft can't use such FUD to get others to pay up. The latest is that Amazon and Microsoft have done a patent cross-licensing deal. These sorts of "we won't sue you, if you don't sue us" deals are pretty common in the tech world, and hardly noteworthy, other than the fact that apparently some of the patents Amazon are getting protected against being sued over -- concern how it uses Linux:
The deal covers both Amazon's Kindle product as well as the company's use of Linux-based servers.
Even though it's a straight cross-licensing deal, it doesn't sound like any money changed hands, Amazon still had to pay cash to Microsoft, on top of effectively paying more by licensing its own patents. It does seem pretty problematic, doesn't it, when a company has to "pay" Microsoft (whether in cash or via licenses to its own patents) just to use Linux? Perhaps it's time to redefine the "Microsoft tax."


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 2:47am

    Where are those anti-trust guys?? Perhaps it's time to abolish the Microsoft tax...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 3:02am

    So what? Microsoft now has access to a few thousand self-publishers. Good job.

    If you don't think I diagrammed the entire sales process out a year ago for another company, you're wrong.

    What patents? Oh yes... what patents. Existing documented and well defined art. Amazon is a little richer, and Microsoft is a little poorer. Accept it as such.

    Why did Microsoft fire me? Oh yes, because I should have worked for Steve Ballmer. Have fun with that patent portfolio, guys.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 3:13am

      Re:

      Some think my previous comment was in bad taste.

      So just see it for what it is: Perhaps Microsoft wants to get into the end-user fulfillment business.

      Just let that sit for a while...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    someone who actually knows what he's talking about, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 3:14am

    seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

    mike: "it doesn't sound like any money changed hands"

    FTA: "Amazon will pay Microsoft an undisclosed amount of money" ... and that's in sentence 2.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 3:33am

      Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

      Mike hasn't got time to read more than 140 chars. He is in twitter mode.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 3:40am

      Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

      I read the opposite, another source that stated Microsoft will pay an undisclosed amount to Amazon.

      Either way they have their challenges be it logical, temporal, or material. Question is if they actually believe in their heart that they will acquire what they seek.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 4:03am

      Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

      I did miss that sentence and have now corrected the article. Thanks for pointing out that miss. Of course, that makes the point I was trying to make that much stronger.

      By the way, SWAKWHTA, considering that you were caught making multiple mistakes of not having read my posts before criticizing me, you might want to tone down the snark when catching me missing a minor point like that. Just in the last couple of weeks, you falsely claimed a judge said something that I never said -- and even after multiple people called you on it, you still kept pretending I had said something I never said. Then, more recently, you accused me of saying revenue when I meant units -- but when I presented the actual numbers to prove that when I said revenue I meant revenue, you suddenly refused to admit you were wrong.

      It's ok. People make mistakes. I missed that one sentence, but it's now been corrected. I appreciate you pointing out my error (especially since it makes the point of the story even stronger!). You might return the favor and admit it when you're shown to be wrong.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        The Mighty Buzzard, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 4:10am

        Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

        Admitting you're wrong in an Internet argument? That happens about as often as it does in politics.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        someone who actually knows what he's talking about, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 4:14am

        Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

        the source you cited directly in your post said units. you said it said revenue.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 4:24am

          Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

          the source you cited directly in your post said units. you said it said revenue.


          As I said -- and then proved with numbers -- it was revenue. The fact that Peter screwed up at one point in his own post said units didn't change the fact that it was revenue all along. You used the fact that he screwed up in his post to imply that I screwed up. I did not. I said revenue, meant revenue, and never said anything else.

          And you still haven't admitted that you were wrong. Stunning. Really, really stunning.

          Dude, just say it: you were wrong, just like you were wrong when you pretended I said a judge said something, which I never said in my post.

          The more you protest, the sillier you look. I realize that, in your business, you lose money every time you admit you were wrong (which is why you still won't admit who you are, because it would be shameful to connect your name to all of the incorrect and blatantly false statements you've been making on Techdirt the past few weeks) but since you still think you're anonymous on this site, go ahead and admit it. You were wrong. Multiple times. And got called on it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            someone who actually knows what he's talking about, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 4:26am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

            IF THE SOURCE YOU CITED WAS WRONG WHY DID YOU CITE IT AT ALL?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 4:35am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

              IF THE SOURCE YOU CITED WAS WRONG WHY DID YOU CITE IT AT ALL?


              Wow. Chill out a bit. Peter's overall post wasn't wrong. Everything in his post was correct, except at one point he accidentally called revenue "units." But the numbers and the point were all correct -- which I double checked and posted.

              And yet you kept insisting that *I* got confused and said revenue when the reality was units. I showed you that you were wrong. Yes, Peter referred to revenue as units once, and he was mistaken, but the numbers he used was correct.

              Should I not link to a blog post because the author of that blog post made a typo?

              Honestly, compared to the mistakes you make nearly every time you comment here, Peter's mistake (substituting the word "units" when he meant "revenue" -- which was pretty clear to anyone who actually read the full post or looked at the actual numbers, as I did) is pretty minor.

              Not sure why it made you explode, though I guess it's quite telling that you'd rather start screaming than admit that you were wrong. I had a girlfriend like that once.

              Once again, you can just admit you were wrong. I'm assuming you're a functioning adult (even if you seem to break out schoolyard insults like "retarded" and "dense" at me). Apologizing when wrong is what adults do. You can do it. Really. We're all waiting now.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                someone who actually knows what he's talking about, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 4:51am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                i am chill. the caps were for emphasis.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Marcel de Jong (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 5:59am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                  Caps generally means shouting or screaming on the internet, and usually frowned upon in Internet discourse.

                  It's better to use asterisks to emphasise, or use italics, or try to actually say something useful.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  The Groove Tiger (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 9:24am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                  NO, SWAKWHTA, YOU WILL BE KILL BY DEMONS!

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 10:17am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                  i am chill. the caps were for emphasis.


                  And you still can't even admit you were wrong. I'm speechless.

                  You were wrong. You can admit it. Really. You claimed I mixed up revenue and units, I did not. You were called on it, and you insisted I had. I presented you with the numbers... and you disappeared. Yet I pointed it out to you in later threads -- including this one -- and you are still standing by your totally incorrect claim.

                  And now we called you on it and you screamed in response (yes, capital letters are well established as screaming, and since you claim to know what you're talking about on internet issues, I know you know that).

                  And yet... still no admission that you were wrong.

                  Frankly, I'm amazed at the lengths you will go to to avoid a simply statement. Here, I'll even help you out: "Mike, I'm sorry, you were right. I was overzealous in trying to prove you wrong, and I misread your posts."

                  It's not hard.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                johnjac (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 5:55am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                Someone is wrong in the Internet
                http://xkcd.com/386/

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              techflaws.org (profile), Feb 24th, 2010 @ 3:10am

              Someone who actually has a broken caps lock

              Here's a small supply of lower case letters for you, use them wisely: abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            someone who actually knows what he's talking about, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 4:46am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

            also, if someone doesn't respond to a post that is now days back, did you ever think it might be because some of us have real jobs that don't entail responding to some internet tabloid's incorrect statements?

            and amusing as it is that you criticize me for not responding, you abandoned the thread about the judge's ruling that you were definitely wrong about. in your post, you laid out all the steps needed to find the arbitration clause and then you said "this is all very legal." when i pointed out that florida's standard for incorporation by reference is a lot higher than that, you were quick to backtrack on your wording and say it was merely finding the terms "via" a website. you were wrong, and in your failed attempt to mitigate, you just looked even sillier.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 5:21am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

              chill out dude. people make mistakes. mike did. he admitted and apologized. you did, and just wouldn't admit it. you're starting to sound like Lamar Royal

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              someone who always states that "I know all", Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 9:48am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

              Dude, I know all... and I can tell you this:

              You are wrong, and if you don't shut your trap, I will make a lampshade out of your sorry hide.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 10:11am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

              Stunning. You still can't just say you were wrong. It's almost pathological.

              also, if someone doesn't respond to a post that is now days back, did you ever think it might be because some of us have real jobs that don't entail responding to some internet tabloid's incorrect statements?

              First, what's with the repeated insult throwing? Look, I know we caught you being wrong, but can we discuss stuff like adults?

              Second, yes, of course I assume at some point a thread peters out and people will no longer respond. But that's not what we're talking about. In this case, in future threads I pointed you back to that mistake, and you simply ignored it. So no one is saying that you had to respond, but once it was pointed out to you that you made a big mistake, were proven wrong, and yet insisted on repeating your falsehood, at some point most people will admit they made a mistake.

              Except you apparently.

              and amusing as it is that you criticize me for not responding, you abandoned the thread about the judge's ruling that you were definitely wrong about

              No, that's simply incorrect, yet again (you're making a habit of this, and it's not pretty). It was pointed out to you, in great detail, both by myself and a bunch of other commenters on that thread, that you claimed I said something which I most certainly did not.

              I stopped commenting on that thread when it reached the level of you repeating your false claim over and over again, despite me and many others clearly pointing out to you that I had not said what you claimed I had said.

              in your post, you laid out all the steps needed to find the arbitration clause and then you said "this is all very legal." when i pointed out that florida's standard for incorporation by reference is a lot higher than that, you were quick to backtrack on your wording and say it was merely finding the terms "via" a website. you were wrong, and in your failed attempt to mitigate, you just looked even sillier.

              And now you're repeating your false claim, rather than admitting you were wrong in that post as well.

              I laid out a series of steps, and pointed out that "this is all very legal," which was clearly supported by the text of the source I was citing, which I repeated to you, listing out the cases.

              What you then said, incorrectly, was that I must have been referring to what the judge ruled in a different case, even though I said no such thing -- and even explained quite clearly why that particular case *was different*. Yet, you still continued to insist I had said something that I clearly had not said.

              And you are doing so again.

              And you still haven't admitted you were wrong on this topic or the one where you falsely said I screwed up units and revenue.

              You are an amazing specimen.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                someone who actually knows what he's talking about, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 1:31pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                I laid out a series of steps, and pointed out that "this is all very legal," which was clearly supported by the text of the source I was citing
                no. that's NOT what the judge said. you're saying that some document multiple steps away by mere weblinks is "all very legal." you cited the bna article for that assertion (which cited the court opinion). neither the court opinion, nor the bna article stand for the assertion that "this" (being the multiple steps) "is all very legal." you are the only one who said that. the judge did not. otoole from bna did not. incorporation by reference in florida is a much higher standard than that. the most obscure reference for notice in the cases listed was a case referencing some ToS on a clearly labeled sheet directing the user to a specific agreement on a specific page. none of them talked about a paper which leads to a webpage which leads to another webpage which has a link at the bottom which leads to another webpage. on top of all this, a ruling that "this is all very legal" would be a judgment on the merits, and this was clearly a procedural ruling.

                it's even funnier that you are relying on statements by other non-lawyers who also have no idea what they're talking about. truth by consensus only works when the agreeing majority is qualified to formulate an informed opinion.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 1:59pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                  no. that's NOT what the judge said

                  Wow. Look man. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm just stunned. I didn't say that's what the *judge in this case said*. You keep pretending I did, and just did so *again*. It's really stunning. I was no referring to that particular case, because *that* case had a specific fact pattern that was different from what I laid out.

                  But what I laid out *is* supported in the case law -- which is what I said.

                  The fact that you immediately go back to "that's NOT what the judge" said is stunning, because I never said that's what the judge said.

                  I give up. I am *stunned* by the way that you still haven't apologized and admitted you were wrong for the other situation. On this particular issue, I can see that you have it in your mind that I implied what the judge said, even as I said no such thing. I'm willing to chalk that up to a difference of opinion. But on the other one, where you falsely claimed I screwed up units and revenue, when I did not, you were blatantly shown to be wrong, and yet you still won't admit it and apologize. Frankly, it's really amazing. You're beyond the pale. I've never seen someone so afraid to admit he was wrong.

                  it's even funnier that you are relying on statements by other non-lawyers who also have no idea what they're talking about. truth by consensus only works when the agreeing majority is qualified to formulate an informed opinion.

                  It's not truth by consensus. First, other lawyers *do* agree with me. Some of the comments in that thread were from lawyers. Second, the point wasn't a *legal* issue but one of basic reading comprehension. You falsely claimed I made a statement about what the judge said. You were wrong. And anyone (you don't have to be a lawyer) could read it and see that you were wrong. And they all called you on it. And your response is that only lawyers can tell you when you make a false statement? Wow. You're incredible.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    someone who actually knows what he's talking about, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 3:24pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                    I was no referring to that particular case, because *that* case had a specific fact pattern that was different from what I laid out.
                    we already had this discussion and you backed out last time. you cited an article about a case, and while doing so said "this" (meaning burying terms 4732843 steps away) "is all very legal". the judge never said that. otoole never said that. if the case doesn't say what you concluded, there's no reason to cite the case at all. _THIS_ is why you're wrong.

                    even techcrunch calls out shitty journalists for acting like they can cite something and be immune from presenting the other side. if you cite something, you have 3 choices:
                    1) present the other side's position (you clearly did not do this). this is done in fact reporting, and your post is clearly meant as persuasive opinion.
                    2) disagree with the source (you're clearly not doing this).
                    3) agree with the source, and warrant that the source says what you're claiming it says. (this is where you messed up).

                    other lawyers know you're full of shit regularly. as multiple people have pointed out both here and on ben's blog, every time someone calls you out on these massive errors, you act like everyone else is twisting your words and claiming you're saying something you didn't. maybe it's because you don't know the basic rules of inferences and persuasive writing.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 3:44pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                      we already had this discussion and you backed out last time

                      I didn't "back out." I proved you wrong. And yet you keep repeating that you are right.

                      You're amazing.

                      By the way, when's that admission coming that you were wrong about saying I claimed units when it was revenue?

                      even techcrunch calls out shitty journalists for acting like they can cite something and be immune from presenting the other side.

                      I don't even know what this means. First why "even techcrunch." You say that as if Techcrunch is some low standard. You keep citing random sources as if they're the final word on how *I* must act. Techcrunch? Some guy named Ben? Something named maddox?

                      You may think you "actually know something," but this remains my site. Until you are my boss, I write what I want. And, when I get stuff wrong, I make a correction and admit the mistake, as I did above. But you seem unable to do the same. Instead, you keep claiming I got stuff wrong when I did not. Amazing.

                      But if I link to another story because it provides additional detail, it does not mean I am limited by the three choices you put forth. I was writing about a particular situation. You keep insisting I must have been writing about something else. I really don't know what to tell you.

                      other lawyers know you're full of shit regularly.

                      You say this as if "all" lawyers think I'm full of shit. Thankfully, I know for a fact that's not true. Lots of well known, well respected lawyers speak to me on a regular basis and don't believe that I'm full of shit. And they put their names behind their words.

                      as multiple people have pointed out both here and on ben's blog, every time someone calls you out on these massive errors, you act like everyone else is twisting your words and claiming you're saying something you didn't. maybe it's because you don't know the basic rules of inferences and persuasive writing.

                      Who's Ben? And why should I care what he has to say? What I do know is that real, well-known, well-respected lawyers agree with my position and regularly say so. That someone who can't even stand behind his own words with a name can't comprehend a basic English sentence and then can't admit when he's been proven wrong, really isn't a concern to me. I just find it fascinating.

                      Look, I proved to you above that when I make a mistake, I'm more than willing to admit it and correct it. I don't "act like everyone else is twisting [my] words." I only do that when folks like yourself make such a claim. And, in my experience, it's been a very small group of people who make those claims -- and they're almost always paid by certain industries who *don't like* what I have to say. Thankfully, the people who really do understand this stuff have no problem letting me know when I'm right and when I'm wrong, which is why I quite often run posts by them first.

                      You act as if my posts are entirely wrong, and no lawyer could ever agree with me. Yet that, like your claim that I confused units and revenue, is demonstrably false. Yet, somehow, I get the feeling you won't admit you are wrong.

                      Finally, if my writing weren't persuasive, I imagine there wouldn't be many people reading and agreeing with me. But, given that we've got a pretty decent sized audience, most of whom do agree, and we get regular thank you emails from folks putting what we write and talk about into practice, it seems that what I have to say is persuasive enough to the folks who actually matter.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 5:41pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                        he's calling you a (shitty) journalist and you aren't refuting it? come one mike, you should have told him right away that you don't think of yourself as a journalist. that this site is not journalism at all; no firsthand news -- just opinion.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        someone who actually knows what he's talking about, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 6:31pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                        ben = ben sheffner... the well respected attorney who is paid more per minute for his opinion than you probably make in a month. you have called him out multiple times, and he's done the same to you. then you spill over the tabloid patrol onto his blog, and everyone says you have no idea what you're talking about.

                        maddox = george ouzounian writing pure opinion that is intended to offend lots of people all the time (maddox is his pen name on bestpageintheuniverse.com). in his prime, his site was getting millions of hits a week easily when those numbers were unheard of on blogs. now he has book deals and a movie deal and he's doing well. he wrote the modern textbook on putting out strong opinions.

                        as for techcrunch, they've been labeled a tech tabloid because of some of the non-fact things they've reported on (like how google was going to buy twitter... or how last.fm gave out usage data to the recording industry). but some of their newer (and trained) writers have railed on crappy web writing which tries to pass off as intelligent discourse -- whenever you cite something in persuasive writing, it's because of one of the 3 reasons above. there are no other options... otherwise you're citing something to fill space. a citation means that either you state both sides, you disagree, or you agree. you can disgree/agree in part, but it's still for those 3 reasons. always. everything else is just bad writing. it's a simple inference, and you clearly don't understand it.

                        you really just don't understand it. first you laid out some fact pattern. you cited to a court opinion. then you said "this is all very legal." if the court opinion you just cited is not your basis for your conclusion of the facts being legal, you're just making shit up (so you're wrong). and if the case you cited IS the basis for your opinion, you're wrong because the court never said that your fact pattern was "all very legal."

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 7:10pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                          Dude. Seriously. We're still waiting for you to apologize and admit that you were wrong. This is getting really funny.

                          ben = ben sheffner... the well respected attorney who is paid more per minute for his opinion than you probably make in a month. you have called him out multiple times, and he's done the same to you. then you spill over the tabloid patrol onto his blog, and everyone says you have no idea what you're talking about.

                          Ah, sure. Ben is "well respected" in a very small circle of industry supporters. He's paid by the industry to push a certain position, and his views are discounted accordingly by many much more well respected attorneys who point out how often he is wrong.

                          Anyway, you are wrong about your claim that I have "called him out many times." I have mentioned Ben a few times. You can look through all of those posts. I have disagreed with his opinion a couple times, but I don't see how any of those are really "calling out."

                          He does have a history of blatantly making false statements about me and Techdirt on his blog. I used to respond and point out the errors, but he told me he was blocking me from commenting after I proved him wrong, so I won't comment on his site any more.

                          Also, not sure what you mean by my "tabloid patrol." Must you throw an insult into every sentence? I thought we were having an adult conversation here.

                          I tend not to point to his blog because it's so unreliable and is often blatantly misleading, and I've never suggested anyone comment there. So really, once again you are caught making stuff up.

                          maddox = george ouzounian writing pure opinion that is intended to offend lots of people all the time (maddox is his pen name on bestpageintheuniverse.com). in his prime, his site was getting millions of hits a week easily when those numbers were unheard of on blogs. now he has book deals and a movie deal and he's doing well. he wrote the modern textbook on putting out strong opinions.

                          Huh? Who cares?

                          as for techcrunch, they've been labeled a tech tabloid because of some of the non-fact things they've reported on (like how google was going to buy twitter... or how last.fm gave out usage data to the recording industry). but some of their newer (and trained) writers have railed on crappy web writing which tries to pass off as intelligent discourse -- whenever you cite something in persuasive writing, it's because of one of the 3 reasons above. there are no other options... otherwise you're citing something to fill space. a citation means that either you state both sides, you disagree, or you agree. you can disgree/agree in part, but it's still for those 3 reasons. always. everything else is just bad writing. it's a simple inference, and you clearly don't understand it.

                          Um. Wow. Ok. You really just throw out insults repeatedly without bothering to understand. I link to lots of sites to provide more details so that people can explore the issues for themselves. I'm sorry that you believe there are certain rules on how you link to websites.

                          Above you were oddly claiming that you can't link to another site if that author has a typo. That just makes no sense.


                          you really just don't understand it.


                          The thing is, it's pretty clear that I do. Quite well, in fact. And it upsets you to no end. I understand that I've shown you to be wrong over and over and over again, and you can't even man up and admit it. I mean.. really. It's one thing not to stand behind your words by putting your name on it, but it's another thing entirely to be caught being dead wrong -- with numerical evidence -- and still insist you're right (and insult those who proved you wrong).

                          It's almost pathological at this point.

                          first you laid out some fact pattern. you cited to a court opinion.

                          No. I laid out a fact pattern, and then I linked to a story about a variety of cases with similar fact patterns. That the story was initiated due to one recent case doesn't mean I was talking about that particular ruling, no matter how many times you claim I did.

                          if the court opinion you just cited is not your basis for your conclusion of the facts being legal, you're just making shit up (so you're wrong).

                          Let's try this again, slowly: I pointed out a *series* of lawsuits that supported that the fact pattern was, in fact, legal. I did not "make shit up" like you did when you pretended I claimed something the judge had said when I said no such thing.

                          and if the case you cited IS the basis for your opinion, you're wrong because the court never said that your fact pattern was "all very legal."

                          Again, I was not "citing" that particular lawsuit.

                          I was talking about a series of lawsuits, mentioned in the linked article.

                          Lots of others read the story and recognized exactly what I was saying.

                          The fact that you are still clinging to this factually incorrect statement after so long suggests a weird pathological need to be right.

                          I mean, seriously. Dude. We proved you wrong. Totally and completely wrong on multiple occasions and asked for a simple admission that you were wrong. And you can't do it.

                          Do you recognize how pathological you are appearing in this thread?

                          I have backed up my position with facts and clear statements backed up by basic logic. You, on the other hand, stick to insults, bald assertions ("you just don't get it") backed up with no facts, and a blatant refusal to admit basic errors.

                          Honestly, I can't believe this conversation is still going on. Just go ahead and admit you were wrong already.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            identicon
                            someone who actually knows what he's talking about, Feb 24th, 2010 @ 7:16pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                            you still have not pointed to a single case that says your fact pattern is "all very legal." the [article about the] case you cited certainly did not say your fact pattern is "all very legal." none of the cases in the article say that your fact pattern is "all very legal."

                            i've explained multiple times that incorporation by reference (especially in florida) is a much higher standard than what your fact pattern described. the fact that you continue to ignore this, not respond to this at all, and now you're getting belligerent, is actually hilarious.

                            think about it this way.
                            1) you're not a lawyer
                            2) you don't know what incorporation by reference is
                            3) you don't know a citation even means
                            4) i called you out for all this ridiculousness
                            5) you're calling me pathological

                            maybe you should look in the mirror. i'm absolutely not wrong. i've even argued this in court before... and won. twice.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            identicon
                            someone who actually knows what he's talking about, Feb 24th, 2010 @ 7:19pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 24th, 2010 @ 8:12pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                              Wow. I mean, outright stunning. You still can't admit that I caught you being 100% wrong.

                              And, you are totally wrong that I don't admit when I am wrong. I did exactly that in *this* thread. When you actually catch me being wrong, I admit it.

                              You still can't say the simple words: "I was wrong. You did not confuse units and revenue."

                              Try it. It's not hard.

                              Come on. You were wrong. You can admit it, just like I did when I was wrong.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                identicon
                                someone who actually knows what he's talking about, Feb 24th, 2010 @ 10:44pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                                i said your write-up was incorrect... the case you cited did not stand for the preposition that you cited it for. now you're saying you cited it because it was just examples... i asked you (multiple times now) to cite a single case which backs your conclusion that burying some terms multiple steps away, and here you are, still not giving a single example, and you're the one telling me i'm wrong. the case you cited certainly does not stand for burying terms multiple steps away.

                                you are so incompetent that you can't realize that those examples from the article are legally and distinctively different than the fact pattern that you proposed. there are fundamental elements in contract formation that you clearly do not understand, and there are basic rules in persuasive writing, and you clearly don't understand either one.

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                •  
                                  icon
                                  Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 24th, 2010 @ 10:59pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                                  Seriously. I'm not even talking about that post any more and you can't let it go. There is no one single case, it was that combination of cases, which O'Toole himself pointed out made the basic fact pattern legal. I already quoted you the passage where he listed out the variety of citations and explained why the basic issue of not directly showing someone a contract was legal. I don't see why you keep insisting otherwise, but I'm amazed at your obliviousness. But let's be clear. You falsely claimed that I said a judge said something, which I never said. You were wrong. I proved you wrong. Everyone else in that thread agreed that you were wrong.

                                  But clearly we're never going to agree, so let's agree to disagree on this.

                                  But I'm still asking you about why you can't admit you were also wrong about insisting I said units in that other post when I never did. I've now asked you half a dozen times in this thread alone to admit you were wrong, and you have IGNORED everyone. That's really stunning. Talk about amazing cognitive dissonance. I mean, my last comment was totally in reference to that and not to the MetroPCS story, and yet you still go back to that.

                                  Again, the one time (this thread) where you did actually catch a mistake of mine, I had no trouble admitting it. The MetroPCS story is one where reasonable people can disagree (even if you falsely claimed I said a judge said something when I said no such thing). But on the units and revenue question there is no difference of opinion. You got it flat out wrong -- just as I did in the post above about money changing hands.

                                  Yet, when you pointed out the mistake, I was quick to admit error and fix it.

                                  What I'm amazed at is that you seem unable to have the basic human decency to do the same when it was clear that you were wrong.

                                  That's what I'm saying is pathological. I've directly questioned you about that very issue multiple times in this thread alone, and you totally ignore it. As if not admitting you were wrong makes it go away.

                                  Amazing. Totally amazing.

                                  And, to top it all off, you seem unable to make a single argument without an insult, calling me "incompetent" "dense" and "retarded" when every other person who reads these threads seems to understand. And all of the lawyers who I have discussed these posts with have agreed with me.

                                  And you are claiming that I am unable to follow the rules of basic persuasive writing? Just this morning I got a call from one of the largest companies on the planet, asking me to come by and help them because they found my writing on new business models so persuasive that they want to figure out how to implement them with their new line of products. Our readership continues to grow, and I hear from people nearly every day who say they used to think differently about these issues but now agree with me after reading my writing. I don't need you to tell me what the rules of persuasive writing are.

                                  In the meantime, if you were the master of persuasive writing that you claim, somehow I doubt you would be sitting here insulting me, rather than actually responding to the direct question:

                                  Why can't you admit that you falsely claimed I messed up units and revenue when I proved I had not? And, while you're at it, why can't you admit that you falsely said I said a judge had said something when I did not?

                                  I eagerly await your answer.

                                   

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  •  
                                    identicon
                                    someone who actually knows what he's talking about, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 5:56am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                                    "the basic issue of not directly showing someone a contract was legal."

                                    NO. NONE OF THE CITED CASES HELD THAT. THAT'S WHY WHAT YOU SAID IS WRONG. THE FACT THAT YOU CANNOT SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR EXAMPLE AND ALL THOSE CASES SHOWS YOUR INCOMPETENCE. PLEASE LEAVE THE LAW TO THE LAWYERS.

                                     

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    •  
                                      icon
                                      Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 25th, 2010 @ 10:20am

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even reading the source articles anymore

                                      Incredible. You totally ignored my questions again.

                                      I asked you to just admit you were wrong, and you can't do it.

                                      And then you resort to screaming again.

                                      As for your claim that "NONE OF THE CITED CASES HELD THAT." You might want to take it up with O'Toole, who made the same point I did when he said: "there are quite a few court decisions upholding contracts in similar situations." It appears he agrees with me. As have the 3 lawyers (all well known, well respected internet lawyers I asked to look that story over). Again, let's admit that reasonable people can disagree on this and move on.

                                      But, again, that's not the point. I was asking you to admit that you were wrong on those *other* points. I've now asked you a whole bunch of times and you simply ignore it.

                                      You're like a 3 year old. You won't admit you're wrong and when asked directly you start screaming.

                                      Seriously. For someone who complains about *my* persuasive writing skills, do you honestly think you're being persuasive? You scream, you insult, you're too stubborn to admit you were wrong, and you completely ignore direct questions and requests to admit you made a mistake.

                                       

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    OtherKevin, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 4:20am

    You need to dig deeper

    Last year was the first time the issue ever actually showed up in a lawsuit, when Microsoft sued TomTom, but for the most part, it's still not clear what about Linux infringes on Microsoft patents.

    The lawsuit against TomTom wasn't about Linux. I'm pretty sure that it was about the TomTom devices using a Microsoft filesystem in their software without licensing it first. But don't let that stop you when you're talking about FUD.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 5:01am

    Yeah, if you are compatible with FAT you infringe. It seems that Microsoft does not like interoperability.

    How much do they want for each use of Linux - $699 ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    What, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 5:29am

    Linux

    Microsoft sues for how Linux is used by Amazon? Gee, I wanna sue people over things I don't own!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Randall Lind (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 5:30am

    So if any OS reads fat it then owes Microsoft $$? Here my problem is Amazon doesn't write software so why would they have to pay Microsoft anything?

    If I go out and buy a server running Linux it's not my issue if it using Microsoft patents. The maker of the Linux should be sued. Redhat etc.

    So why is Amazon paying?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    PRMan, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 6:32am

    The epitome of monopoly

    Making someone pay you when they use a competitor's product is the ultimate evidence of an unfair monopoly. Come on, Justice Department, where are you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 7:06am

    Again - this whole 'patent issue' is about CONTROL, not 'intellectual integrity.'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NOT someone who actually knows what he's talking a, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 7:06am

    go to your room ...

    @ someone who actually knows what he's talking about

    If you don't like it here you can go away ... you only need to be right when it comes to people who know you & care about your opinion ...

    But I believe that you are here because we give you the attention that you crave. It is entirely possible that like an addict or an alcoholic you have been abandoned by anyone who knows you personally because you are such a drag.

    The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and in no way reflect the thoughts & feelings of any other user of the internet. If you were in the same room as me you'd know that I just stuck my tongue out at you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    tau-lepton, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 7:35am

    On EC2 Linux/Unix instances are cheaper than Windows

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 7:45am

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Kenneth Younger, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 7:46am

    Cross Licensing

    I know that Amazon paid Microsoft in this instance, but the general idea here was that they each got blanket liability protection from infrigement on each others portfolios. THAT was the goal.

    Instinctively I just feel like this shows how useless software patents are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    redwall_hp (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 9:08am

    Posts like this always remind me of how stupid it is that people call Apple "evil" for banning apps from their own store, or things like that. They're not going around suing companies for using Linux, when they probably have patents that give them as good an excuse as MS...

    I don't want to start yet another flamewar here, but it needed to be pointed-out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Infamous Joe (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 9:46am

      Re:

      Despite what you may think, more than one software company can be "evil" at any given time.

      Flamewar averted?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      CVPunk, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 10:57am

      Re:

      I wouldn't be so quick to make Apple "saint" like.
      Since they take code from BSD, I'm not so sure they would be too quick to go after software infringing parties. Unless it comes to design or something to do with iTunes.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      jazzyjeph, Feb 26th, 2010 @ 11:23pm

      Re: "I don't want to start yet another flamewar here"

      "I don't want to start yet another flamewar here" but I will.

      Look peeps i,m a bit stressed about this trolling/lying too but please stop. There is NO excuse for trying to claim something is yours when it is not, Microsoft don't have claims on Linux they are just desperate for attention and Apple have better things to do, as should we.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Peter, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 10:11am

    Microsoft was quick to license UNIX (ie give money) to SCO when they were starting their Linux attack. Because this was a massive Linux FUD generator.

    Now that SCO is essentially dead, they have to do their own dirty work.

    Another problem with these big company cross licensing deals is they create massive barriers for entry for new companies.

    Software patents are a horrible stifling of innovation and competition.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Peter, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 4:40pm

      Re:

      Patents themselves aren't the problem. The patent office is the problem that doesn't understand how software works and will patent just about anything, no matter how obvious or how much prior art actually exists.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 2:51pm

    Steve Ballmer wants to sell Windows 7 Book Pad Edition

    Say "so-long" to the Kindle...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 2:54pm

      Re: Steve Ballmer wants to sell Windows 7 Book Pad Edition

      You know, this probably isn't a bad idea. One of the Tiawaneese knockoffs will find a way around the DRM.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 2:59pm

        Re: Re: Steve Ballmer wants to sell Windows 7 Book Pad Edition

        So you mean that Microsoft wants to get into the direct fulfillment business and sell LOOOOOOOOOTS of books?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 3:04pm

          Re: Re: Re: Steve Ballmer wants to sell Windows 7 Book Pad Edition

          No. Microsoft wants to sell LOOOOOOOTS of "Windows 7 iPad Knockoff Edition" Licenses.

          But to do so, they have to sell LOOOOOOOOOTS of "Windows 7 iPad Knockoff Editions" to LOOOOOOOOOTS of iPad Knockoff Marketplaces.

          Exclusivity to eBooks which were held pretty much exclusively to Kindle and Amazon is no longer. Next thing you'll see is the "Windows 7 iPad Knockoff Server" being hawked to Bookstores and Newspapers across the country.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 3:14pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Steve Ballmer wants to sell Windows 7 Book Pad Edition

            Ballmer isn't very complex. Or profound. This is a problem especially when the company doesn't disclose the entire direction, vision, or desire to those they do business with.

            The vision is 100% wholly non-existent. They do seem to copy what others are doing, inside and out. But this, they don't seem to accomplish well.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously, you're not even going to call the waaaambulance?

    But Mike, don't you get it? If you keep telling your position, I can't control the narrative to support my position and grow in my career!

    You must be quiet or else I will shaftnerize you!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 8:14pm

    Embrace, extend and extinguish

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Feb 24th, 2010 @ 10:49am

    Of course linux infringes on microsofts patents. Microsoft has patented everything from the double click to the page-down button. I infringe their patents every day and so does anyone else who writes software. None of them would stand scrutiny though, they are garbage patents they should never have been granted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rick James, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 11:01am

    It's time to pay

    It's time for Linux users to start paying Microsoft for violations of patents.

    It's actually better just to leave legacy Linux and move on to Windows.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Eric, Feb 27th, 2010 @ 12:46pm

    SCO Linux patent infringement suit

    If anyone cares about a very real case charging Linux with patent infringement, I recommend http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20080803065719599 That case has been going on for years.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    david davidson, May 16th, 2011 @ 5:30pm

    Microsoft

    Microsoft was founded by a theiving person that stole off his friends, how can you trust a person like that, Linux has been going for ages, despite Microsoft trying to destroy it.
    Linux will hopefully always be open source code.
    If i had to depend on Microsoft i would burn my laptop.
    Microsoft means "rip off, stealing merchants". end of story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    mematematica (profile), Jul 7th, 2011 @ 12:30am

    What? The hypoallergenic cat is a LIE

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This