Microsoft vs Foss Essay Example

Microsoft vs Foss Essay Microsoft’s Foss Patent Infringement Holly Stark ITT Technical IT 302 Abstract This paper takes an in depth look at the claims from Microsoft that FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) committed patent infringement in 2006. It also discusses how the events have impacted FOSS, whether negatively or positively and how the actions have changed both since 2006. Microsoft’s Foss Patent Infringement Free software is wonderful and corporate America seems to love it. Its often high-quality stuff that can be downloaded free off the Internet and then copied at will. Its versatile it can be customized to perform almost any large-scale computing task and best of all its crash-resistant. More than half the companies in the Fortune 500 are thought to be using the free operating system Linux in their data centers. In 2006, Microsoft cast a shadow over Free and Open Source Software by alleging that they had violated 235 patents such as the Linux kernel, Samba, OpenOffice. org and others. Foss’s legal representative Eben Moglen contended that software is a mathematical algorithm and, as such, not patentable. Parloff, R. 2007) But what of Microsoft’s claims? Are they valid? But first to answer that you need to understand what a patent really is. A patent is essentially a limited monopoly whereby the patent holder is granted the exclusive right to make, use, and sell the patented innovation for a limited period of time. Granting exclusive rights to the inventor is intended to encourage the investment of time and resources into the develop ment of new and useful discoveries. Once the term of protection has ended, the patented innovation enters the public domain. We will write a custom essay sample on Microsoft vs Foss specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Microsoft vs Foss specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Microsoft vs Foss specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer The problem of the patentability of software has become one of the most debated issues with regards to open source software. The Supreme Court stated in a unanimous opinion that patents have been issued too readily for the past two decades, and lots are probably invalid. For a variety of technical reasons, many dispassionate observers suspect that software patents are especially vulnerable to court challenge. This ruling works in FOSS’s favor. Patents can be invalidated in court on numerous grounds; others can easily be invented around. Still others might be valid, yet not infringed under the particular circumstances. FOSS has some well known patrons working in its corner as well. In 2005, six of them IBM (Charts, Fortune 500), Sony, Philips, Novell, Red Hat (Charts) and NEC set up the Open Invention Network (OIN) to acquire a portfolio of patents that might pose problems for companies like Microsoft, which are known to pose a patent threat to Linux. So if Microsoft ever sue d Linux distributor Red Hat for patent infringement, for instance, OIN might sue Microsoft in retaliation, trying to enjoin distribution of Windows. Parloff, R. 2007) A preliminary legal analysis of FOSS licenses conducted seems to suggest that the novel licensing model used by FOSS is legally valid, a fact that lends substantial credit to the movement. Other indications as to the soundness of the licenses are also encouraging; a ruling in Germany that has recognized the validity of the General Public License (GPL) ( J. Hoppner,2004), which further serves to stress that FOSS is a global phenomenon that is revolutionizing the entire field of software development. Microsoft realized that something had to change when it comes to patents. They basically had three choices. They could do nothing, it could start suing other companies to stop them from using its patents, or, they could begin licensing its patents to other companies in exchange for either royalties or access to their patents (a cross-licensing deal). They chose to do the latter. In December 2003, Microsofts new licensing unit opened for business, and soon the company had signed cross-licensing pacts with such tech firms as Sun, Toshiba, SAP and Siemens. On November 2, 2006, Microsoft went public and announced a partnership with Novell to collaborate to help Microsofts Windows, a proprietary operating system, work with Novells Suse Linux, which is based on open-source code. In addition, the software makers struck a deal on patents designed to give customers peace of mind about using Novells open-source products. This partnership made Novell the only company in the industry that was able to provide the customer not only with the code to run Linux, but also with a patent covenant from Microsoft. Evers, Joris 2006) Some thought that it showed that Microsoft was kind of being forced to see Linux as a significant competitor and the FOSS model as a viable business model. (Upfold, Peter 2006) My personal opinion is that this was an attack on the open source community. Microsoft hasn’t actually changed its tune; it’s still actively attacking free software and trying to abolish GNU/Linux while promoting Windows and other proprie tary software as though they are complementary to free software, which they are not. It’s PR nonsense and Microsoft is good at PR. Since then, Novell was sold in 2010 to Attachmate Corp. and a concurrent sale of certain intellectual property assets was sold to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium of technology companies organized by Microsoft Corporation. It plays right into the hands of Microsoft’s PR campaign, which strives for a fusion where Microsoft controls both sides of the competition and then derails the side which is less favorable to Microsoft. Microsoft has done that over and over again for many years and victims include giants like IBM and Apple. While FOSS licenses generally protect end user freedom in the realm of copyright, they have no effective protection against threats from software patents, especially from entities outside the FOSS community. In responding to the threat from software patent holders, the FOSS community has created innovative licensing schemes. ( Davidson, S. J 2006) Permissive licenses, such as the Apache licenses, have different patent rights clauses from reciprocal licenses, such as the MPL and GPL. In dealing with potential patent claims, GPL 2. has a â€Å"Freedom or Death† termination clause – â€Å"any patent must be licensed for everyones free use or not licensed at all. † GPL 2. 0 does not allow the development of software that requires any kind of license payments for third party patents. (Hacker. J. n. d. ) GPL 3. 0 was drafted to cope with global software patent threats and to provide compatibility with more non-GPL FOSS licenses. The current GPL draft 3. 0 keeps GPL 2. 0’s copyleft feature and includes new provisions addressing evolving computing issues, such as patent issues, free software license compatibility, and digital rights management (â€Å"DRM†). McMillan, R 2007) As of today, Microsoft is still attacking free software with two types of tactics. The tactics largely include litigation and the use of so-called Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt (FUD) tactics designed to undermine the popular perception of the open source philosophy. This year alone they have won several cases either outright, in appeal or countersuits against Motorola’s Android features. The rest of the FOSS community seems to be on edge and waiting to see what happens next.

Team Work Part 1 & 2 Essays - Criminology, Social Psychology

Team Work Part 1 & 2 Essays - Criminology, Social Psychology Team Work Part 1  CCJ1020-12_Week 4  05/19/2015 Prof. Scott Addlesberger Part I: The Offender There are many differences between a chronic violent offender and a nonviolent offender. A chronic violent offender is an individual who frequently or persistently violates the law. As defined by Marvin Wolfgang, Robert Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin, their definition of a chronic violent offender is delinquents arrested five or more times before the age of eighteen who commit a disproportionate amount of criminal offenses (Siegel & Worrall, 2013). A nonviolent offender is a person causing a crime that does not cause damage, or hurts people. For example crimes like low level drug users, prostitution, shoplifters, burglary, and drug trafficking. Also there are many differences between types of crime committed and the type of offense they commit. These differences include age, race, gender, geographical, and socioeconomic status. There are many differences, but others believe that some nonviolent offenders pleaded out on nonviolent charges but previously did a violent crime at the time wh en they were arrested or in previous arrests. Nonviolent offenders today are taking up most populations in the U.S prisons. Violent offenders are more likely to experience mental health issues, been exposed to violence or been victimized in the community and more likely to exhibit violence when incarcerated. It is important to remember that an individual in the community with mental health issues is not necessarily a violent individual. Violence may be a result of victimization and social exclusion. In the chronic violent crimes, offenders have a pathological tendency to commit and to repeat violent crimes, while in non-violent crimes, offenders don't use physical or emotional violence against victims. Nonviolent offenders are typically those convicted of property crimes. In the U.S. property crimes are often considered more serious than people. Some people do think that just because they are called nonviolent offenders doesnt mean that they should be. For example, It is not hard to imagine that the guy busted for drug trafficking was maybe carrying an illegal concealed weapon at the same time he was collared for slinging rock cocaine and maybe there is strong evidence that he used that gun to throw a few rounds at a rival. Facing an assault with a deadly weapon charge, our drug trafficker is advised by his public defender to cop a plea to selling rock cocaine. And there you have it, he is now a nonviolent offender. In 2004, the Bureau of Justice Statistics studied that 95% of inmates arrested were arrested prior. 33% of nonviolent offenders had history of violent crimes. 8% used a weapon during a nonviolent crime, and 70% of all nonviolent offenders are arrested within three years (Durose, M., & Mumola, C. (2004, October 1). As I said earlier, there are many different variables of each type of offender such as race, age, gender, geographical differences, and gender. But is this really a justifiable way to predict who would become an offender by these variables alone? This is what I would consider a 50/50 percent answer because although it is not morally right to look at a person and say that they will become a criminal but at the same time the way a person carries their self or dress can be a dead giveaway to law enforcement that they are engaged in some kind of criminal activity or at the least will do so. Growing up as a child most of us were told never to judge a book by its cover, but how many times can you honestly say that you never did? If you were like me your answer would be more than usual. Because of the media and what it portrays it seems as though there are more African Americans that are committing crimes and being incarcerated than any other race. Minority group members are involved in a d isproportionate share of criminal activity. According to Siegal and Worrall, African Americans make up about 12 percent of the general population, yet they account for about 38 percent of arrests for Part I violent crimes and for 29 percent of property crime arrests. Part II: The Victim: An individuals risk of criminal victimization depends on their exposure or proximity to offender populations, and exposure, in turn, depends on individuals