10.01.07
Why Microsoft/Novell Keep Talking About “Intellectual Property” and Not “Patents”
You are probably aware by now that whenever the issue arises, Novell and Microsoft have the tendency to talk about “intellectual property”, not “patents”. Are there any trademarks and copyrights involved in the deal? Are there any basic rights involved, or does it all boil down to software patents. which are only honoured in north America, Australia, and Japan? Legally speaking (but IANAL), differences in the systems across the world makes “patents” a weaker term than “intellectual property”. The following perspective offers some food for thought.
Full article: Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It’s a Seductive Mirage by Richard Stallman
It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks— three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—into one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The distorting and confusing term did not arise by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely…
In the news you’ll find yet another patent case being spun as a case of “intellectual property”, which very well relates to the above observation. It appeared just a day ago.
The amount of compensation is believed to be the highest in China in an intellectual property rights case, the paper said.
In another new item, Eben Moglen talks about the value of sharing and the protection of one’s privacy.
Convincing us that we have willingly given away our data and that those who now possess it have the right to use it, Moglen proposes voluntary data collectives as the answer.
In the following video, a statement is being made. Quoting of other people is a fundamental right, which is sometimes taken away.
Quotation rights have been universal ever since the written language developed. It’s absurd to disallow the ancient right to quote in the name of intellectual property. It’s anti progress, anti democracy and anti civilization too.
Isn’t quoting an individual akin to mimicking behaviour of software only for interoperability purposes? There is no way around it because misquoting a person is analogous to incompatibility and partial compatibility.
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.