Slashdot Mirror

In the 'Stuff to watch' category though, I've found this developer working on hacking his GM HSCAN bus to the point that he can remote start his car from his Android phone with a bluetooth OBDII dongle. He's working on releasing a couple of Android apps, but everything looks good so far. Website http://gtosoft.webs.com/ and Blog http://gtosoft.blogspot.com/

As much as I regret to say it (btw, I founded the European NoSoftwarePatents campaign in 2004), I don't think this kind of resistance to H.264 is going to lead to a solution in the event some of the patents in the MPEG LA pool (just the H.264 pool contains 1,135 patents, and they have more pools under management there) get infringed by an alternative format that everyone would advocate, be it Theora or VP8. In that case, "the lawyers" would come out anyway to collect royalties and impose other terms and conditions.

As a result, whatever alternative that infringes on those patents would end up being unfree (neither free beer nor free speech) anyway.

The call for resistance to H.264 will make a great deal of sense if and when there is a reasonably reliable basis on which it can be assumed that a format such as Theora and/or VP8 doesn't infringe patents. While it's impossible to check on every one of the millions of software patents that exist around the globe, at the very least the proponents of Theora or VP8 (which Google might opensource very soon) should make a well-documented patent clearance effort with respect to the patents held by the MPEG LA consortium and explain why they their preferred codec doesn't infringe on those. Companies like Google or a deep-pocket non-profit such as the Mozilla Foundation could certainly do so if they wanted. I explained this thinking in a recent blog post.

Despite the typo with the excessive "i", the post was right on: those patents exist all over the world. It's not just that they exist, they also get enforced. Even in Germany, despite the fact that we (I founded the NoSoftwarePatents campaign in 2004) defeated a proposal for an EU software patent law, those kinds of patents get enforced quite aggressively. Every year at CeBIT, there are dozens of search warrants and confiscations, most of them related to MP3 and presumably an increasing number related to MPEG video codecs.

In recognition of the unfortunate realities that those patents exist and get enforced, I believe the proponents of other formats than H.264 -- be it Theora or be it VP8, in case Google opensources it -- would have to make some well-documented patent clearance effort and explain -- at least with respect to the patents held by the MPEG LA pool -- why their proposed codec doesn't infringe. I proposed so in a recent blog post, "Video codecs: Food for thought".

It may appear unfair and yes, it's harder to prove that there's no infringement than to prove that there is one, but I believe those propagating certain formats should accept responsibility for all third-party developers who might use their code and incorporate it, on open-source terms, into their projects and then run into serious legal problems. I wouldn't expect this kind of effort from a small open-source project but if there are large companies involved, or a deep-pocket non-profit such as the Mozilla Foundation, then I believe it's not unreasonable to ask them to do so instead of putting people at risk who would be unable to perform that kind of analysis.

Despite the typo with the excessive "i", the post was right on: those patents exist all over the world. It's not just that they exist, they also get enforced. Even in Germany, despite the fact that we (I founded the NoSoftwarePatents campaign in 2004) defeated a proposal for an EU software patent law, those kinds of patents get enforced quite aggressively. Every year at CeBIT, there are dozens of search warrants and confiscations, most of them related to MP3 and presumably an increasing number related to MPEG video codecs.

In recognition of the unfortunate realities that those patents exist and get enforced, I believe the proponents of other formats than H.264 -- be it Theora or be it VP8, in case Google opensources it -- would have to make some well-documented patent clearance effort and explain -- at least with respect to the patents held by the MPEG LA pool -- why their proposed codec doesn't infringe. I proposed so in a recent blog post, "Video codecs: Food for thought".

It may appear unfair and yes, it's harder to prove that there's no infringement than to prove that there is one, but I believe those propagating certain formats should accept responsibility for all third-party developers who might use their code and incorporate it, on open-source terms, into their projects and then run into serious legal problems. I wouldn't expect this kind of effort from a small open-source project but if there are large companies involved, or a deep-pocket non-profit such as the Mozilla Foundation, then I believe it's not unreasonable to ask them to do so instead of putting people at risk who would be unable to perform that kind of analysis.

Despite the typo with the excessive "i", the post was right on: those patents exist all over the world. It's not just that they exist, they also get enforced. Even in Germany, despite the fact that we (I founded the NoSoftwarePatents campaign in 2004) defeated a proposal for an EU software patent law, those kinds of patents get enforced quite aggressively. Every year at CeBIT, there are dozens of search warrants and confiscations, most of them related to MP3 and presumably an increasing number related to MPEG video codecs.

In recognition of the unfortunate realities that those patents exist and get enforced, I believe the proponents of other formats than H.264 -- be it Theora or be it VP8, in case Google opensources it -- would have to make some well-documented patent clearance effort and explain -- at least with respect to the patents held by the MPEG LA pool -- why their proposed codec doesn't infringe. I proposed so in a recent blog post, "Video codecs: Food for thought".

It may appear unfair and yes, it's harder to prove that there's no infringement than to prove that there is one, but I believe those propagating certain formats should accept responsibility for all third-party developers who might use their code and incorporate it, on open-source terms, into their projects and then run into serious legal problems. I wouldn't expect this kind of effort from a small open-source project but if there are large companies involved, or a deep-pocket non-profit such as the Mozilla Foundation, then I believe it's not unreasonable to ask them to do so instead of putting people at risk who would be unable to perform that kind of analysis.

It's true that the new <video> tag in HTML 5 would suggest that a standardized codec be used by all browsers claiming to be fully HTML 5 compatible.

However, the new tag could also be used (even though in a less useful way than otherwise) if there is, which is unfortunately the most likely scenario, no industry consensus on a single codec. Assuming that there are two camps (H.264 and Theora; or maybe three if Google pushes for VP8), web servers could then provide different Uniform Resource Identifiers for the files, based on the browser that makes the web page request; or the file names (thus the URIs) could be identical but dependent on which browser is in use, a different file could be provided.

I have discussed the HTML 5 aspects of this in a recent blog post, "Video codecs: The HTML 5 dimension". While I am against software patents (I founded the European NoSoftwarePatents campaign in 2004, I just try to take a realistic perspective on the fact that software patents exist and get enforced all around the globe (as far as codecs go, there's aggressiv enforcement even in Europe, such as dozens of search warrants and confiscations every year at the CeBIT trade show.

It's true that the new <video> tag in HTML 5 would suggest that a standardized codec be used by all browsers claiming to be fully HTML 5 compatible.

However, the new tag could also be used (even though in a less useful way than otherwise) if there is, which is unfortunately the most likely scenario, no industry consensus on a single codec. Assuming that there are two camps (H.264 and Theora; or maybe three if Google pushes for VP8), web servers could then provide different Uniform Resource Identifiers for the files, based on the browser that makes the web page request; or the file names (thus the URIs) could be identical but dependent on which browser is in use, a different file could be provided.

I have discussed the HTML 5 aspects of this in a recent blog post, "Video codecs: The HTML 5 dimension". While I am against software patents (I founded the European NoSoftwarePatents campaign in 2004, I just try to take a realistic perspective on the fact that software patents exist and get enforced all around the globe (as far as codecs go, there's aggressiv enforcement even in Europe, such as dozens of search warrants and confiscations every year at the CeBIT trade show.

All this talk of dropping nukes in places where we can't really predict the outcome inspired me to look up a movie I watched as a kid.

http://blackholereviews.blogspot.com/2008/04/crack-in-world-1965-apocalypse-back.html

In the end, the rodents always win...

You may want to read the announcement again.
Actually they are going to keep selling it - just not directly, but through resellers. In fact it's scheduled to be released across Europe, through Vodafone, sometime soon.

Rumour has it that the Nexus Two is going to be a slider, made by Motorola, in the style of the Milestone/Droid.

Not a differential, but two: an adder-subtractor.

Found here:
http://staff.science.uva.nl/~leo/lego/diff.html, apllied here: http://technicbricks.blogspot.com/2008/09/tbs-techtips-17-adder-substractor.html

1. They wrote a script / used a tool supposedly to collect only SSID broadcasts.
2. I hope they tested out that in a lab
3. The said SSID broadcasts collected in the lab amounted to a few hundred MBs worth of data. Engineers though, well... maybe we have thousands of active APs in our lab... never mind... it works... lets take it out on the street.
4. From their blog post:

"Networks also send information to other computers that are using the network, called payload data, but Google does not collect or store payload data."

They did not feel it as necessary to verify this information till a audit of the information was sought. All because:

"We do not believe it is illegal--this is all publicly broadcast information which is accessible to anyone with a WiFi-enabled device."

Although some of your points are valid, I think you missed one of the most important issues regarding the entire story: Google were frank about their mess-up.
When we have trouble with privacy with Facebook/MS/Apple/Sony/pick-your-flavor-of-the-month-privacy-issue-culprit you usually have to dig up the info yourself for weeks until you get the company to admit anything was wrong, and then you still have to raise hell to get them to fix the problem (if they can - Sony rootkit fiasco a case in point).
Here Google had many options:
1) They could have found about the error and deleted all information the moment the Germans started inquiring - nobody would have known anything. If asked - do like the politician, deny.
2) They could have issued a short statement claiming that they independently found an error and fixed it, without disclosing too much details.
3) They could have issued a long statement admitting that they started the investigation after the German inquiry, admitting their mistake, their lessons and the steps they took to resolve the issue, including stopping the StreetView WiFi collection project.

I honestly think that Google was as straight-forward and honest as can be admitting their mistake, and that should give them some credit. If their original intent was "evil", I don't think they would have chosen option no. 3.
We keep asking companies to be honest about their practices and mistakes, but when they do admit wrongdoing, we bash them on /. and then promise not to use their services. I personally think that I admire Google for being so honest and will continue using their services, but that's just me.

Oh, and btw, I think it's recommended to read their original blog post - http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/wifi-data-collection-update.html just to have their side of the story straight.

OK Here's my view. Flamebait or not.
Google have repeatedly demonstrated some sketchy regard for privacy of others. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming to implement procedures that allow people to remove street view pictures for example.

I agree that in pushing the envelope that they will come across some interesting social topics like the ones that they found in the first run of street view and the one they are back peddling now. And I do believe in the large amount of good Google have done for open source and data use for the public good, (Google earth and maps for instance).

However Google repeatedly are coy whenever they think about collecting information and get asked for explanations on what they will be doing with it.

In this instance I read a BBC article that indicated that the German government asked to review the data and that's when Google "discovered" this "gaff". It wasn't Google unprompted..

What makes even more sobering reading is Google's own blog which admits they were intending on collecting wi-fi SSID's and MAC addresses.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/wifi-data-collection-update.html
For what purpose, I ask, would MAC addresses be collected?

However officially Google now admit to collecting snippets of payload data which is something they expressly ruled out in the original blog. They say this was a mistake...I have my doubts.

Think it through...They are collecting this data ... the data is 3 years old....did they just sit on it and do nothing with it?
Surely when they started extracting the SSID's and MAC's, they would've noticed the snippets of people emails and websites they also captured...surely the tested the code and the data collected? And then what did they do...Nothing! They didn't exercise any moral judgment and raise the issue of people's privacy on unencrypted networks. They have the platform they could have won some serious brownie points by telling people how to protect themselves. But did nothing. I don't believe they held all this data and didn't know what it was.

This is yet another example of a "mostly good" company collecting peoples personal data for reasons us mere mortals can't understand.

I think there is a real difference between data that is public to your neighbors and then someone posting that data on a billboard in the the main street. For instance, when I'm on holiday perhaps?
Clearly here is an example of data that is not private, in the public domain but is not intended to be distributed to strangers. That level of privacy is not covered by the current laws but needs to be in my opinion.
I could go on but I recon half the people who started reading have stopped already;-), ... suffice to say, I'll be doing less of my searches with Google as a direct result, and ensuring my network is buttoned up even tighter the ever.

UK Law: ...uses wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of a message ... of which neither he nor a person on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient, or

If you read the actual Google blog post, it's made very clear that getting content was not intentional. They're only after IDs and locations of the wifi spots.

You've clearly never worked at any "of the most high-tech companies in the world", if you think this kind of accident couldn't happen in such a place.

Here you are...

$109,533 in annual compensation -- not bad if you ask me but they're going on strike over it...

It does help you get a job and keep it when times are hard. The unemployment rate for high school graduates is about twice the rate for college graduates in this recession.

Are the png's you are talking about somewhere in here:

http://0xfe.muthanna.com/jsnotation/vexnotation.js

Or are they somewhere else?

You are entirely correct on the demo, I withdraw my comments and apologize for my obvious mistake. I was only inspecting the blog post with snippets as PNGs. My mistake, please mod my original post down.

Odd that he says:

I have a fair bit of work to do before I can make it available.

Surely he realizes that he's made it available as you note?

Are the png's you are talking about somewhere in here:

http://0xfe.muthanna.com/jsnotation/vexnotation.js

Or are they somewhere else?

You are entirely correct on the demo, I withdraw my comments and apologize for my obvious mistake. I was only inspecting the blog post with snippets as PNGs. My mistake, please mod my original post down.

Odd that he says:

I have a fair bit of work to do before I can make it available.

Surely he realizes that he's made it available as you note?

I saw this a few days ago and was impressed ... until I tried to look inside. The demo is just a bunch of PNGs. The guy is most likely legit but I don't call it a demo until it's being rendered how the summary claims in front of my eyes. He posted more info on his work the next day. But I was really waiting for the real thing to come out. You know, the thing that makes this important and impressive--the real demonstration of HTML5's power (although it looks like he can do this with SVG as well). Right now it's just a bunch of pictures ... something you could easily hoax.

Idea should actually have to be novel and non-obvious.

Yes, that's the idea and that's what the law says, but every word gets a different meaning under patent law than it has from a common-sense perspective.

Large parts of what the average person would consider "obvious" is considered "inventive" under patent law. That's why different attempts on both sides of the Atlantic have failed to get those FAT patents revoked. People thought that maybe the courts would be more demanding in terms of the inventive step involved than the examiners at the patent offices, but the judges upheld the original decisions to grant.

The Infoworld article makes some good points but the issue is too big to claim that those two pages say all this fight is about.

The emphasis on multitouch (which doesn't rule out that other key patents are held by Apple as well) would be plausible. It's extremely difficult and rare for a patent holder to aim for total annihilation of a competitor. Patents are much more likely to be used against a competitor (i) to maintain a certain premium functionality (ii) or to impose license fees that make it harder for the late entrant to offer his solution at lower prices while increasing your own profitability. Just looking at how two different players deal with HTC, it's pretty clear that Microsoft pursues a licensing approach (which enabled HTC to avoid litigation by agreeing to pay) while it's increasingly probable that Apple actually wants to preclude competitors such as HTC from providing certain functionality (such as multitouch) at all. In that case, litigation (which is now ongoing between Apple and HTC) is rarely avoided because the alleged infringer could only avoid it by reducing the functionality of his product.

The only way for a competitor to get away unscathed, neither having to pay royalties nor having to curtail the functionality of any product, is to strike a cross-licensing deal with the aggressor. So how likely is that to be the solution of the current dispute?

While they are fierce competitors, Apple and Microsoft put a cross-licensing deal in place a long time ago, and Microsoft has such a powerful patent portfolio, especially in connection with operating system and graphical user interface functionality, that it's in a position to do such a deal with Apple. That's good for Microsoft and for its licensees.

But how about everyone else? The camp that would most desperately need a cross-licensing deal with Apple is the whole Android camp, meaning Google and its hardware partners (the vendors who build phones based on Android, be it on the basis of a formal agreement with Google or on open-source terms). As the article explains, Google didn't even try to provide multitouch functionality by default and left it to those hardware partners to tread that dangerous path. When I talk to people, including IT-specialized journalists, about the mobile patent war, there's a very common misconception: "Google can do a cross-license with Apple." However, in recent years Google obtained only about 10% the number of patents that Apple received, and given the areas both companis focus on, it's likely that Google not only has fewer but also has, across its smaller portfolio, a lower percentage of patents that could really pose a threat to Apple. Google isn't a patent powerhouse. I only compared Google's patenting activity to that of Apple, and even Apple isn't extremely big (but some of those patents, especially the ones related to multitouch, may be very critical).

You wanna see a massive patent powerhouse (which however almost certainly won't come to the rescue of Android)? IBM pointed out at a press conference last year that at least at the time it had (and might still have) more patents than Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Apple, EMC, Accenture and Google combined...

It's kind of sad you spent all that time digging these examples up. A lot of them are really not funny, as much as saying that hurts you personally. Not all of them reference other material, but you are best to check this out for examples. I also guarantee the "other people" you show are all on the Internet, which is probably explains your sense of humor.

Here's the blog entry explaining what's new: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/understanding-web-to-find-short-answers.html
Hope it helps!

Official Google Blog: Just the facts, fast 4/07/2005
Hah, only 2 of the 6 examples above work with Squared below.
Official Google Blog: Understanding the web to find short answers and “something different” 5/12/2010

Official Google Blog: Just the facts, fast 4/07/2005
Hah, only 2 of the 6 examples above work with Squared below.
Official Google Blog: Understanding the web to find short answers and “something different” 5/12/2010

http://xkcdwikiwatch.blogspot.com/

Oh and fuck you if you want to use it with Linux.

http://linuxoniphone.blogspot.com/

It was called Google Q&A. Here's the announcement in the Official Google Blog back on April 7, 2005.

Did they market that as a feature you get with a PS3?

Yes.

http://playedstation.blogspot.com/p/sony-ps3-promotion.html

IBM has never been able to stop anyone from innovating based on patents.

IBM has a long history of using patents anticompetitively. There was a company named PSI against which IBM litigated and ultimately IBM bought that company just to shut out competition, but by asserting patents they were able to force PSI's shareholders to sell out. And a more recent example in that tradition: Have you seen the exchange of letters (two in each direction) between IBM and TurboHercules? They use patents to defend their mainframe monopoly. TurboHercules only inquired about the possibility of letting its customers run z/OS (the proprietary mainframe operating system) on the Hercules open-source emulator. They didn't ask about patents or anything, just about software licensing. IBM then claimed that it's an "infringing platform".

In fact, I believe that since IBM has so many patents, they are free to innovate without the threat of being sued for patent infringement. In your example, the lack of patents allowed a parasite to sue RIM. This does not often happen to IBM.

Sorry to say so, but this is completely off base. Against a non-producing entity, no patent portfolio of any size helps you. If RIM had had the same patent portfolio as IBM, or even one that's ten times bigger, it would not have made a difference because they couldn't have used their patents against that non-producing entity. Your own patents will only serve as a deterrent if the aggressor has products on the market and if you own patents to prevent the further sale of those products. Since a troll such as the entity that sued RIM doesn't have products of its own, there's just no way you can ever use a patent against them for retaliatory purposes.

Sure they are an agressive company, but their patents relate to real products, and cannot be compared to the people who sued RIM.

The question of why someone obtains those patents is now more of an ethical question than the really relevant practical question. For someone who faces a patent infringement allegation, it's even worse (for the reasons I explained in a previous post) to be dealing with a strategic patent holder than with a troll, since the latter will "only" want money but the strategic owner may want to shut out competition. Even apart from that, if you have a product and someone holds a patent against you, does it make the problem smaller that you know it's a sort of more legitimate patent holder than a troll? What matters is the impact it will have on your business.

I don't mean to downplay the problem that patent trolls / non-producing entites represent, but they're a feature not a bug of the patent system, as Carlo Piana, a European lawyer specialized on Free and Open Source Software matters, recently said on Twitter. The proponents of this kind of patent system simply want trolls to exist, even though they will from time to time have problems with them themselves.

But a troll just wants to make the money. It's a hold-up situation if you face a troll, but if you cough up the money, he'll leave you alone and focus on the next victim. Even though $600 million is a huge amount, RIM (the BlackBerry maker) not only survived but actually generated huge levels of profits ever since.

By contrast, if Apple decides that no one else should use certain multitouch and other functionality, then only those with a really massive patent arsenal ("mutually assured destruction"), which is what Nokia may indeed have, will be able to solve the problem through cross-licensing. But it's economically practically impossible to solve the problem by offering Apple a check because the strategic value of maintaining a certain competitive advantage is so valuable to the market leader that smaller players can't solve the problem by paying. So if Apple insists on its rights, it can tell vendors such as HTC to stop providing certain functionality, period. Unconditionally. No negotiation. Cease and desist. The only chance then may be that if you can prove a dominant position, antitrust law could be used to achieve compulsory licensing. In Apple's case, that would be very difficult to say the least...

Again, I don't mean to downplay the problem with patent trolls, but in order to ensure that incremental innovation can take place for the benefit of consumers, it's key to watch what the large patent holders are doing, starting with the biggest patent bully on the block, IBM, but also looking at everything else that's going on.

I don't mean to downplay the problem that patent trolls / non-producing entites represent, but they're a feature not a bug of the patent system, as Carlo Piana, a European lawyer specialized on Free and Open Source Software matters, recently said on Twitter. The proponents of this kind of patent system simply want trolls to exist, even though they will from time to time have problems with them themselves.

But a troll just wants to make the money. It's a hold-up situation if you face a troll, but if you cough up the money, he'll leave you alone and focus on the next victim. Even though $600 million is a huge amount, RIM (the BlackBerry maker) not only survived but actually generated huge levels of profits ever since.

By contrast, if Apple decides that no one else should use certain multitouch and other functionality, then only those with a really massive patent arsenal ("mutually assured destruction"), which is what Nokia may indeed have, will be able to solve the problem through cross-licensing. But it's economically practically impossible to solve the problem by offering Apple a check because the strategic value of maintaining a certain competitive advantage is so valuable to the market leader that smaller players can't solve the problem by paying. So if Apple insists on its rights, it can tell vendors such as HTC to stop providing certain functionality, period. Unconditionally. No negotiation. Cease and desist. The only chance then may be that if you can prove a dominant position, antitrust law could be used to achieve compulsory licensing. In Apple's case, that would be very difficult to say the least...

Again, I don't mean to downplay the problem with patent trolls, but in order to ensure that incremental innovation can take place for the benefit of consumers, it's key to watch what the large patent holders are doing, starting with the biggest patent bully on the block, IBM, but also looking at everything else that's going on.

Ciaran, we fought together against the proposed EU software patent law years ago and I agree that most if not all of the problems you mention would go away if legislators abolish software patents entirely (I said "most if not all" because a very small part of those mobile patents may be hardware, not software, patents).

No doubt about the fundamental problem that trolls represent but there's a key difference between them and the big patent holders: a troll will at the end of the day just want to make money. It's a hold-up but if you cough up the money, the troll moves on to the next victim. By contrast, if a major patent holder such as Apple determines that no one else (except those who have key patents Apple absolutely needs) should be able to offer certain functionality, such as some multitouch features, then you can't buy out the market leader: the potential licensees will never have an economic basis on which they could offer enough that Apple would decide to give up some key competitive advantage.

Therefore, it's important to keep a close eye on what the major patent holders are doing, on how they are using their patents. IBM has the biggest patent portfolio of all and unfortunately bullies other companies with it. Apple may not be a contributor to the pool it says will go after Theora and other open-source codecs, but the fact that Steve Jobs knows about such plans and writes about them already says something. Then there are Microsoft's patents, such as the FAT patents. There's no litigation going on regarding those but HTC did agree to pay Microsoft patent royalties. All of those developments are important to watch, and it's key to make distinctions between different ways in which companies can use a patent. For an example, a license agreement (even though it's regrettable if unintentional infringers have to pay for something just because someone else previously took out a patent) is always a better outcome than a patent holder's refusal to negotiate at all.

Concerning abolition, I wish you best of luck with your effort but as long as only the Free and Open Source Software community is seriously committed to the cause while small and especially medium-sized businesses aren't (if they really wanted to get rid of software patents, they'd donate serious money to the FFII or to your campaign), I can't see how it's going to happen anytime soon. Therefore, I'm now increasingly focused on the way those patents get used, not because I like but because I have to recognize the fact that they exist now and will exist for much longer, unfortunately.

Ciaran, we fought together against the proposed EU software patent law years ago and I agree that most if not all of the problems you mention would go away if legislators abolish software patents entirely (I said "most if not all" because a very small part of those mobile patents may be hardware, not software, patents).

No doubt about the fundamental problem that trolls represent but there's a key difference between them and the big patent holders: a troll will at the end of the day just want to make money. It's a hold-up but if you cough up the money, the troll moves on to the next victim. By contrast, if a major patent holder such as Apple determines that no one else (except those who have key patents Apple absolutely needs) should be able to offer certain functionality, such as some multitouch features, then you can't buy out the market leader: the potential licensees will never have an economic basis on which they could offer enough that Apple would decide to give up some key competitive advantage.

Therefore, it's important to keep a close eye on what the major patent holders are doing, on how they are using their patents. IBM has the biggest patent portfolio of all and unfortunately bullies other companies with it. Apple may not be a contributor to the pool it says will go after Theora and other open-source codecs, but the fact that Steve Jobs knows about such plans and writes about them already says something. Then there are Microsoft's patents, such as the FAT patents. There's no litigation going on regarding those but HTC did agree to pay Microsoft patent royalties. All of those developments are important to watch, and it's key to make distinctions between different ways in which companies can use a patent. For an example, a license agreement (even though it's regrettable if unintentional infringers have to pay for something just because someone else previously took out a patent) is always a better outcome than a patent holder's refusal to negotiate at all.

Concerning abolition, I wish you best of luck with your effort but as long as only the Free and Open Source Software community is seriously committed to the cause while small and especially medium-sized businesses aren't (if they really wanted to get rid of software patents, they'd donate serious money to the FFII or to your campaign), I can't see how it's going to happen anytime soon. Therefore, I'm now increasingly focused on the way those patents get used, not because I like but because I have to recognize the fact that they exist now and will exist for much longer, unfortunately.

Ciaran, we fought together against the proposed EU software patent law years ago and I agree that most if not all of the problems you mention would go away if legislators abolish software patents entirely (I said "most if not all" because a very small part of those mobile patents may be hardware, not software, patents).

No doubt about the fundamental problem that trolls represent but there's a key difference between them and the big patent holders: a troll will at the end of the day just want to make money. It's a hold-up but if you cough up the money, the troll moves on to the next victim. By contrast, if a major patent holder such as Apple determines that no one else (except those who have key patents Apple absolutely needs) should be able to offer certain functionality, such as some multitouch features, then you can't buy out the market leader: the potential licensees will never have an economic basis on which they could offer enough that Apple would decide to give up some key competitive advantage.

Therefore, it's important to keep a close eye on what the major patent holders are doing, on how they are using their patents. IBM has the biggest patent portfolio of all and unfortunately bullies other companies with it. Apple may not be a contributor to the pool it says will go after Theora and other open-source codecs, but the fact that Steve Jobs knows about such plans and writes about them already says something. Then there are Microsoft's patents, such as the FAT patents. There's no litigation going on regarding those but HTC did agree to pay Microsoft patent royalties. All of those developments are important to watch, and it's key to make distinctions between different ways in which companies can use a patent. For an example, a license agreement (even though it's regrettable if unintentional infringers have to pay for something just because someone else previously took out a patent) is always a better outcome than a patent holder's refusal to negotiate at all.

Concerning abolition, I wish you best of luck with your effort but as long as only the Free and Open Source Software community is seriously committed to the cause while small and especially medium-sized businesses aren't (if they really wanted to get rid of software patents, they'd donate serious money to the FFII or to your campaign), I can't see how it's going to happen anytime soon. Therefore, I'm now increasingly focused on the way those patents get used, not because I like but because I have to recognize the fact that they exist now and will exist for much longer, unfortunately.

Ciaran, we fought together against the proposed EU software patent law years ago and I agree that most if not all of the problems you mention would go away if legislators abolish software patents entirely (I said "most if not all" because a very small part of those mobile patents may be hardware, not software, patents).

No doubt about the fundamental problem that trolls represent but there's a key difference between them and the big patent holders: a troll will at the end of the day just want to make money. It's a hold-up but if you cough up the money, the troll moves on to the next victim. By contrast, if a major patent holder such as Apple determines that no one else (except those who have key patents Apple absolutely needs) should be able to offer certain functionality, such as some multitouch features, then you can't buy out the market leader: the potential licensees will never have an economic basis on which they could offer enough that Apple would decide to give up some key competitive advantage.

Therefore, it's important to keep a close eye on what the major patent holders are doing, on how they are using their patents. IBM has the biggest patent portfolio of all and unfortunately bullies other companies with it. Apple may not be a contributor to the pool it says will go after Theora and other open-source codecs, but the fact that Steve Jobs knows about such plans and writes about them already says something. Then there are Microsoft's patents, such as the FAT patents. There's no litigation going on regarding those but HTC did agree to pay Microsoft patent royalties. All of those developments are important to watch, and it's key to make distinctions between different ways in which companies can use a patent. For an example, a license agreement (even though it's regrettable if unintentional infringers have to pay for something just because someone else previously took out a patent) is always a better outcome than a patent holder's refusal to negotiate at all.

Concerning abolition, I wish you best of luck with your effort but as long as only the Free and Open Source Software community is seriously committed to the cause while small and especially medium-sized businesses aren't (if they really wanted to get rid of software patents, they'd donate serious money to the FFII or to your campaign), I can't see how it's going to happen anytime soon. Therefore, I'm now increasingly focused on the way those patents get used, not because I like but because I have to recognize the fact that they exist now and will exist for much longer, unfortunately.

The Wired article and most of the media reports and the comments here are focused on patent disputes between the hardware companies involved. But according to a recent announcement, Android is now a high-volume mobile phone operating system and everyone knows that it's a Google project.

Those vendors who, like HTC, decided to build smartphones running on Android had access to the program code on open-source terms. They may not have a formal contract in place with Google at all, or if there is one, it will be more focused on trademark rights because the software itself is under a free license. Still they probably all took a great deal of confidence from Google's backing of Android.

I don't mean to criticize Google for what it has (not) done yet: to step into the ring and bail out companies who took major business decisions based on their reliance upon a Google open-source project. But at some point in time, of which one can certainly argue that it hasn't come yet, there will be industry concern and also concern in the wider Free and Open Source Software community over the extent to which Google stands behind the open-source software it puts out. Google has a significant patent portfolio (small compared to the portfolios of IBM, Microsoft and even Apple, but still much bigger than that of HTC). Google could also pay royalties to patent holders given the important role that Android plays in its overall corporate strategy (Google could become a master licensee of the required patents and then grant sublicenses to vendors selling Android-based phones).

There are rumors that Google plans to open-source the VP8 video codec and it might happen very soon. Multimedia codecs are also a terrible patent minefield. Similarly as mobile phone operating software, they are an OEM component, meaning others incorporate them into their commercial products. Again, it's too early to blame Google for anything here, but the fact that Google doesn't try to bail out the vendors that propagate its Android software raises questions and if Google indeed does open-source VP8, industry will probably want to know about the patent situation. I believe that Google should then at the very least publish an analysis of the patent situation surrounding VP8, including the reasons why Google believes it doesn't infringe on any of the patents held by the MPEG LA pool. That's just one way to look at it. Commercial vendors may, based on the Android experience, actually ask Google for the possibility of an agreement under which Google would hold them harmless of patent infringement suits.

Again, the jury is still out on Google and patent problems with its open-source software, but I believe it's in Google's own best interest to counter an impression that Google puts out open-source projects it effectively controls and lets others take not only the risk that is connected with hardware manufacturing but also, even worse in my view, the risk related to possible patent infringement. It would come down to a game of "if Google wins, it wins; if Google loses (due to patents), its hardware partners lose."

I will be following those future developments closely on my FOSS Patents blog covering open-source patent issues. Now it's still too early to claim Google isn't committed to protecting its open-source initiatives.

The Wired article and most of the media reports and the comments here are focused on patent disputes between the hardware companies involved. But according to a recent announcement, Android is now a high-volume mobile phone operating system and everyone knows that it's a Google project.

Those vendors who, like HTC, decided to build smartphones running on Android had access to the program code on open-source terms. They may not have a formal contract in place with Google at all, or if there is one, it will be more focused on trademark rights because the software itself is under a free license. Still they probably all took a great deal of confidence from Google's backing of Android.

I don't mean to criticize Google for what it has (not) done yet: to step into the ring and bail out companies who took major business decisions based on their reliance upon a Google open-source project. But at some point in time, of which one can certainly argue that it hasn't come yet, there will be industry concern and also concern in the wider Free and Open Source Software community over the extent to which Google stands behind the open-source software it puts out. Google has a significant patent portfolio (small compared to the portfolios of IBM, Microsoft and even Apple, but still much bigger than that of HTC). Google could also pay royalties to patent holders given the important role that Android plays in its overall corporate strategy (Google could become a master licensee of the required patents and then grant sublicenses to vendors selling Android-based phones).

There are rumors that Google plans to open-source the VP8 video codec and it might happen very soon. Multimedia codecs are also a terrible patent minefield. Similarly as mobile phone operating software, they are an OEM component, meaning others incorporate them into their commercial products. Again, it's too early to blame Google for anything here, but the fact that Google doesn't try to bail out the vendors that propagate its Android software raises questions and if Google indeed does open-source VP8, industry will probably want to know about the patent situation. I believe that Google should then at the very least publish an analysis of the patent situation surrounding VP8, including the reasons why Google believes it doesn't infringe on any of the patents held by the MPEG LA pool. That's just one way to look at it. Commercial vendors may, based on the Android experience, actually ask Google for the possibility of an agreement under which Google would hold them harmless of patent infringement suits.

Again, the jury is still out on Google and patent problems with its open-source software, but I believe it's in Google's own best interest to counter an impression that Google puts out open-source projects it effectively controls and lets others take not only the risk that is connected with hardware manufacturing but also, even worse in my view, the risk related to possible patent infringement. It would come down to a game of "if Google wins, it wins; if Google loses (due to patents), its hardware partners lose."

I will be following those future developments closely on my FOSS Patents blog covering open-source patent issues. Now it's still too early to claim Google isn't committed to protecting its open-source initiatives.

The Wired article and most of the media reports and the comments here are focused on patent disputes between the hardware companies involved. But according to a recent announcement, Android is now a high-volume mobile phone operating system and everyone knows that it's a Google project.

Those vendors who, like HTC, decided to build smartphones running on Android had access to the program code on open-source terms. They may not have a formal contract in place with Google at all, or if there is one, it will be more focused on trademark rights because the software itself is under a free license. Still they probably all took a great deal of confidence from Google's backing of Android.

I don't mean to criticize Google for what it has (not) done yet: to step into the ring and bail out companies who took major business decisions based on their reliance upon a Google open-source project. But at some point in time, of which one can certainly argue that it hasn't come yet, there will be industry concern and also concern in the wider Free and Open Source Software community over the extent to which Google stands behind the open-source software it puts out. Google has a significant patent portfolio (small compared to the portfolios of IBM, Microsoft and even Apple, but still much bigger than that of HTC). Google could also pay royalties to patent holders given the important role that Android plays in its overall corporate strategy (Google could become a master licensee of the required patents and then grant sublicenses to vendors selling Android-based phones).

There are rumors that Google plans to open-source the VP8 video codec and it might happen very soon. Multimedia codecs are also a terrible patent minefield. Similarly as mobile phone operating software, they are an OEM component, meaning others incorporate them into their commercial products. Again, it's too early to blame Google for anything here, but the fact that Google doesn't try to bail out the vendors that propagate its Android software raises questions and if Google indeed does open-source VP8, industry will probably want to know about the patent situation. I believe that Google should then at the very least publish an analysis of the patent situation surrounding VP8, including the reasons why Google believes it doesn't infringe on any of the patents held by the MPEG LA pool. That's just one way to look at it. Commercial vendors may, based on the Android experience, actually ask Google for the possibility of an agreement under which Google would hold them harmless of patent infringement suits.

Again, the jury is still out on Google and patent problems with its open-source software, but I believe it's in Google's own best interest to counter an impression that Google puts out open-source projects it effectively controls and lets others take not only the risk that is connected with hardware manufacturing but also, even worse in my view, the risk related to possible patent infringement. It would come down to a game of "if Google wins, it wins; if Google loses (due to patents), its hardware partners lose."

I will be following those future developments closely on my FOSS Patents blog covering open-source patent issues. Now it's still too early to claim Google isn't committed to protecting its open-source initiatives.

The Wired article on mobile patent lawsuits was, quite apparently, written just before the latest front was opened: HTC yesterday announced that it is now "suing" Apple.

However, at a closer look it becomes clear that HTC didn't file a lawsuit in the traditional meaning of the word, which would mean that they take Apple to a court of law. It is only a complaint with the US International Trade Commission. By contrast, Apple (in March) sued HTC in an actual court of law plus lodged a complaint with the International Trade Commission. Only lodging a complaint is rather weak. Fortune/CNN lists the five patents in play and points out that it's only a complaint, not a suit filed with a court, and is not impressed.

On my FOSS Patents blog I comment on developments concerning patents and Free and Open Source Software, and I see the squabble over video codecs as a closely related issue. In both cases, Apple is on the side of the large patent holders and Google favors "open" alternatives. Android is a Google-backed project, and as I explained in a three-part sequence of blog posts on video codecs, Google so far backs Theora and it might now try to establish VP8, after open-sourcing it (which may happen very soon), as a codec standard. Apple, however, backs MPEG LA's H.264 (even though Apple is only a small contributor to the MPEG patent pool; for an example, Apple contributed only one patent out of 1,135 to the H.264 pool).

There's nothing more unpleasant for a proprietary/closed-source vendor to deal with than free/open-source competition. Patents then come into play and can tilt the scales in favor of entrenched proprietary/closed-source players. Sometimes it's sufficient for the major patent holders just to ensure that the "free" alternative won't be completely free, neither completely free as in free beer nor as in free speech. The use of patents against vendors of Android-based phones mobile phone operating software will probably result in increased prices and possibly also in reduced functionality of Android-based phones. The use of patents against open-source video codecs, which Steve Jobs said would happen but without providing any specifics, would have a similar effect for Theora and, possibly, VP8.

The Wired article on mobile patent lawsuits was, quite apparently, written just before the latest front was opened: HTC yesterday announced that it is now "suing" Apple.

However, at a closer look it becomes clear that HTC didn't file a lawsuit in the traditional meaning of the word, which would mean that they take Apple to a court of law. It is only a complaint with the US International Trade Commission. By contrast, Apple (in March) sued HTC in an actual court of law plus lodged a complaint with the International Trade Commission. Only lodging a complaint is rather weak. Fortune/CNN lists the five patents in play and points out that it's only a complaint, not a suit filed with a court, and is not impressed.

On my FOSS Patents blog I comment on developments concerning patents and Free and Open Source Software, and I see the squabble over video codecs as a closely related issue. In both cases, Apple is on the side of the large patent holders and Google favors "open" alternatives. Android is a Google-backed project, and as I explained in a three-part sequence of blog posts on video codecs, Google so far backs Theora and it might now try to establish VP8, after open-sourcing it (which may happen very soon), as a codec standard. Apple, however, backs MPEG LA's H.264 (even though Apple is only a small contributor to the MPEG patent pool; for an example, Apple contributed only one patent out of 1,135 to the H.264 pool).

There's nothing more unpleasant for a proprietary/closed-source vendor to deal with than free/open-source competition. Patents then come into play and can tilt the scales in favor of entrenched proprietary/closed-source players. Sometimes it's sufficient for the major patent holders just to ensure that the "free" alternative won't be completely free, neither completely free as in free beer nor as in free speech. The use of patents against vendors of Android-based phones mobile phone operating software will probably result in increased prices and possibly also in reduced functionality of Android-based phones. The use of patents against open-source video codecs, which Steve Jobs said would happen but without providing any specifics, would have a similar effect for Theora and, possibly, VP8.

The problem with many people who think it's a buzzword is that they think the "Cloud" is nothing but VM hosting with a marketing label attached to it. As I mentioned elsewhere, where and how the cloud resources arrive is irrelevant; they could be entire servers, they could be VMs, it doesn't matter. That part is completely irrelevant. Getting stuck on the idea of a machine at all is an immediate indicator that someone isn't getting the idea in the first place.

This isn't a progression of VM hosting, it's a progression of distributed computing - aka, Beowulf clustering, etc. I was building, programming for, and using Beowulf clusters ages ago. I have people telling me that Cloud is a "buzzword" that haven't even heard of Skyld, or worse - don't know who Don Becker is. If someone pretends to be a sysadmin of any level and doesn't know those things, they have no place lecturing me and saying it's a buzzword.

Which isn't to say that people have to know Skyld & Don to grok the Cloud - just that they must know Sklyd & Don to lecture me on whether it's just the same old thing that's always been.

So yeah, it's not for everything...yet. And as a person that has done plenty of DoD work, I agree it's also not for that...yet. But it will be...especially considering there are DoD "Clouds" in the work that will only be reachable via NIPR/SIPR. Within a short amount of time, any application that hasn't changed itself to be usable on the cloud will have evaporated (apologies for the pun...), imo.

If you look at all the buzz, the standards work etc on cloud computing, they invariably include virtualization. A lot of cloud security topics revolve around virtualization security. This http://anil-identity.blogspot.com/2010/05/summary-cloud-identity-past-present-and.html summary has a decent take down on cloud security. One of the topics covered is about virtualization security being totally different from the perimeter security.

I linked to this is a previous slashdot submission, but for the curious you can see video of some of Armadillo's launches in the past year here:

http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/Gallery/Videos

Youtube version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsdpB6UmrAw

There was also a rather cool news update back in January describing in great detail what they've been up to for the prior 8+ months: http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=369

Also, I disagree with the summary/gizmodo's claim that Armadillo has a "real" rocket while SpaceShipTwo isn't a real rocket. Armadillo has a VTVL (vertical take-off, vertical landing) while Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo is an air-launched HTVL (horizontal take-off, vertical landing). Both are "real" rockets.

Finally, NASA recently put out a request for proposals for a testbed for lunar lander demonstrations, which I think will be right up Armadillo's alley. They'll probably be competing with companies like Blue Origin, Masten Space Systems (Lunar Lander Challenge winner, currently working on their "Xogdor the Meltinator" vehicle), and Unreasonable Rocket:

http://spaceprizes.blogspot.com/2010/05/shoulda-had-tfftb-prize.html

ETDD is for smaller technology development and demonstration projects. Expected subjects for ETDD include in situ resource utilization, autonomous precision landing, advanced in-space propulsion, closed-loop life support systems, advanced EVA, radiation shielding, human-robotic interfaces, efficient space power systems, EDL (entry, descent, and landing) technologies, high-performance materials and structures, and participatory exploration.

The new ETDD RFI is for several technology demonstrations. The subjects of these demonstrations include:
* In-Situ Resource Utilization: This is to demonstrate a prototype ISRU system in a vacuum chamber that can simulate lunar temperatures and that can contain lunar simulant. Later, there would be a flight demonstration at the lunar surface on a robotic precursor mission. Of course this plan brings to mind several lunar space prizes: the Regolith Excavation Challenge, the MoonROx Challenge, and the Google Lunar X PRIZE.
* High-Power Electric Propulsion System for human spaceflight
* Human Exploration Telerobotics: This involves ISS-to-ground telerobotics, ground-to-ISS telerobotics, and large-scale participatory exploration
* Fission Power Systems Technology
* Autonomous Precision Landing: This involves demonstrations on Earth of autonomous landing and hazard avoidance technologies. The long-range plan is to use the technology on a robotic lander on the Moon or other large body. The technology "Must be capable of flying on a variety of lunar lander precursor missions". The two major parts of this demonstration are the Terrestrial Free Flyer Test Bed and the Hazard Detection System.

The Terrestrial Free Flyer Test Bed deserves special attention. This test bed needs to be able to carry 100 kg of sensor/electronics payload as well as supporting mass for other subsystems, fly up to 1 km, translate horizontally, land at various angles ending in the last 30-50 meters with vertical landing, and fly for at least 210 seconds with the payload. I didn't see anything in the RFI about propulsion, but I imagine rocket-powered vehicles would have a bit of an edge.

The modeled effects are derived from the assumption that any unknown drivers must be due to human emitted CO2. Again, the model cannot be its own proof.

Repeating a falsehood does not make it true. When the ability of CO2 to produce global warming was predicted more than a century ago, well before the big rise in CO2 and the warming that accompanied it, it is ridiculous to refer to this as an "unknown driver."

Historical climate data shows increase of CO2 in response to warming, not the other way around. Your prediction does not match the observations.

See the reference cited above. The prediction that an increase in CO2 would warm the climate long predates the big rise in CO2 and the modern warming.

Wrong. RTFA again

Read it. ROFL. For some comments from people who actually understand elementary physics, see here and here

Regardless if an atmosphere is a insulated container or not, the pressure versus temperature relationship of an atmosphere still holds - gravity acts as your container here

Only if you are inside a black hole does gravity prevent heat from escaping in the form of electromagnetic radiation. So the notion that the temperature of Venus can be explained by adiabatic heating is in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of Energy).

Now, have fun explaining how Mars has 95.2% CO2 atmosphere, but never had any runaway global warming. Have fun, think hard, it helps.

Think hard? This is pretty trivial. This sort of thing is confusing only if you don't actually do the math. It's not the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 that determines the warming effect, but the partial pressure. The partial pressure of CO2 in the Martian atmosphere is over four orders of magnitude lower than on Venus, because even Mars's atmosphere is mostly CO2, there is less CO2 than in the Earth's atmosphere.

Which model is your favorite?

Doesn't really much matter, since they are all based on the actual physics, without the flights of fancy you've been advocating. All have a positive feedback between CO2 and temperature, so that CO2 will follow warming if solar output increases, and warming will follow CO2 if CO2 is added to the atmosphere (e.g. from combustion). And none of them give a runaway greenhouse with anticipated levels of CO2.

Look, if you can accept that the model is simply a sanity check and not proof, you're half way there.

Yes, so far all we have is a theory that passes the sanity check of mathematical modeling (which none of the objections to CO2 induced global warming have managed to do) plus a prediction, over a century old, that increased CO2 would produce warming, and observed warming that matches predictions, plus a large mass of historical and prehistorical data that also is consistent with the theory.

It's not surprising that the anti-AGW people avoid coming up with an actual model, because they probably know, subconsciously (and I suspect in some cases consciously) that it would sound ridiculous. It would have to go something like this:

1. There is some, as yet undiscovered, mechanism that limits the warming effect of CO2 on the atmosphere.

2. The apparent increase in average temperatures that has accompanied the modern rise in CO2 is either

a. The result of multiple separate statistical errors in land measurements, sea measurements, and satellite measurements; the fact that they all seem to show warming is sheer coincidence, or

b. The result of some as yet unidentified (but NATURAL!!) warming mechan

On the contrary, the observed warming is consistent with the known and modeled effects of CO2 on climate, so it is not unexplained.

BZZZT. Wrong. The modeled effects are derived from the assumption that any unknown drivers must be due to human emitted CO2. Again, the model cannot be its own proof.

Indeed, nobody has yet managed to come up with a model that is consistent with historical climate data and does not predict warming in response to such an increase in CO2.

Historical climate data shows increase of CO2 in response to warming, not the other way around. Your prediction does not match the observations.

there is no way to explain the high temperature of Venus other than the greenhouse effect of CO2.

BZZZT. Wrong. RTFA again: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/

And another one if you dislike WUWT: http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/05/hyperventilating-on-venus.html

Regardless if an atmosphere is a insulated container or not, the pressure versus temperature relationship of an atmosphere still holds - gravity acts as your container here. Now, have fun explaining how Mars has 95.2% CO2 atmosphere, but never had any runaway global warming. Have fun, think hard, it helps.

You can inspect the actual models, and run them yourself. You will find that they do include this positive feedback, do not make some sort of magical distinction between "natural" and "human" CO2, and do not necessarily result in "runaway" warming.

Which model is your favorite? And you were the one making the distinction between lags and leads of CO2 based on whether or not it was "added" or "not added", not me.

The major role of modeling in science is not to "be its own proof," but rather to help to provide a sanity check to detect errrors.

Ah, Mencken, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. " AGW seems to fit that bill perfectly.

Look, if you can accept that the model is simply a sanity check and not proof, you're half way there. A proof of causality requires a falsifiable proposition, not simply statistical correlations (sketchy or not). Accepting your statement at face value, yes, you may not have a model that proves your theory of catastrophic AGW driven by CO2 emissions wrong, but your model does not give us any confidence that it is right either.

Like Civilization 4? Like desktop wallpapers? Check out my blog. http://civliquote.blogspot.com/

Is your sig a weird joke, or a typo?

Elektroschock wrote:

"Who" are the persons behind?

The FFII generally referred to them, as I wrote on my blog, as "the patent movement", meaning national government officials whose careers are tightly linked to the patent system.

Elektroschock wrote:

Who are the persons? Unelected conspirators govern the EPO? Bilderberg group?

I don't think the staff union of the European Patent Office or the FFII wanted to suggest any kind of conspiracy theory. In my report on the FFII's criticsm of the proposed reform, that thinking is explained under the following subhead:

The theory of a "captive" court system

(contains a reference to what a justice of the SCOTUS said about the patent-specialized CAFC)

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I certainly didn't mod your comments down.

You said they'll push again and again if a proposal fails the first or second time, and that is certainly a trait of EU politics. The "Constitution" got replaced by a "Reform Treaty", and that one had to be voted on twice in Ireland (but the second vote was still democratic, people still had the chance to vote against and many actually did, but not enough to scupper the proposal). While EU officials continue to claim that there are no plans to reintroduce a software patent directive (officially called "directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions"), they might achieve a similar net effect as one of the effects of the current "patent reform" proposal.

If you say that grassroots lobbying doesn't work in the EU, then I'd be curious to see a similar political body - in terms of size and state of economic development, only the US seems reasonably comparable -- where it works better (note that I mean this in relative -- not in absolute -- terms).