Slashdot Mirror

'Pamphleteers,' by whom I presume you mean bloggers, are not journalists. Bloggers just cherry pick other peoples' hard work and add a few opinionated comments of their own to it.

Really? Perhaps you have never heard of Pamela Jones?

Summarized PDF

Summarized PDF

Developers are the easy target, but please stop with the trolling about software patents being a developers' concern. They just happen to be the first users with money.

Don't get copyright (distribution) confused with patents (usage). If you are doing the same thing as outlined in the patent, you have a problem if you are outside the EU. It doesn't matter whether the code doing it is closed, open, bought, borrowed, stolen, home made or found on the street: It's not the code that violates the patent, it's the activity.

Anyone doing basic XML editing is the target for the patent. You there, hosting the RSS/Atom feed. Yeah, you. Pay up...

IANAL, but Groklaw contains all sorts of useful links to on-line legal references, which is how I found this. HTH. HAND.

It turns out Sun had a fit about MS Java because MS really was trying to destroy it.

See the groklaw link for the summary. Poor Bill Gates said he was kept awake at night worrying about this competitor!

I see the attitude towards Google already starting to change, compared to how they were received as perfect in every way when they started out. As long as they don't act like MS has done in the pages of lawsuit after lawsuit, then I don't care so much if they do become more monopolistic. they'll be just another big company.

and if you think that emacs, and all those vi variants for that matter, aren't usable and productive just because _you_ can't work them, that sounds quite ignorant to me. Several of us here find emacs (and vi*) highly productive. IMNSHO emacs, gcc and Perl are the "killer apps" of *nix (even if they are ported to the monopoly platform - they lose something in the move).

If you think that the software monopolist is morally acceptable, I suggest you go read this, and this, and this. And then go develop yer Micro$oft apps on V$ (if you can still stomach them). See if I care.

The application I'm presently working on is actually targeted for Winbloze XP (against _my_ will). That doesn't keep me from writing it in Perl/Tk with emacs. When it's done, I expect it to run equally well in any environment (that supports Perl & Tk, which is A LOT). Try that with Visual Studio. I bet you can't, because V$ was deliberately engineered to make it as difficult as possible to develop for any non-Imperial target.

When I abandoned the Evil Empire, V$, VC++, MFC, and all of that rot in favor of Free software, I was overjoyed not only by the ideology but by the quality of the tools. I've never looked back.

And since when did astroturfers get mod points?

and if you think that emacs, and all those vi variants for that matter, aren't usable and productive just because _you_ can't work them, that sounds quite ignorant to me. Several of us here find emacs (and vi*) highly productive. IMNSHO emacs, gcc and Perl are the "killer apps" of *nix (even if they are ported to the monopoly platform - they lose something in the move).

If you think that the software monopolist is morally acceptable, I suggest you go read this, and this, and this. And then go develop yer Micro$oft apps on V$ (if you can still stomach them). See if I care.

The application I'm presently working on is actually targeted for Winbloze XP (against _my_ will). That doesn't keep me from writing it in Perl/Tk with emacs. When it's done, I expect it to run equally well in any environment (that supports Perl & Tk, which is A LOT). Try that with Visual Studio. I bet you can't, because V$ was deliberately engineered to make it as difficult as possible to develop for any non-Imperial target.

When I abandoned the Evil Empire, V$, VC++, MFC, and all of that rot in favor of Free software, I was overjoyed not only by the ideology but by the quality of the tools. I've never looked back.

And since when did astroturfers get mod points?

According to PJ over on Groklaw (in the news column on the right. Scroll down) the bankruptcy would allow a backer to remain hidden if they pulled out before the bankruptcy. In fact PJ goes on to say that Psystar was already ordered by the court to turn over their business records therefore (I conclude that) the bankruptcy was the only way to keep the backer(s) hidden. So GP was right on the money.

"Even Microsoft, for all its seeming omnipotence and monopolistic behavior, would have failed long ago had it not finally gotten off its duff to address -- however imperfectly -- things like Linux, OS/2, WordPerfect , Lotus 1-2-3, and so forth."

This March deposition in Novell v. Microsoft is an insult to the court, the Law, and any intelligent reader. It's time they threw the book at this liar and thief.

If you decide against, let Magacorp know immediately. Then get back to work, pronto. Looking back, second thoughts and re-negotiations are distractions, too. Let Megacorp know that your decision is final.

And get working on market share fast. If megacorp is Microsoft , they have a history of taking what they don't buy.

There. Fixed that for you.

Other than those typos, you're spot on. The offer to buy is often more a threat for extortion. See Sendo and a long list of corpses. Over the years, MS has taken what was a diverse and thriving industry and killed it through secret APIs and undocumented formats and protocols, price dumping and giveaways, and predatory marketing.

I think this article puts a finer point on it:

The gist? Treaties don't trump the constitution. PJ summarizes thusly: "I read it as saying that nothing, not any treaty, not even the Berne Convention, can trump the US Constitution."

What do you think of that?

Given the USSC has yet to strike down any heavily backed corporate-engineered legislation (like those demanded by this "agreement") it's a safe bet the constitution means nothing but a red herring or object of jingoist stumping.

Eldridge vs ashcroft
Buckley v. Valeo
The souter eminent domain ruling

The betamax case, and subsequent reversal in MGM v grokster in particular illustrate starkly how the courts unwaveringly side with whoever has the most corporate power.

I think this article puts a finer point on it:

The gist? Treaties don't trump the constitution. PJ summarizes thusly: "I read it as saying that nothing, not any treaty, not even the Berne Convention, can trump the US Constitution."

What do you think of that?

So..... why did MSFT's previous ODF tool correctly interoperate with just about every program that uses ODF? Why is that interoperability now broken?

Perhaps you should re-read this more closely:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090503215045379

Examine this more closely:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090503215045379

You will see that MSFT's previous ODF processing tool imported and exported to just about every program that supported ODF at the time.
This service pack leaves export from Office SP2, and import from MSFT's previous ODF solution and Office SP2 intact, but breaks everything else.

Why did MSFT destroy the interoperability that they previously had?

Yes.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090503215045379

We love Linux, we love community development and we love open source," McNealy told The Register in an interview. "We just don't like Red Hat.'

"We think we are the good guys. Who has donated more code than us? IBM keeps donating end-of-life code - remnants of roadkill they've bought .." Oct 2004

"a year ago is when Sun and MS bought licenses from SCO and SCO filed its lawsuit against IBM. And in March a year ago, SCO sued IBM, while Ballmer and McNealy had a round of golf and discussed how to work together. What a coincidence"

A report on Groklaw.

It makes no sense to spin off OpenOffice before knowing what Oracle does to it. What I think most of us really care about is some reinvigoration in the OpenOffice project, which this change may help bring about.

It may reinvigorate OO, who knows, but I did like Solveig Haugland's open letter to Larry Elison explaining what he'd like to see happen. (Hat tip to http://www.groklaw.net)

I usually ignore trolls, but this one does need a response.

No Minix code in Linux Ever -- More Evidence

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090419181306570

Is it? Here's a link to the GrokLaw article on the case. A quick check vs. the court filings indicates the article is correct. What I find: Jacobsen developed the software and methods included in it. Katzer took those, filed for patents on them, and tried to bill Jacobsen for using those patents. Jacobsen sued for declaratory judgement that his software wasn't infringing and the patents were invalid, based in part on the fact that Katzer failed to mention Jacobsen's software in his patent application or that the methods Katzer was claiming a patent on had been published more than a year prior to the filing.

And if you want more details, here's the Groklaw article on the Appeals Court's overturning of the district court's decision. It includes the complete text of the Appeals Court's ruling, so you can compare the analysis to what the court actually said and see for yourself that the analysis is on target.

Is it? Here's a link to the GrokLaw article on the case. A quick check vs. the court filings indicates the article is correct. What I find: Jacobsen developed the software and methods included in it. Katzer took those, filed for patents on them, and tried to bill Jacobsen for using those patents. Jacobsen sued for declaratory judgement that his software wasn't infringing and the patents were invalid, based in part on the fact that Katzer failed to mention Jacobsen's software in his patent application or that the methods Katzer was claiming a patent on had been published more than a year prior to the filing.

And if you want more details, here's the Groklaw article on the Appeals Court's overturning of the district court's decision. It includes the complete text of the Appeals Court's ruling, so you can compare the analysis to what the court actually said and see for yourself that the analysis is on target.

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958

There is a section on evangelism steps to take to build support, which he calls guerilla marketing, or "The Slog" and and that's the section that includes using supposedly "independent" analysts and consultants:

-- Analysts: Analysts sell out - that's their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.

-- Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don't let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up. Since he's well- known, but apparently independent, he'll be accepted - one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference organizer to worry about, right?

The source for the original document written by James Plamondon, first trainer of "Technical Evangelists" (TE) for Microsoft, is at the Comes vs Microsoft lawsuit website. An article titled "Evangelism is War!", px03096.pdf, page 53.

The "Slog" and the "Stacked Panel" are very interesting reads and describes EXACTLY how Microsoft stuffed the ISO committees when it stuffed the OOXML "standard" down IT's throat. It also explains what they are doing NOW with the European FOSS Strategy paper. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/How_to_Hijack_an_EU_Open_Source_Strategy_Paper

A million bloggers don't make up for one real investigative reporter who has the time to do the legwork because they're paid to do it. I am starting to think we need some new law, like more stringent copyright within the first 24 hours after publication.

Obviously only a REAL reporter could cover something like SCO vs IBM. So PJ from Groklaw for example isn't worth the time to read. Snark.

Did they choose FAT as the file system?

As usual, Groklaw has the full dope.

And it also reproduces the YouTube vs Viacom debate described at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090324125420761

Viacom objects to having to send YouTube DMCA notices, because they can't keep up. YouTube replies that only Viacom knows which of their videos are posted with permission (i.e., by their marketing department) and which aren't.

The same applies here: the RIAA now has the unenviable task of distinguishing between their owners' approved content, legitimate content and unapproved copyrighted content, and then launching an infinity of DMCA takedown notices and/or lawsuits. And only they or their owners can know what's approved copyright content.

The reason Red Hat files patents is to stockpile it's ammunition in case someone sues them for patent infringement. It's very hard to sue a patent trool like IP innovations, since they don't have a product which can violate another patent. But a company like Microsoft has a large product portfolio which might contain a product for which Red Hat can sue.

It's kind of like the nuclear arms race, and yet this is the state of the US Patent system today.

and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO's decision to give this asinine application the smackdown.

Read all about it on Groklaw.

The level of legal illiteracy on /. never ceases to amaze me . . .

Tell that to the reporters that spend months investigating a given issue and then writing 7-8 articles on it. Bloggers are fine for breaking news, not so much for things that require in depth coverage and investigation.

LOL. Seriously? Groklaw

The RIAA never (as in: not once) sued anybody for downloading music.

Then what is this Sony v. Tenenbaum about then ?

... a guy who allegedly downloaded seven songs over Kazaa years ago when he was 17 and who is now facing a damages claim of $1 million dollars ..

Are they making the claim because those songs were in his "shared folder"? You should be careful about the language reporters use in their articles. If the RIAA says to a judge, "John Doe was distributing File A over the internet and is guilty of infringement", they will turn around and say "John Doe downloaded Song A over the internet. John Doe is a thief!"

This practice is quite a lot like what SCO did. In court, "IBM is violating a license agreement in these specific ways." To the press, "Linux users are stealing our intellectual property, and they are going to have to pay."

If it is not obvious by now, the RIAA's press statements are no more truthful than SCO's (we all know where that went), and reporters generally do not speak or write English well enough to understand the difference. So when you see a statement like "allegedly downloaded seven songs over Kazaa", you should keep in mind that reporter probably has no idea what the difference between downloading and uploading are, does not know the difference between theft and copyright infringement, and only reports something when the RIAA seems likely to have a rare judgement that goes its way.

Listening to some freetards trot out the "convicted monopolist" line is like me calling Redhat a bunch of "convicted patent infringers". I don't, however, because I am not a douchebag.

Using the term "freetard" pretty much denotes that you are in fact a douchebag. I won't hold that against you though. Regarding the remainder of that sentence however; Microsoft (fairly or unfairly in your opinion does not matter) has been convicted of monopolistic practices in several courts.

1). http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
2). http://software.silicon.com/os/0,39024651,39119500,00.htm
2). http://law.jrank.org/pages/12388/Sherman-Antitrust-Act-Microsoft-Settlement-Twenty-First-Century-s-First-Major-Antitrust-Settlement.html
4). Google for yourself

Now.. can you provide links to any article that shows that Redhat has indeed violated patents; as proven in a court of law or similar venue? I found a single instance of Redhat (co-defending with Novell as it happens) being sued for patent infringement. Coincidentally, the company behind this suit appears to be a patent troll headed up by former Microsoft GM of IP licensing. Regardless, there has yet to be a conviction, if there is even one forthcoming.

"The patent offices' decision has no preclusive effect on a court, and there are indeed cases where the patent office made a decision in a re-examination supporting a patent and a court later looked at the same exact issue, disagreed with the PTO, and found the patent invalid,"
Dan Ravicher, PUBPATs executive director and founder ( From Groklaw )

I think the swarm is just getting a buzz over there at Groklaw with an article titled "Two Quick Words About Microsoft v. TomTom: Think Bilski".

Patents in this field were controversial enough, actually by Gates' own admission, even before Bilski.

Then again, lawmakers should never have allowed such ambiguity to persist for litigants in costly court cases to figure out the validity of countless doubtful patents where none should have been granted in the first place.

The RIAA never (as in: not once) sued anybody for downloading music.

Then what is this Sony v. Tenenbaum about then ?

... a guy who allegedly downloaded seven songs over Kazaa years ago when he was 17 and who is now facing a damages claim of $1 million dollars ..

Sorry to say this, but Microsoft will own you. They may well destroy your career and attack members of your family:

I was sitting on the XML Working Group and co-editing the spec, on a pro bono basis as an indie consultant. Netscape hired me to represent their interests, and when I announced this, controversy ensued. Which is a nice way of saying that Microsoft went berserk; tried unsuccessfully to get me fired as co-editor, and then launched a vicious, deeply personal extended attack in which they tried to destroy my career and took lethal action against a small struggling company because my wife worked there.

Only take Microsoft on if you don't care about your family, they will get personal, and everything they do is legal, as the state generally agrees with them. See the Mass. ODF affair for example, they've also been allowed to attack charities and bribe officials. Frankly, it seems their strong-arm tactics mean most legislators are scared of Microsoft.

Good luck. You'll need it.

http://www.groklaw.net/ or perhaps http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ and for that matter, I know it's from the original sources, but how about: http://trial.thepiratebay.org/ . These are all investigative bloggers! zing!

because it is a good way to keep a thin attachment to people who are just contacts, but people I don't want to loose touch with entirely.

That's one of the best reasons to be on it. I started using LinkedIn (free, not paying!) to get in touch with old colleagues; that's it, nothing more. Recommendations and invitations are for only people I absolutely know (I reject any others out of hand.)

For any social networking sites, it's the Thermodynamics of Humanity--crap and chaos will increase. AOL, Yahoo Message boards (social, financial, etc.), the garbage always builds up.

On that note, are only a few places I still follow that have stayed "fairly" clean. Joke as much as you want, but Slashdot has stayed pretty close to mission over the years. Groklaw is still pretty good. Motley Fool is still fairly new, but has hung on to it's central theme for a couple of years now.

Think of social networking sites like sex, or dating: Before you sign up, imagine that some Glenn Close nutjob is going to hunt you down and kill your pets, or some pimply teenager is going to show up on your door step 16 years from now at the family reunion shouting, "Dad! Mama tol' me you owed us for that fling all those years ago!"

If those kinds of problems are foreseeable, don't use the sites.

This endless wrangling about prior art should be rendered moot by the Bilski Decision anyhow - I would hope. The Bilski Decision puts the whole concept of software patents into question.

Not necessarily. Bilski wasn't explicitly software - he was managing hedge funds - and the decision cited State Street... favorably. The only real difference between State Street and Bilski was that State had means-plus-function claims. And in light of Bilski, PTO Examiners are now looking for a few "magic words" in claims that signify they're tied to a specific computing machine.

Anyways, since Bilski's going up before SCOTUS, this is all irrelevant. No one knows what it really means and won't for another year.

This endless wrangling about prior art should be rendered moot by the Bilski Decision anyhow - I would hope. The Bilski Decision puts the whole concept of software patents into question.

Don't forget how their sales managers would lie to customers about competing products. Their lawsuit history is rife with testimony concerning lies and deceit by MS against rivals and partners.

I agree that MS is still a problem. And I'm not sure they've given up the habitual slamming of competitors in front of customers, yet.

If you want proof, go here.

I disagree with this statement: "Understanding licenses isn't really an Open Source issue." .. For someone who doesn't understand the basic idea .. the GPL is undoubtedly even more confusing.

Only if you're a lawyer. It seams clear enough to me, I get 'a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work', without responsibility for 'enforcing compliance by third parties with this License'

"The GPL, however, is a true copyright license: a unilateral permission, in which no obligations are reciprocally required by the licensor. Copyright holders of computer programs are given, by the Copyright Act, exclusive right to copy, modify and redistribute their programs. The GPL, reduced to its essence, says:

'You may copy, modify and redistribute this software, whether modified or unmodified, freely. But if you redistribute it, in modified or unmodified form, your permission extends only to distribution under the terms of this license. If you violate the terms of this license, all permission is withdrawn.'"

even though they have made this change to their Terms of Service (and you've agreed to arbitration), you could still prevent this from applying to you (since users were not notified of this change in ToS). An example of such a case can be found at http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070729165004428.

For this kind of issues, make sure folks at Groklaw get to know fast. They are the only folks I know that will dig up facts fast. In the Novell/SCO case, One guy provided evidence dating back to 1971! By the way, SCO appears to have lost that case. Amazing.

His company has repeatedly been convicted of criminality, and this trait is Gates'. The leopard does not change its spots.

We're globally paying the price for the fact that someone so corrupt was allowed to seize so much power and money (the misuse of that power continues via the Foundation).

news at #1

Slashdot, news from two months ago

"The aim of the KDE project for the 4.0 release is to put the foundations in place for future innovations on the Free Desktop. The many newly introduced technologies incorporated in the KDE libraries will make it easier for developers to add rich functionality to their applications, combining and connecting different components in any way they want."

From the 4.0 beta 4 release notes. Apparently someone forgot that paragraph in the final notes, but it still stands.
Anyone who actually cared at the time, and was looking over things, playing with pre-release versions, looking over blogs, actually listening to what people were saying, it was said countless times. One KDE developer joked it was the 'eat your children' release.

Even in the KDE keynote address (at the launch event, available online), they talked about how it was more of a foundational release.

Several months later, they officially countered many of the points being put forth about KDE 4.0 and 4.1.

People are happy enough to complain, but people, including KDE developers, were talking about this for months in advance of KDE 4.0's release, and after. It's been widely expected that KDE 4.2 would be the 'proper' release for a long while.

It's not that KDE fanboys, or developers (I'm neither) have revisionist history, it's that some people who'd prefer to argue or complain after the fact, weren't paying attention or conveniently develop amnesia.

Who was expecting the KDE folks to pull a magical perfect fully functional release, all of a sudden out of their collective arses, concurrently with KDevelop, KOffice, Amarok, and other software versions, when they had to rewrite major portions to take full advantage of Qt 4.4? KDE 4.0 was internally in development for over two years. It took them a scant year to circle the wagons after a "we're eating children and releasing early to sync up with third parties and make it possible to develop against more conveniently" release to make a stable user-oriented version. Big deal. According to other posts and snarky comments on Slashdot, it's taking Windows 7 3 years (with no development libraries or early previews to target as an average developer, until Beta 1 SDK released, concurrently with Beta 1 itself) to release an annoying graphical update to Windows Vista. People tend to be 'slightly' overreacting and skewing for their own fan base there as well.

KDE 3.5.10 was released just this last August (2008). I'm not saying that 4.0 or 4.1 was a great idea, just that it was sensible from their point of view, and warned about in a copious manner. It's fairly unbelievable that people would freak out -that- badly if they weren't interested enough about the software or desktop environment to read anything surrounding the event, including previews, beta notes, statements from individual developers, color commentary from the peanut gallery, or much of anything else.

When KDE 3.0 was released, did every possible feature and customization for 2.x somehow survive immediately? People used to be more on the fence until a few releases in.

I bet that by the time KDE 4.3 is released (currently scheduled for July), it won't even matter that everyone was so eager to complain about the developer versions when the stable version (3.5) was still available, worked, was maintained, and could easily be installed side-by-side.

Even if, somehow, you were confused about the nature of KDE 4.0 or 4.1, no one was holding a gun to your head to force

Just FYI, Groklaw is following the case now, though it remains to be seen how much time PJ has to devote to this. As NYCL says, he doesn't have a lot of time for commentary, given that he's busy fighting the RIAA in court.

IE to be standards compliant by default

That was because Opera forced them to, not because they wanted to look like nice guys. They just didn't want more fines.

There's an evil or a forced hand in every one of those. Here's your reference for "Microsoft assist SAMBA team with interop" out of the back of the EU Antitrust ruling;

Samba Team Receives Microsoft Protocol Documentation

We were certainly pleased that there was an option for a flat-fee agreement which would give us access to the protocol documentation, but the terms of that agreement as they were posted in late October included a number of sections which made the agreement very hard for us to accept. After so many years, we wondered if the effort had been wasted, and we would not be able to get access to the protocol documentation that we wanted.

Then a remarkable thing happened. Responding to an article on Groklaw where the agreement was being discussed, the trustee Neil Barrett posted a suggestion that I get in touch with him. Neil directed me to Craig Shank, who heads up Microsoft's protocol licensing team. Neil thought that Craig would be the right person to talk to to try and fix some of the problematic parts of the agreement.

This in turn resulted in several weeks of intensive discussions, during which we found that Microsoft was indeed very willing to make modifications to the agreement to make it more suitable for use by the free software community. Microsoft was keen to ensure that it complied with the court ruling, Neil Barrett was happy to help facilitate those discussions, and of course we were more than willing to point out the parts of the agreement that were problematic for free software projects.