Slashdot Mirror

Ask and ye shall receive.

You appear to be referencing Telular, who sued over the Vox2 VOX.LINK product. Telular does not seem to have any similar products, and they blasted the VOX.LINK consumer product off the market.

Telular's press release cites the following patents:

Patent 4,658,096 - System for interfacing a standard telephone set with a radio transceiver
Patent 5,715,296 - Concurrent wireless/landline interface apparatus
Patent 5,949,616 - Suspension having relief against flexure movement interference (??!!)

(That last one appears to be a typo in their press release. I hope.)

Ask and ye shall receive.

You appear to be referencing Telular, who sued over the Vox2 VOX.LINK product. Telular does not seem to have any similar products, and they blasted the VOX.LINK consumer product off the market.

Telular's press release cites the following patents:

Patent 4,658,096 - System for interfacing a standard telephone set with a radio transceiver
Patent 5,715,296 - Concurrent wireless/landline interface apparatus
Patent 5,949,616 - Suspension having relief against flexure movement interference (??!!)

(That last one appears to be a typo in their press release. I hope.)

Ask and ye shall receive.

You appear to be referencing Telular, who sued over the Vox2 VOX.LINK product. Telular does not seem to have any similar products, and they blasted the VOX.LINK consumer product off the market.

Telular's press release cites the following patents:

Patent 4,658,096 - System for interfacing a standard telephone set with a radio transceiver
Patent 5,715,296 - Concurrent wireless/landline interface apparatus
Patent 5,949,616 - Suspension having relief against flexure movement interference (??!!)

(That last one appears to be a typo in their press release. I hope.)

This is public now, so I can talk about it--
I worked on extending the accuracy and continuity of the VMX instruction vexptefp, see the patent application here
My understanding is that this instruction is used to compute Phong/specular hilights, and that previous implementations of this instruction were unusable because the lack of accuracy and continuity made it visually undesirable. We were able to improve the algorithm enough to be visually indistinguishable from a fully accurate non-estimate.
Can any software developers that use this instruction comment on this?
Is Phong hilighting mostly done on GPUs now?

Reading the USPTO website and database is fascinating. Apparantly someone invented a Real time data exchange system in July 2004. Just the thing I have been looking for over the last few years...

Again, if it's solely for an internal project, then the company can continue using it. Microsoft has no way to find out about it - and no incentive, either. Stopping company X from using the ISNOT operator has no income potential for Microsoft.

Also, note that it doesn't necessarily take a $2MM lawsuit to resolve issues about bad patents. Thanks to the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, the USPTO offers a new inter partes reexamination proceeding: third parties can raise previously unconsidered prior art to have an issued patent invalidated by the USPTO. This inter partes system isn't perfect - as this report indicates - but it's clearly a step in the right direction. We may soon see the end of the "but it's too expensive to litigate it" argument.

- David Stein

...starting with the fucktard who approved this patent, and following up with the cunt who approved this one.

...starting with the fucktard who approved this patent, and following up with the cunt who approved this one.

Method of Swinging on a Swing.

Y'know, that one sounded so stupid I just had to look. As it turns out, it describes an unusual type of swing in which a single chain positioned in front of the seated individual is manipulated. Rather than imagine it, check it out.

On the other hand, "Method of Exercising a Cat" was completely moronic.

As for the peanut butter and jelly sandwich patents, I thought it appropriate that the inventor, Jeffrey Bogdan, lives in Sandwich, IL, and that the assignee is PJ Squares.

obvious != trivial

go read chapter 2100 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) and learn what the current laws actually state.

obvious != trivial

go read chapter 2100 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) and learn what the current laws actually state.

Okay - RSA encryption. This novel encryption method is the mathematical basis for most encrypted web browser communication. Without such a technique, most of e-commerce would be untenable - either the encryption mechanism would be prohibitively cumbersome, or it would be riddled with holes.

This algorithm wasn't created in the vacuum of academia. It was developed as a way of allowing easy, encrypted communication among businesses. Without a business incentive to develop it - i.e., if other companies had been permitted to just steal the technology after it was created - no one would have created it.

So what happened once it was patented? Did the company take on the Darth-Vader-esque visage that most Slashdotters imagine? No, it had the good business judgment to promote RSA across the board, and to reap a reasonable profit through licensing to big companies like Verisign. The industry didn't grind to a halt.

And what would have happened without a strong, business-savvy proponent of RSA? Internet technology in general is a hideous swamp of competing standards and compatibility issues. Ask any web developer how much time they spend on IE/Firefox/Netscape/Opera compatibility issues, or on Java version compatibility, or on security issues between or among various technologies and standards. It's insanity. The explosion of web development has occurred not because of these myriad and disparate technologies, in spite of them.

Yet, in the midst of this sea of chaos, encryption technology just magically seems to work - automatically, unobtrusively, without a security update every 25 seconds. That technology works. I assert that this is because we gave one company some breathing room to develop it.

- David Stein

With the danger of being modded way down by the zealotist crowd: If you are going to complain about Microsoft patents, could you instead point at the real problems:

• Microsoft are seeking a patent for URI rewriting
• United States Patent Application 20040260722

That particular patent, if granted, will in effect make mod_rewrite infringe. Not that Microsoft would stand a chance in court with this patent, since mod_rewrite predates both the application, and referenced patents.

And if you want a laugh from the MS' patent portfoliom you should know that Microsoft holds a patent for an apple tree named Burchinal Red Delicious. (US Patent PP14,757

With the danger of being modded way down by the zealotist crowd: If you are going to complain about Microsoft patents, could you instead point at the real problems:

• Microsoft are seeking a patent for URI rewriting
• United States Patent Application 20040260722

That particular patent, if granted, will in effect make mod_rewrite infringe. Not that Microsoft would stand a chance in court with this patent, since mod_rewrite predates both the application, and referenced patents.

And if you want a laugh from the MS' patent portfoliom you should know that Microsoft holds a patent for an apple tree named Burchinal Red Delicious. (US Patent PP14,757

The combination of peanut butter and jelly has been, and continues to be, a favorite and desirable food product for people of all ages. In fact, one could say that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches have been a staple lunchbox food for years.

Nonsense.

You are correct in asserting that the USPTO makes money from issance - as per their fee schedule, they get $300 (plus extra fees for various things like multiple independent claims) when the app is filed, and $1,400 when it issues.

But the examiners - the people who make the allow-vs-reject decision - aren't responsible for the fiscal well-being of the USPTO. Were that the case, virtually every application would slide through to issuance with barely any examination. We'd be back to the patent registration scheme of the early 1800's, where you got a patent simply by filling out the right paperwork.

We don't have that system - in name or in practice. The examiners do a hell of a lot of rejecting, with backing references to other patents, journal articles, etc. They don't have the resources for an exhaustive search - but the typical application garners at least two separate rejections from the examiners.

But this is a classic catch-22 example: people often examiners for spending too much time on examination, and thereby contributing to the 2.5-year average pendency of patent applications.

- David Stein

"Pretty sure the US Patent Office has a say in what is and isn't patentable."

Oh really? I beg to differ. I've come across a couple fun examples recently

Method of Swinging on a Swing.
Gee, I wouldn't have thought of that one! I think I heard somewhere that this patent was granted to a 5-year-old? 0_o

Method of Exercising a Cat (with a laser pointer...)

Here's a nice little read on the US Patent System that was in IEEE Spectrum a couple months ago. The US Patent System sucks ass

So you see, the US Patenting Office appears to patent just about everything. Oh no, I hope they haven't patented my favorite peanut butter and jelly sandwhiches...!

Patent 5,567,454
Patent 5,855,939
Patent RE37,275

OH NOES!!!!

"Pretty sure the US Patent Office has a say in what is and isn't patentable."

Oh really? I beg to differ. I've come across a couple fun examples recently

Method of Swinging on a Swing.
Gee, I wouldn't have thought of that one! I think I heard somewhere that this patent was granted to a 5-year-old? 0_o

Method of Exercising a Cat (with a laser pointer...)

Here's a nice little read on the US Patent System that was in IEEE Spectrum a couple months ago. The US Patent System sucks ass

So you see, the US Patenting Office appears to patent just about everything. Oh no, I hope they haven't patented my favorite peanut butter and jelly sandwhiches...!

Patent 5,567,454
Patent 5,855,939
Patent RE37,275

OH NOES!!!!

"Pretty sure the US Patent Office has a say in what is and isn't patentable."

Oh really? I beg to differ. I've come across a couple fun examples recently

Method of Swinging on a Swing.
Gee, I wouldn't have thought of that one! I think I heard somewhere that this patent was granted to a 5-year-old? 0_o

Method of Exercising a Cat (with a laser pointer...)

Here's a nice little read on the US Patent System that was in IEEE Spectrum a couple months ago. The US Patent System sucks ass

So you see, the US Patenting Office appears to patent just about everything. Oh no, I hope they haven't patented my favorite peanut butter and jelly sandwhiches...!

Patent 5,567,454
Patent 5,855,939
Patent RE37,275

OH NOES!!!!

"Pretty sure the US Patent Office has a say in what is and isn't patentable."

Oh really? I beg to differ. I've come across a couple fun examples recently

Method of Swinging on a Swing.
Gee, I wouldn't have thought of that one! I think I heard somewhere that this patent was granted to a 5-year-old? 0_o

Method of Exercising a Cat (with a laser pointer...)

Here's a nice little read on the US Patent System that was in IEEE Spectrum a couple months ago. The US Patent System sucks ass

So you see, the US Patenting Office appears to patent just about everything. Oh no, I hope they haven't patented my favorite peanut butter and jelly sandwhiches...!

Patent 5,567,454
Patent 5,855,939
Patent RE37,275

OH NOES!!!!

"Pretty sure the US Patent Office has a say in what is and isn't patentable."

Oh really? I beg to differ. I've come across a couple fun examples recently

Method of Swinging on a Swing.
Gee, I wouldn't have thought of that one! I think I heard somewhere that this patent was granted to a 5-year-old? 0_o

Method of Exercising a Cat (with a laser pointer...)

Here's a nice little read on the US Patent System that was in IEEE Spectrum a couple months ago. The US Patent System sucks ass

So you see, the US Patenting Office appears to patent just about everything. Oh no, I hope they haven't patented my favorite peanut butter and jelly sandwhiches...!

Patent 5,567,454
Patent 5,855,939
Patent RE37,275

OH NOES!!!!

I don't know why no one has posted it yet but here's a link to the text of the patent. The claimed date of filing seems to be 3-July-2000, when the provisional patent was filed.

An OS should be like a screw driver. It does its job and doesn't need to be redesigned every week.

Linux may not be a screw driver itself but we surely need one to use screw patents generously donated by IBM.

I dunno who's stupider, the idiotic French courts or half the people posting on here.

If Coke buys an ad in the New York Times and uses the Pepsi trademark, do you sue New York Times???? NO! If anyone is comitting Trademark infringment it is Coke! Christ!

When the New York Times sells advertizing space to someone they never heard of using some trademark they never heard of, are they supposed to do some sort of trademark search to ensure that the advertizer is either the trademark holder or authorized by the trademark holder? Hell, how the hell are they even supposed to know that something is trademarked at all? Are they supposed to do a trademark search on every word and every combination of words in the ad?

And then there is the HUGE fact that multiple people are allowed to use the same trademark. In some cases there may be a HUNDRED different companies in a hundred different fields all using the same or nearly identical trademarks. Perfectly legal. Anyone who thinks a single company owns a trademark as if it were their sole personal property simply does not know anything about trademark law. For example "Staxx" is trademarked by a medical implant company, by a dinnerware/china company, and by a furniture company. And if I want to open a luggage company I am perfectly free to use the trademark Staxx for myself. I too would be a trademark owner on "Staxx". We can all "own" the exact same trademark in different feilds.

Not to mention the fact that pretty much every country runs their own trademarks and different companies in different countries can both have the same trademark, even if they are in the same business.

It is absolutely insane to suggest that Google is somehow supposed to sort out what is and is not trademark infringment. *IF* there is any trademark infringment then it is by the advertizer, and just because someone else uses that trademark does not make it trademark infringment. *If* there is any legal action to be take it is against the advertizer using the mark.

-

I dunno who's stupider, the idiotic French courts or half the people posting on here.

If Coke buys an ad in the New York Times and uses the Pepsi trademark, do you sue New York Times???? NO! If anyone is comitting Trademark infringment it is Coke! Christ!

When the New York Times sells advertizing space to someone they never heard of using some trademark they never heard of, are they supposed to do some sort of trademark search to ensure that the advertizer is either the trademark holder or authorized by the trademark holder? Hell, how the hell are they even supposed to know that something is trademarked at all? Are they supposed to do a trademark search on every word and every combination of words in the ad?

And then there is the HUGE fact that multiple people are allowed to use the same trademark. In some cases there may be a HUNDRED different companies in a hundred different fields all using the same or nearly identical trademarks. Perfectly legal. Anyone who thinks a single company owns a trademark as if it were their sole personal property simply does not know anything about trademark law. For example "Staxx" is trademarked by a medical implant company, by a dinnerware/china company, and by a furniture company. And if I want to open a luggage company I am perfectly free to use the trademark Staxx for myself. I too would be a trademark owner on "Staxx". We can all "own" the exact same trademark in different feilds.

Not to mention the fact that pretty much every country runs their own trademarks and different companies in different countries can both have the same trademark, even if they are in the same business.

It is absolutely insane to suggest that Google is somehow supposed to sort out what is and is not trademark infringment. *IF* there is any trademark infringment then it is by the advertizer, and just because someone else uses that trademark does not make it trademark infringment. *If* there is any legal action to be take it is against the advertizer using the mark.

-

I dunno who's stupider, the idiotic French courts or half the people posting on here.

If Coke buys an ad in the New York Times and uses the Pepsi trademark, do you sue New York Times???? NO! If anyone is comitting Trademark infringment it is Coke! Christ!

When the New York Times sells advertizing space to someone they never heard of using some trademark they never heard of, are they supposed to do some sort of trademark search to ensure that the advertizer is either the trademark holder or authorized by the trademark holder? Hell, how the hell are they even supposed to know that something is trademarked at all? Are they supposed to do a trademark search on every word and every combination of words in the ad?

And then there is the HUGE fact that multiple people are allowed to use the same trademark. In some cases there may be a HUNDRED different companies in a hundred different fields all using the same or nearly identical trademarks. Perfectly legal. Anyone who thinks a single company owns a trademark as if it were their sole personal property simply does not know anything about trademark law. For example "Staxx" is trademarked by a medical implant company, by a dinnerware/china company, and by a furniture company. And if I want to open a luggage company I am perfectly free to use the trademark Staxx for myself. I too would be a trademark owner on "Staxx". We can all "own" the exact same trademark in different feilds.

Not to mention the fact that pretty much every country runs their own trademarks and different companies in different countries can both have the same trademark, even if they are in the same business.

It is absolutely insane to suggest that Google is somehow supposed to sort out what is and is not trademark infringment. *IF* there is any trademark infringment then it is by the advertizer, and just because someone else uses that trademark does not make it trademark infringment. *If* there is any legal action to be take it is against the advertizer using the mark.

-

This might be one of the reasons that the volume of patent related lawsuits is going through the roof. See the graph patent lawsuits per year (from the article A radical cure for the ailing U.S. patent system)

Ben in DC

Abstract:

"A method and apparatus for altering at least one selected region which normally exists above the earth's surface. The region is excited by electron cyclotron resonance heating to thereby increase its charged particle density. In one embodiment, circularly polarized electromagnetic radiation is transmitted upward in a direction substantially parallel to and along a field line which extends through the region of plasma to be altered. The radiation is transmitted at a frequency which excites electron cyclotron resonance to heat and accelerate the charged particles. This increase in energy can cause ionization of neutral particles which are then absorbed as part of the region thereby increasing the charged particle density of the region."

final exceedingly long paragraph (not my fault)

"This invention has a phenomenal variety of possible ramifications and potential future developments. As alluded to earlier, missile or aircraft destruction, deflection, or confusion could result, particularly when relativistic particles are employed. Also, large regions of the atmosphere could be lifted to an unexpectedly high altitude so that missiles encounter unexpected and unplanned drag forces with resultant destruction or deflection of same. Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device. Also as alluded to earlier, molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved. Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example, ozone, nitrogen, etc. concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased. Similarly, environmental enhancement could be achieved by causing the breakup of various chemical entities such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, and the like. Transportation of entities can also be realized when advantage is taken of the drag effects caused by regions of the atmosphere moving up along diverging field lines. Small micron sized particles can be then transported, and, under certain circumstances and with the availability of sufficient energy, larger particles or objects could be similarly affected. Particles with desired characteristics such as tackiness, reflectivity, absorptivity, etc., can be transported for specific purposes or effects. For example, a plume of tacky particles could be established to increase the drag on a missile or satellite passing therethrough. Even plumes of plasma having substantially less charged particle density than described above will produce drag effects on missiles which will affect a lightweight (dummy) missile in a manner substantially different than a heavy (live) missile and this affect can be used to distinguish between the two types of missiles. A moving plume could also serve as a means for supplying a space station or for focusing vast amount of sunlight on selected portions of the earth. Surveys of global scope could also be realized because the earth's natural magnetic field could be significantly altered in a controlled manner by plasma beta effects resulting in, for example, improved magnetotelluric surveys. Electromagnetic pulse defenses are also possible. The earth's magnetic field could be decreased or disrupted at appropriate altitudes to modify or eliminate the magnetic field in high Compton electron generation (e.g., from high altitude nuclear bursts) regions. High intensity, well controlled electrical fields can be provided in selected locations for various purposes. For example, the plasma sheath surroun

Will Apple follow IBM and Sun? Most of their patents are hardware, but they do have some software patents.

Hardware? So what? That didn't stop IBM, did it? I mean, seriously, how more "hardware" can you get than donating a patent for Tamper proof set screw, "A device for preventing unauthorized access to a rotating shaft," for use by open source software? Wait a second, I've just read the list of those 500 IBM's patents, and there is also one for Methods and apparatus for exploiting virtual buffers! Don't use it! It's a trap!!!

Will Apple follow IBM and Sun? Most of their patents are hardware, but they do have some software patents.

Hardware? So what? That didn't stop IBM, did it? I mean, seriously, how more "hardware" can you get than donating a patent for Tamper proof set screw, "A device for preventing unauthorized access to a rotating shaft," for use by open source software? Wait a second, I've just read the list of those 500 IBM's patents, and there is also one for Methods and apparatus for exploiting virtual buffers! Don't use it! It's a trap!!!

I doubt this will fly with Amazon's patented, proprietary "1-click" "feature"--a lot of Slashdot readers prefer free software, last time I checked. I personally wonder what would motivate them to patent such a thing--no wait! It's that missing step...

1. Create online store
2. Patent "1-click" shopping
3. Profit!

That said, if a shop.slashdot.org can help us save, consider my name second in teh petition.

Examples, no. Guidelines, yes.

You know, there are actual data on this. We could just fit a curve.

(But the simple answer is that patents cost about $10000 each to acquire, while spam is somewhat cheaper.)

When they will grant a patent for getting a cat to chase a laserpointer

I think it should be obvious that USPTO doesn't really have the ability to judge whether or not a patent is merited. How can granting patents willy-nilly help things?

For software of all things?

where do we draw the line between complex and common

The test is that the invention (at the time it was invented) was not obvious to someone skilled in the area/field of the invention. If it was commonly known at the time then it won't qualify. There are other conditions, too, described on the USPTO website. Actually, they say it better than I did: "it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention".

Here is the USPTO listing for this thing. HP (and a few other groups) have been working on this kind of stuff for a long time.

HP got a patent for this in July of 2003 (in patent #6,586,965), filed Oct 2001. What is news is that they've successfully demonstrated it working.

IIRC, OSI was not granted a trademark on the phrase "open source", so anyone can use it for nearly anything.

No, not the OSI, but another organization founded by Bruce Perens, the SPI (Software in the Public Interest). Tradmark #75439502.

Then there was a little scuffle where the OSI wanted the trademark from the SPI, and I think it ended up being abandoned, and now the OSI has their 'certification mark' instead.

But in any case, Perens was the guy who co-founded the OSI and coined the term, and at the very least he has a certain moral right to it.

It's already been patented and considering the possible implications, you can be sure they'll enforce it.

From nanoinvestornews:

A molecular crossbar latch is provided, comprising two control wires and a signal wire that crosses the two control wires at a non-zero angle to thereby form a junction with each control wire. Each junction forms a switch and the junction has a functional dimension in nanometers. The signal wire selectively has at least two different voltage states, ranging from a 0 state to a 1 state, wherein there is an asymmetry with respect to the direction of current flow from the signal wire through one junction compared to another junction such that current flowing through one junction into (out of) the signal wire can open (close) while current flowing through the other junction out of (into) the signal wire can close (open) the switch, and wherein there is a voltage threshold for switching between an open switch and a closed switch. Further, methods are provided for latching logic values onto nanowires in a logic array, for inverting a logic value, and for restoring a voltage value of a signal in a nano-scale wire."

From USTPO
"A novel switching device is provided with an active region arranged between first and second electrodes and including a molecular system and ionic complexes distributed in the system. A control electrode is provided for controlling an electric field applied to the active region, which switches between a high-impedance state and a low-impedance state when the electrical field having a predetermined polarity and intensity is applied for a predetermined time."

EETimes story

It's Patent #6586965

So Sun has listed out 1600 patents that they state they will not sue if used with their CDDL license and people get upset because they are not being given to the GPL Licensed software developers (they never claimed they were). But all the GPL fans love IBM because they released 500 patents for use under GPL.

Take a look at the IBM patents being donated, they are all due for payment this year (or they'll expire) and they are not even all software related!? Maybe your next GPL project was going to be based around the means for migrating and separating a portion of a biomolecule in a gel? ya, I didn't think so.
I know I feel safe from IBM knowing that they won't sue me for using their tamper proof set screw patent against me when I use it in my next GPL'd project!

Now truthfully I did not look at all of IBM's 500 patents real close but with them all about to expire, and some of them not even applicable to software who is really screwing the Open Source comunity? Sun, the one who truthfully tells you what they are giving you (maybe not the terms you like, but they are not claiming otherwise)? Or IBM, the one contributing a bunch of patents about to expire and filling the list with ones that are of no use to software developers so they can get their numbers up to look good.

IBM's PR dept. looks to be playing the Open Source comunity like a puppet and a bunch of you are jumping around asking where you should dance next. Come on folks wake up. And stop beating up any Company that does not bow down in front of the alter of GPL. When a company starts to open up don't rip them apart because they didn't go whole hog for the GPL right out of the gate, give them a chance to show us what they are about and what they have to offer maybe after they open up a little and things go well they might be more open to moving to the GPL in the future. But the way people on slashdot are treating Sun right now I don't blame them for not going straight to the GPL. I've seen plenty of posts that basically say "Solaris sucks! GPL it so we can take the cool stuff out and port it to linux then there will be no reason to ever run 'Slowaris'" with that type of mentality around here is it any wonder that companies with alot of software IP are not jumping on the GPL bandwagon?

So Sun has listed out 1600 patents that they state they will not sue if used with their CDDL license and people get upset because they are not being given to the GPL Licensed software developers (they never claimed they were). But all the GPL fans love IBM because they released 500 patents for use under GPL.

Take a look at the IBM patents being donated, they are all due for payment this year (or they'll expire) and they are not even all software related!? Maybe your next GPL project was going to be based around the means for migrating and separating a portion of a biomolecule in a gel? ya, I didn't think so.
I know I feel safe from IBM knowing that they won't sue me for using their tamper proof set screw patent against me when I use it in my next GPL'd project!

Now truthfully I did not look at all of IBM's 500 patents real close but with them all about to expire, and some of them not even applicable to software who is really screwing the Open Source comunity? Sun, the one who truthfully tells you what they are giving you (maybe not the terms you like, but they are not claiming otherwise)? Or IBM, the one contributing a bunch of patents about to expire and filling the list with ones that are of no use to software developers so they can get their numbers up to look good.

IBM's PR dept. looks to be playing the Open Source comunity like a puppet and a bunch of you are jumping around asking where you should dance next. Come on folks wake up. And stop beating up any Company that does not bow down in front of the alter of GPL. When a company starts to open up don't rip them apart because they didn't go whole hog for the GPL right out of the gate, give them a chance to show us what they are about and what they have to offer maybe after they open up a little and things go well they might be more open to moving to the GPL in the future. But the way people on slashdot are treating Sun right now I don't blame them for not going straight to the GPL. I've seen plenty of posts that basically say "Solaris sucks! GPL it so we can take the cool stuff out and port it to linux then there will be no reason to ever run 'Slowaris'" with that type of mentality around here is it any wonder that companies with alot of software IP are not jumping on the GPL bandwagon?

One thing we cannot have in Mandrake, is patent violations. I look at Mozilla Firefox project and right away see blatant violation of patent 6,848,075. This will not be tolerated. Firefox cronies can take their shady software elsewhere, Mandrake will stay clean of IP violations.

The patent:

An improved media player anda method for operating a portable computing device(e.g., media player) are disclosed. According to one aspect, a portable computing device is able to protect its disk drive when being subjected to undesired levels of acceleration . The portable computing device protects its disk drive by monitoring for such accelerations and operating to avoid usage of the disk drive during periods of acceleration. Through such protection, the likelihood of damage to the disk drive or loss of data stored on the disk drive is able to be substantially reduced. According to another aspect, a user of a portable computing device can be alerted when the portable computing device is being subjected to undesirable levels of acceleration.

Somewhat similarly, Sun honcho Jonathon Schwartz posts these comments about IBM's patent assignments to the OSS movement in his blog:

ps. You've got to love IBM's ability to play the community. Going through some of the patents they "donated" to the open source community a few weeks back, it looks as if they all, curiously, seem to be due for payment - and thus potential expiration - this year. Were they destined for the bit bucket (turns out IBM is among the largest patent expirers in the world, along with its largest issuer).

And some of the patents have nothing to do with open source software - my favorite in the heap is this one.

Google may best a9.com in the search department, but not when it comes to the patent department. Helped out by parent Amazon, a9.com boasts twenty four patent assignments (17 issued, 7 pending), while Google falls short with twenty one (8 issued, 13 pending).

Google may best a9.com in the search department, but not when it comes to the patent department. Helped out by parent Amazon, a9.com boasts twenty four patent assignments (17 issued, 7 pending), while Google falls short with twenty one (8 issued, 13 pending).

This schmuck also has a BS patent on a "modular computer user interface system" which appears to be nothing more than a numeric keypad that attaches to the computer. There's also portable telephone with simplified operation and Kid Phone You ought to read the MIT mailing list post too. In there he claims that this little patch increases computer speed to. This is absolute "As seen on TV" bullshit fraud. I'm amazed that the editors posted such blatant crap, and even more amazed they left it up without even a comment.

This schmuck also has a BS patent on a "modular computer user interface system" which appears to be nothing more than a numeric keypad that attaches to the computer. There's also portable telephone with simplified operation and Kid Phone You ought to read the MIT mailing list post too. In there he claims that this little patch increases computer speed to. This is absolute "As seen on TV" bullshit fraud. I'm amazed that the editors posted such blatant crap, and even more amazed they left it up without even a comment.