Slashdot Mirror
Software Patents Could Stop EU Linux Development
sebFlyte writes "An expert in computer and Internet law has advised that if the CIID is passed in europe (which looks likely but is not certain) then the threat of patent litigation could bring European Linux development to a grinding halt." From the article: "There is no question that some of the open source software that is out there -- such as the Linux kernel itself -- has got patent violations in there. That is acknowledged. There is more danger that those potential violations will be litigated..."
"There is no question that some of the open source software that is out there -- such as the Linux kernel itself -- has got patent violations in there. That is acknowledged."
Do you work for SCO?
More FUD!
Go see http://www.groklaw.com.
It's pretty much like the speed limit, one can argue all day that doing 70mph is as safe as 60mph, but if the law is passed, and the limit is set at 60mph, everybody just have to slow down even your "common sense" says otherwise.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
acknowledged by who?
Because everyone is eager to get into a knife fight with IBM.
..but don't they lose the right to sue after it has infringed openly for some time? Linux is as open as it gets. And it's been here a while too. Hell, it might even count as previous art against some of the more frivolous (ie most) software patents.
Given the US has stupid patents already and the Linux development still continues there... I am not convinced how expert this "expert" is.
-ben
It is impossible to stop the development of software against someones will. It may have to get developed under certain restrictions, but it is impossible to stop because of the inevitable communication through the internet. This is how software is so easily outsourced and it is the same reason development for linux cannot be stifled through litigation, but rather only through disinterest. my take
Math
Why does everything has to be patented?? Does anyone have an answer?
Bits of News Giving you the latest bits.
Why did they bother writing it? There are neither examples, illustrations, nor case studies that show WHY Euro Linux or other open source projects will be severely hampered. I'm not disagreeing with him, but his statements have all the informative value of Microsoft FUD.
Why wasn't there a link to an article detailing what patent violations he was talking about? There, now there's a question.
Trademarks work that way. Patents can be used to sue people no matter how long they may have violated it with or without the knowledge of patent holder. and IANAL
The EPO has already illegally granted over 30,000 software patents in Europe. Because these patents are illegal they cannot be enforced in court. But this means that the european software industry doesn't care about these illegal patents.
If software patents are legalized, these illegal patents suddenly can be enforced in court.
It is likely that the european software industry will come to a standstill for years after software patents have been legalized, as they have to spend their resources fighting in court instead of doing research and innovation.
I will then own the rights to ever have an information page on any patent stored electronically. This is called legislating yourself back to the stone age but is theoretically possible in the age of free-for-all software patents.
Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better
So, they are knowingly violating patents and don't like legislation that might help companies uphold suits against those known violations? Seems like they just shouldn't have violated those patents in the first place.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
"There is no question that some of the open source software that is out there -- such as the Linux kernel itself -- has got patent violations in there. That is acknowledged. There is more danger that those potential violations will be litigated..."
.....
There is also "no doubt" that Microsoft Windows and every other operating system has patent violations.
Hmmm, Sue all Windowws users
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Most Europeans(according to recent polls ~85%) are against software patents. The representatives of the EU are supposed to represent the people and the will of the people.
=> If there is actually democracy in Europe there will be no software patents.
and see that if they suddenly killed off half of their software industry by allowing software patents that might have been used by EU software companies simply because they weren't patents in the EU at the time the software was written, that would be a really bad thing for Europe!
Surely the only solution is to ensure that at least all existing software is exempt from software patents.
Yes, basically the whole law is unworkable. If the EU kills off its quite healthy software development industry and hands it over to US companies (why else is Microsoft lobbying so hard?) then what has it gained? Thousands of out of work people that were previously high-paid, hence good tax earners.
Will this clown democracy be the one that sells out Europe for some personal gains?
The sky is blue. Water is wet. And Gates is rich.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
There is no question that some of the open source software that is out there -- such as the Linux kernel itself -- has got patent violations in there. That is acknowledged.
This looks to me like the FUD we have been hearing for a while now. This kind of repetitive rhetoric (argumentum ad nauseum) serves one purpose: to instill in the minds of decision makes in the IT industry (those who hold the strings of the pruse, or those who recommend purchases to them) that they are at risk if they chose Linux.
If there are violations let us see them! Show us!
The worse that can happen is those portions will be recoded to be patent free in days or weeks.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
According to an IP lawyer I once had beer with, and since confirmed numerous times in the press, most large software companies have violated each others' patents - numerous times. But since everyone has "injured" everyone, most no one sues - since they will simply get counter-sued on a different patent.
That said, it seems obvious that the MS kernel, like probably all other kernels, contains IP violations. The difference is that only the FOSS kernels are open to public scrutiny.
So commerical companies can keep their IP violations largely secret, while FOSS ones get vetted publicly. Anyone wanna bet whether a closed kernel or open kernel has more IP violations? Does anyone believe that the MS kernel is completely free of IP violations? Anyone wanna buy a bridge?
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
that this couldn't read "Software Patents Could Stop EU Mircosoft Development"
When we focus on the damage software patents can do, haven't we forgotten about the other nasty in that wording: patenting of business processes?
I mean fluff like Amazons one click ordering and shopping lists and all the other stuff of a non-technical nature that can be patented under that wording, just as long as its implemented in software...
This was another nasty hole the Commissions/BSA wording had in it that the Parliament tackled.
After all a patent were never intended to protect 5 minute non technical ideas!
It might be easier to explain *that* problem to the Commission even if you can't get them to understand the problem with Software patents.
then the threat of patent litigation could bring European Linux development to a grinding halt
Threats of patents hasn't seemed to slow US Linux development, so why would it have any affect on EU Linux development?
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
"Ex" means former.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The blanket "intellectual property" term covering trademarks, copyright and patents causes a lot of confusion, including yours. Its trademarks where you can lose rights in this way. Patents have no such rule. In fact, that's one of the few ways people can make money from software patents. Watch an algorithm work its way into widespread use, then start suing when it it would be difficult for people to turn back.
If this law passes, I will be the first one to patent boolean logic :).
Osho
You can slow down the development of open content but you cannot stop it.
Believe me, there's a live after patents even if it may not happen for the next hundred years but it will happen for sure. In the past there were dark ages from time to time but all have gone.
At this time, many lawyers have advised their clients to postpone litigation at this point pending the CIID passing in Europe.
They understand that sueing open source projects at this point would:
* Scare away the Europeans from adopting software patents and turn them into an open source safe-haven by creating a good public case against software patents.
* Have no financial benefit whatsoever.
If Linux/Open Source projects/foundations haven't been sued yet, it's because it is currently being stalked by a hungry pride of lions who want to gaurantee they capture their prey.
Antelopes are skittish for a reason.
I've been Googling for acknowledgement of Linux kernel patent violations. Other than statements by SCO, I haven't found any.
Does anyone know what Jeremy Mark Malcolm was talking about when he wrote: "There is no question that some of the open source software that is out there -- such as the Linux kernel itself -- has got patent violations in there. That is acknowledged."?
He is described as "an information technology lawyer specialising in Internet-related law...". Could this just be twisty English, saying that: Some open source software is acknowledged as having patent violations and that The linux kernel is an example of open source ?
OK, could someone explain the difference again please?
It's not just. Commercial closed-source softwares are those that will benefit from the law, and they don't have to show their sources. Linux and open source software are transparent patent-wise. I think there should be a double standard. One for closed-source, and another for open-source.
It seams that as each person quotes the other: "expert" to ZDNET to /. each quoter wants to out dramatise the previous one.
You know someone is talking shit when they apply three dilutions "may", "perhaps" and "some" in a single statement.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The big players are protecting themsleves against people playing them for patents that they make use of. The lawyers are coming in and seeking to provide revenue for greedy people, and the smaller players are hoping to not get noticed.
I think that a compromise should be sought; the litigation-crazy equivalents of the ambulance chasers need to be eliminated from this game because they do not add value to the computer industry when they sue. The interests of the small players need to be defended against this; the larger players are large because they have defended themselves and the need to defend the money-making side of research in the computer industry will remain.
I suggest a middle ground for patents that reflects the speed of progress in information technology: a three year patent without protection while it is being assessed and which can only be defended by its owners if a product making use of that development is on sale. This supports the people who want to innovate to sell products without being too restrictive on the people who can't afford to protect their developments with extensive litigation.
A more wacky alternative: to include in patent specification that an example of the computer code required to perform the patented task be made available under a free-as-in-both license after a protected period of three or five years.
Why was this story, with zero facts and only the opionions of some lawyer posted. We have Groklaw to tell us the status of the EU software patent wars, and that source will also more realistically what it all means without the FUD.
To reduce crime, make fewer things against the law.
It's odd how every time a 'linux is on the edge of total destruction' article appears, it tends to come from a source that shuns it. I went to the downloads section and they have windows/mac/mobile sections. Could it be that ZDNet is about as interested in linux as microsoft is in making a better product for the sake of making a better product regardless of their development cost? My long time instinct is to say that ZDNet is so tightly focused on microsoft and mac they're pretty much against anything not 'mainstream'. Also, if there is 'no question' as to linux patent violations, why did the judge in the SCO v.s. IBM case stop short of directly accusing SCO of a dog and pony show and dismissing SCOs charges? Am I missing something, or is this another helping of FUD meant to feed the uninformed?
This story:
Software Patents Could Stop EU Linux Development
Two stories after this one:
Bill Gates to Receive Honorary UK Knighthood
--ken
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
First, to date, there has never been a successful prosecution for patent infringment against Linux, or in fact, any attempt, and until the patents are litigated we don't know if Linux infringes any valid patents or not. Second, as many posters have mentioned, the US has the most abused patent system in the world, and FOSS developers continue to develop. The Free Software Foundation is based in the US, and so is OSDL and Linus himself. Lastly, the expert 'admits' to being against software patents, but then asserts that the uncertainty in the EU is worse than a definitve resolution. This is sheer nonsense. If you are a FOSS developer, surely the current situation is better than a definitive resolution for software patents. Either this is a Microsoft FUD piece or the expert was seriously misquoted.
I had an idea for this the other day. Impractical as it may be please hear me out! Basically, what you do is make a product that is extensible (ala Firefox). Have a mechanism where you can build a file sharing mechanism into it that is totally decentralised (like Gnutella). Make your products so componentised and extensible that every bit of functionality can be installed with a click of a button (like firefoxes extensions). However, the catch is that the click of the button compiles the module from source. Then, make the components that have patents on them and test them, release them as an extension and never note who created the product, then release this into the Gnutella style file sharing network. Hook up the extension manager to the Gnutella network and have people download the extensions and also share it (you'd need a way of making them share extensions).
Why is this a good idea? Two reasons:
1. The packages are all in source code. Anyone with knowledge can find bugs and release it as a different package after fixing the bugs.
2. Once in the file sharing network, companies would find it impossible to track down the original author. Hence they can't sue them. If you have 20 million users, then they would have to sue each of the 20 millions users. They couldn't sue the original author of the highly extensible software package that brings it all together because they haven't done anything wrong. And they don't provide a service where people upload their files to a centralised file server.
There are some challenges here:
1. a revision control system that could work over a distributed network. A distributed and decentralised CVS would be needed, if you will. This would be needed because otherwise you'd never know which revision to download (no revision numbers would work).
2. the data would need to go over a well known port that isn't easy to block, like port 80. Otherwise network admins would work out ways of stopping this data from getting around the Internet.
3. A way of signing code to make sure it isn't malicious and won't break underlying systems (like delete files, etc). I see that you would need some sort of sandbox to run it in. Don't know how you'd get around that one.
Anyway, that's my random thought. Seems wacky to me, and probably not doable: but imagine if it could be done? Say bye bye software patents! Basically, it would change the very face of the industry: if software patents are published fully and people can write extensions for existing software, but these extensions are dispersed widely and in source code where fixes and enhancements could be made anonymously: well, how are you going to enforce software patents?
The only ones who couldn't do these types of things are corporations, as they can't be seen to do dodgy or illegal things. Even then they may still be able to use patented software, as they haven't done anything wrong! But it would be a boon for consumers.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Sue me till I don't have a penny left, but there's nothing you can do to stop me violating a parent.
All software patents can be avoided, here;s one example of the top of my head.
company a patents
c = a + b
So I implement
c = (a +1)(b +1) / 2 + ab
bye bye patent.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
.... with this one:/ 173122 8&tid=109
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/01
Arg... Yuck...
-=fshalor
The patent holders will do just fine, money-wise. It will take them many years to realize that patents may have a downside for them too, and many more before they admit it to themselves. They will never admit it publicly.
Just look at the **AA, still clinging desprately to a business model they must know has failed.
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
This will drive all OS programming underground. Furthermore, it will drive ALL programming underground for fear of lawsuits.
Is the EU even aware fo what this will do to Europena programming? It will kill it in favour of M$ and anyone who has the bucks to pay for silly patent infringement costs.
I, for one, am apalled that the EU is being swayed so much by M$. Its time to stop the juggernaut before it swallows up computing forever under an avalanche of patents.
Fight the FUD, go OSS!
The corporations have won, everything is lost. The proprietary software field has consolidated the legal system against the Free software world and very soon the distribution of Free software will be illegal.
We're fucked on all fronts -wether it's with regards to the homeland security force which has the power to send citizens to guitanamo on a whim to the eurpopean patent mess- freedom and justice for the non-corporate citizen is a thing of the past.
It's time to give up entirely; there's no other, practical, choice.
"Your admirers in the street
Got to hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson
Offtopic, but do you really rent your cat?
If you do, what is my liability if my three demon possesed cats ( all calico ) happen to slightly damage Pi while playing?
Please reply.
where is the prior art for new patents in Europe?
the kernel already exists.
of specifically which patents the Linux kernel violates?
Reject Fear - Embrace Hope
Easy explanation, best served by a litmus test.
Basically, simply state in a Slashdot post that "Copyrights and Patents are the same thing." This statement will bring about a whole bunch of nerdy losers who'll be falling all over each other to correct you. Next, state in another post that "Patents and Copyrights are the same thing." Notice that the words "patents" and "copyrights" have been reversed. This is important, because THIS statement will cause furor to rise amongst the geeky dorks of Slashdot, breaking all sorts of nerd speed barriers to correct you.
So, in short, you can understand the difference between the two in the pack of weirdos that each one attracts. Or, to put it simply...
Patents => geeky dorks
Copyrights => nerdy losers
Then there are the annoying twits. You'll know them because they'll be the ones immediately responding to this post in feeble attempts at improving upon its humour. Also not to be confused with the jealous idiots, who'll be modding it down, and the eminent intellectuals, who'll be modding it up.
It's all quite easy, really.
If making millions of pounds a year profit is classed as failure, I would love to see your idea of success.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
.. this saddens me immensely, because linux rocks the box.
stuff like this is gonna slow that waaaaay down in these quarters. the stupid fools in the EU Commission don't seem to understand that while they're partying with Microsoft, Asia is pumping out thousands, upon thousands, of linux-kernel products, and that if this becomes a serious issue (rather than just propagandist tripe), it won't be long until the offending code gets ripped out and replaced with public-trust patented code.
and in the meantime, where is the manufacturing going? its not sticking around in europe, yo!!
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Maybe it's time to start educating against software patents in Africa? ;-) Might be Linux last hope...that or Antartica.
Also, if you bothered to RTFA, you'll see that this idiot (Jeremy Mark Malcolm) who's being quoted offers ZERO proof that there is, as he claims:
In other words, he pulled his factoids out of someone's ass (probably McBride's or Gates - oops "Sir" Gates to us peons).If you do a google for this guy, you'll see that he's no "legal expert", he's just some part-time (very part-time) lawyer trying to drum up a name for himself down under. His day job (for the last 7 years) is "Manager of Terminus Network Services" here.
The nazguls would eat him before breakfast w/o working up a sweat [tt].If you really want to laugh, here's a google cache of his home page.
I mean, come on, you want expert advice from someone who describes themselves like this:bwaahahahahaha - gee, too bad that the VAST MAJORITY of geniuses aren't stupid enough or insecure enough to pay for the "privilege" of belonging to Mensa.Anyone stupid enough to get suckered into paying some other group to say "Hey, they think I'm smart" is White House Press Corps "lob-a-softball-question-for-George" material.
You're describing a Submarine Patent, where the patent holder waits until their patent is widely adpoted so that they will be owned much more in infringement fees and royalities than would be likely if they'd enforced their patent from the beginning and possibly had people work around it. I do believe there are some limits on using this approach.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
funniest shit ive read on /. all week
This never would have happened if they had just called it the Linux Colonel instead. Governments and corporations around the world would be terrified of the swift and decisive ruin, which befalls any who try to stop the Linux Colonel and his development. We might have to lose the penguin...or at least give him an assault rifle.
Just recently slashdot posted up a article about Bill Gates being knighted and now this? Me thinks someone(s) high up in Britain is pulling for M$ big time.......
Exactly. What reality distortion field are Slashdotters caught in? Proprietary closed source software MAKES MONEY. Hand over fist. There are thousands of companies to prove this. Most of them are in high growth mode, with revenues increasing every year.
The music industry is also making more money than ever before (on less talent too). These business models WORK. Proven. End of story.
The jury is still out on OSS business models. So far, no OSS company has seen wild success.
Except for the fact that your algorithm - unless the compiler is really smart - will take much longer. MULTs (and thus, DIVs) are really cpu intensive compared to simple ADDs.
Company A:
c = ADD(a+b)
You:
t1 = INC(a)
t2 = INC(b)
t3 = MULT(t1,t2)
t4 = DIV(t3,2)
t5 = MULT(a,b)
c = ADD(t4,t5)
CLEAR(t1...t5)
That's just a generic example, of course. The point is, even on a simple case, your version will be slower. In a time-critical process, you couldn't compete.
Rights held by the people but not in the constitution are protected.
Everyone goes at least 5mph over the speed limit.
Therefore the people think they have a right to go 5mph over the speed limit.
Therefore the constitution protects the right to go 5mph over the limit.
Nothing fosters more contempt for the law then traffic laws.
same comment
That's the wonderful thing about OS. If the lawyers and fuckocrats chop off a piece in the EU then a huge amount of wonderful work continues to go on in Brazil, India, Israel, China, Japan, Korea, Philippines, Russia, Canada and the US.
Screw the EU let them drive all good development away and be stuck with Microsoft. I've always said that the best way to wreak revenge on a control freak is to actually give them control. The EU will rapidly discover what a disaster this is for them and by then it will be too late.
Before you can prosecute for patent violation, you have to discover it. Some patents will be immediately discoverable, because the patent covers the one way to do something, and anyone doing that thing is likely violating your patent. (Of course in this case, it ought to have been called, "obvious.")
In other cases, what's patented is merely a better way. In that case, discovery can be tough. To catch Open Source software in this kind of patent, you can simply trawl readily available source code. To catch proprietary software, you may well have to disassemble their code, which is breaking the EULA. In other words, you'll have to break Contract Law in order to discover a violation of Patent Law.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Sounds like someone failed the entrance test
WTF is this guy talking about?!
Acknowledge means "yes, I know. You're right". Now can anybody tell me WHICH Linux developer has admitted that the Linux Kernel DOES violate ANY software patent?
That's no acknowledge.
Patents *HELP* inventions! Duh...
Patents have always existed. In the old old days it was just called "the King". Didn't matter what it was - if the king wanted it, then you were in violation of the patent.
In todays world like at that time, there is a need to treat intangibles as real estate. It is of course - all about money. Or is it? Today it seems to be increasingly about control specifically about control of further development. Obviously next to having a pile of it, the best thing would be if you can keep anybody else from also getting a pile of it.
I think there is a fine line between being able to capitalize on your investments and to assert control of future developments. And we have long ago crossed this line.
I think that hefty taxes should be asserted by the state to maintain copyrights and patents. A yearly 2% of estimated value would be sufficient. Too many companies are just sitting back not doing anything except capitalizing on litigation. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. Littigation is very effective business weapon which can drain any competitor given enough money. And the only way this machine can be effective is when enough laws and patents are available. It is my opinion that these laws are benefitting very few by selling out on basic human rights. In particular the right to earn a living.
*cough* GIF *cough*
This is an excellent example of the state of political debate today.
Side 1 issues a nearly apocalyptic result if said legislation doesn't pass: "Nobody will develop or sell software in the EU"
Side 2 responds with an equally dire result if the legislation does pass: "Nobody will be able to develop OSS"
Both scenarios are equally preposterous.
Intelligent analysis doesn't figure into the debate, just FUD.
Why do you think multimedia support under linux sucks so bad? Here's a hint. It's technically not that hard to write an mp3 decoder. Same goes for the other various audio/video codecs, color management in GIMP, etc.
How about we insist on forced open source as a price for patents?
I mean:
* You can't determine prior art if all the software is closed source.
* You can't defend against patents if your prevented from showing the prior art.
Therefore in exchange for patents, all software must be open source. Not just the patented bits (because unpatented bits may be prior art for future patents) - all of it.
That would fit with the Vacuum cleaner/Steam engine model, since as soon a Dyson puts out a new Vacuum cleaner its obvious from looking at it how it works. So it would put software in the same position.
"There is no question that some of the open source software that is out there -- such as the Linux kernel itself -- has got patent violations in there. That is acknowledged."
Say it often enough and people will believe that it's true.
Man that home page is pathetic. Is he 5 years old?
Too bad I don't have mod points right now.
Bill Gates
Why doesn't somoene just write a virus that can walk right into a windows machine and infect it? This might prove how bad an idea proprietary software is..
*long pause*
HA!!
Let's do the math.
It's a scam, dude. Only the inscure, the stupid, the gullible, the naive, the boring, the insipid, the vapid, the "can't get laid any other way", the __NOT_A_FUCKING_CLUE__ would apply.Besides which, they allow you to keep trying until you get in. What's the fun if they're letting in the unwashed riff-raff dullards. Hell, even Bush could probably get in, and he can't tell the difference between a legitimate reporter and a military-fetish male prostitute..
In democratic, sue-happy nations, we will litigate open source out of existence. China will take over development and we will have to import Linux to use it over here. Illegally of course.
We are providing a textbook case for future generations to look at -- how to commit technological suicide.
1) All useful things that can be done with a computer are patented, some more than once.
2) The Linux kernel does useful things with a computer
3) The Linux kernel infringes patents. QED.
Now, those patents may very well be BS, but Linux still infringes them and they are valid patents until someone challenges them in court, which is expensive.
It doesn't MATTER if 95% of the software patents issued in the US have prior art or are just blindingly obvious. Nobody has enough money to challenge all of them. Therefore they are effectively valid.
is a great example of why people don't bother to RTFA anymore. This is as bad as the post last week that "Apple was backing away from firewire."
In California, at least, if a city or some local government post a speed limit sign that says 10 MPH on an interstate freeway (for example), you don't have to follow it because the speed sign is not "reasonable" from an engineer/public safety perspective. All speed limit signs MUST be backed by engineering studies that says the proper speed limits should be set at x MPH for this stretch of road. If you get a ticket for speeding, and in court you demand the prosecutor providing engineering studies proof to back-up the vailidity of the speed limit, and they cannot, your case is then dismissed and you are free.
Therefore, even if the law is passed, it doesn't mean you should follow it blindly.
On another tangent, if the traffic is going 80 MPH, and you go 70 MPH on a 60 MPH highway it was possible to get a ticket for going too fast and too slow at the same time. Though usually the court will throw out one of the two.
I wondered who was in my way recently.
sulli
RTFJ.
Well infact mod the whole damn thing down. It appears nobody on this site actually knows what is written in the Directive neither do they know how to read and understand the statute or the associated case law. Even understanding what a patent is and how to read one seems beyond you lot.
Go back into your parent's basements and shut up.
I'll pay your test fee - now prove it!
Give me a job. Please?
Submarine patents supposedly violate the equitable doctrine of laches, which in plain english state that if you knew about a violation before, you had to make some reasonable effort to mitigate the problem by asking them to stop violating.
In reality though, you can shop for a jurisdiction that will hear any case you want, at which point you can just bankrupt your opponents with legal proceedings and hope they'll settle before then.
Funny, I never hear republicans talking about all the frivolous suits filed by corporations.
I'll give him a reward if he gets in!
Not everyone in the world is able to take the test, Mensa isn't present in every country.
Dumbass.
Mensa accounts are available for reading, if they were scamming people it would be obvious.
Sounds like Mensa hits a raw nerve with you; how did you manage to fail the "oh so easy" test?
Has anyone seen a list of patent violations in the linux kernel? Did I miss it somewhere? To be blunt, put up or shut up.
"Actually, there's not a shred of evidence that Linux has any patented code in it."
p /3 432241
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.ph
Also, SCO's case is a copyright case against IBM and you can't just bring alleged patent infringements into a copyright case. There is no reason whatsoever why any patent lawyers would have been poring over the code at the same time as the copyright lawyers, and SCO would have to be even more foolish than it is to attack IBM on patent infringement grounds anyway.
mensa gets me money off (>$50) my car insurance
Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner!
If that's your criterion for a social organization's worth, I bet the "chicks" are beating a path to your door. I'm a Mensa member because I like the diverse interests of the people you meet (even among the men and the older women!) and the magazine is somewhat entertaining. Your inability to get accepted doesn't mean that other people don't find it worthwhile.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The jury is still out on OSS business models. So far, no OSS company has seen wild success.
HP saw about $1.4B in revenue and IBM had about $1.2B in revenue during 2004 solely from linux-based server sales. That seems like a pretty successful OSS business model to me.
just one more columnist clamoring for attention. all this talk of linux infringing patents and yet no one is yet to show actual code. he shows his true colours by claiming it's acknowledged yet doesn't say by who.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Seems reasonable. If you can patent "IsNot" and XOR, then I imagine there are hundreds of other stupid patent violations peppered throughout the kernel source.
he is a Debian Developer.
Sounds like he's an active Free Software participant. Bonus points for that.
I spent all day in Fremantle today on location for the shooting of a new local independent feature film, Fisheye Stiller.
He also has interests outside his mom's basement. More bonus points.
What would you consider to be acceptable pasttimes? Making clocks? Working puzzles? Building Lego kits? Is there anything he could have put on there that you wouldn't be making fun of?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Applying that to this situation, you'd need to have a few "obvious" software patents that they would simply have to attack. They would have no choice. You don't care about sacrificing those patents - in fact, the only way to really win IS to lose them - what you care about is setting a precedent that blunts or even disembowels their own patents.
One thing American culture isn't too good on is that sometimes the best way to win is to lose. You just have to lose the right way. Precisely because that is a weakness in American culture, it is very unlikely American businesses would know how to deal with it. They'd be far more likely to win first and understand the consequences later.
Those more into Doctor Who, in particular the story The Five Doctors, will recognize this strategy as the one Rassilon uses. To Win Is To Lose, and He Who Loses Shall Win.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
sudo has nothing to do with Linux. When we're talking about Linux here we're talking about the operating system Kernel. Technically it's wrong to refer to the Linux operating system, especially if you're a Gnu / Stallman fan. But even if you're not, one thing is clear... sudo is not a part of Linux.
This was really rampant in the 1980's and early-1990's - but there isn't any reason whatsoever to think it isn't still going on...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Such claims must be made, since it is in the same league as MSFT and others threatening to leave europe if software patents are not introduced (which is nonsense just the same).
Some of the (evil) politicians keep claiming that the proposed law does not allow pure software patents. We do need warnings like this to set this false claim straight. Since many politicians and also companies in europe do want to use linux, making such threats might help to prevent the introduction of software patents.
Anything that's a problem for Linux is a problem for proprietary software. Just because you can't see the code doesn't mean there isn't an issue there.
I've heard so many X is going to kill Linux bs stories it gets so lame after a while. This isn't going to kill Linux, nothing is going to kill it. You might as well be trying to stop the wind.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
As for the rest, you don't have to take their test - you can submit your test results that were taken by any legitimate testing body. In my case, it would be easy enough to get my scores from grade school (where even the teachers referred to me as the walking dictionary), or high school, etc.
My point was it is a marketing scam, pure and simple. What are they selling you - confirmation that "oh, look, I'm a genius!". Big shit - everyone who knows me already knows that. I do my best NOT to rub it in their faces. If I need a piece of paper saying "oh, lookie, I;m smart", I can print up one for a lot less than they'll charge me, and it will be worth just as much - zero, zip, nada - in the great scheme of things.
I prefer Groucho Marx's line: "I wouldn't want to belong to any exclusive club that would have me".
It's obvious to over 99.9% of all geniuses that Mensa offers nothing of value. Or maybe you're not smart enough to see thatLike clock work, every time something comes up over the directive, a wave of FUD shows up all over. And the common thing about them all is they all talk about how the evil ones will push the directive through !. Oh again and again this happens, and Iam sorry to say, but all the replies every time too, don't help to stop this wave of BS. My reply included !.
If all the patent corporations altogether had the whole thing tied up in the EU, then it would be a simple thing to pass this directive, would it not ?.
Mods, just a hint: read the PP's sig, follow the tt link, note that "tt" stands for "Troll Tuesday".
Now...are you sure that this post is actually +5 Informative material?
A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
My simple point is that Mensa offers nothing of value that you can't get elsewhere for less, or free, and that the vast majority (>99.9% of all geniuses) show by their actions that they agree with me.
Do the math (or tell me where my math - previously posted) is wrong.
multinationals like IBM and Novell have 10 year roadmaps with Linux and will defend it just to preserve their current investment. apparently even Linus has said he'll write around patents infringed by kernel code if need be.. Linux will survive as a major player if the swpat Directive goes through - the only effects of which we'll see will be minor fluctuations in share price around court-cases.
that said, i'm more concerned about smaller
afterall there's a market for chasing so called patent violation; figures we hear like $500,000 just to defend will likely drop to allow opportunists to reliably harvest smaller sums from appropriately smaller prey. in this way the deadliest symptom of enforceable software patents is that they discourage development.
you been smoking too much of that bcgreen there
No you can't take the test anywhere, the written test needs an examiner. You may have take the home test but that is just an entrance to the written test.
Your math is wrong plain and simple.
Prior Art.
I'm not sure how patents in Europe work, but in the US, a patent can easily be contested. Prior art and obviousness can rule out a lot of these "patent infringements" in linux.
So lets do it! Bring it to light and put on the table what linux may be infringing on if you know of any and lets research it =]
The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
This lawyer with very limited experience makes a statement that there are patent issues with the linux kernel, and doesn't back it up. You'd think he'd know that such a statement, w/o backing, might be actionable, if only because he's slandering everyone on the kernel development team. He's also contributing to the general level of FUD. If this statement were made by someone who wasn't posing as a "friend" of open source, we'd be all over his ass like a pair of cheap underwear on a $5 hooker.
Instead of pulling factoids out of thin air, let him SHOW that there's a single proven patent infringement in the kernel. He can't, any more than anyone else has been able to - that makes me question his honesty, his intelligence, and his motives.
It's not like the kernel source has been hidden away.
What next - team up with Merkey in another FUD campaign? I mean, I've heard the old expression "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer", but this is fucking retarded.
BTW: Did you read the rules? Be controversial, be funny, but above all MAKE PEOPLE THINK instead of having them post the same knee-jerk responses. You're welcome to join in, but remember, it requires more than a superficial analysis of the situation. Cynicism is a definite requirement.
s/mensa/geico/;
You're such a dumbass.
It said Mensa membership gets at least $50 off car insurance not Mensa is an insurer.
Or, as we say in Canada, doh!
Now, explain how the math is wrong. And remember, keep it plain and simple for all those Mensa members out there.
You can submit them by licensed/accredited psycologists that's true, you still need to take the Mensa exam afterward.
DUMBASS.
"On another tangent, if the traffic is going 80 MPH, and you go 70 MPH on a 60 MPH highway it was possible to get a ticket for going too fast and too slow at the same time. Though usually the court will throw out one of the two."
Show me ONE example where this has happened. Laws cannot be interpreted in such a manner that it is impossible to act lawfully. If you go and read the relevant traffic laws, you will find that under no circumstances can the "prevailing speed" be considered to be greater than the posted speed limit.
This too, is a half truth. *software*patents are not perfectly valid, infact, they are illegal according to an EU directive of '73. Alas, due to 'creative' interpretation of the law and rules, the EPO (and in their following some - but not all - national patentoffices) have granted swp nevertheless.
Which leads to the current situation, where there are swp, though they are not really allowed, and that they could be used in court, but almost never are because any company trying it, has a good chance their swp will be deemed unvalid by the courts.
A clear and non-ambigious directive that makes it explicitkly unlawful to have swp in ALL EU countires wopuld solve all the current chaos.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
...including Australian Mensa...
Fits my definition...I'm joking...I don't even know this person.
What?
An excerpt from the relevant section:
22400. (a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law.
So, you cannot be ticketed for complying with the speed limit.
Google first advertised with an intelligence test in Mensa's magazine.
I wonder why.... by your reasoning it must be because Google wanted stupid people... yeah I can see that.
Thank you IBM for patents in Europe! Without your "help" we would never get them.
There is a huge difference between the US and the proposed EU patent system. While in the US "prior art" is all that practically matters, in the EU a patent is described as being "a significant advancement to the state of the art in that field". This means that for something to be patentable, it must be non-obvious. This is clearly open to interpretation and in any case of patent infringment one could claim that said patent is invalid because it is not really state of the art.
Another point to remember is that patents DO expire (well, at least in my country). I'd bet that in any reasonable patent scheme the Windows 95 patents should have expired by now (which is a reasonable time frame for any company selling software, after all MS no longer supports Win 95!!).
P.
Shopping around and asking the right questions will get you a better rate than those so-called "affinity preferred rates", which are just a marketing ploy, and an old one at that.
When you're already in the lowest-risk group (no claims in over 20 years, etc.), there isn't enough margin to give a $50 break on an insurance policy. How are they supposed to, for example, give me a $50 break on a $40 motorcycle liability policy (that's right, $40, when other people I know are paying $400 to $800. Oh, right, they "got a deal")?
Insurance varies so much from year to year, even with the same carrier, depending on their claim rates, etc. It always pays to shop around.
gee, too bad that the VAST MAJORITY of geniuses aren't stupid enough or insecure enough to pay for the "privilege" of belonging to Mensa.
Hahaha... pretty good. While discussing someone who was recently hired at the company I work for (before he actually started), my boss casually let it slip that he was a member of Mensa. When I didn't respond, he said "Gee, are you impressed?" I said "No, I am just wondering how in the FUCK that came up in the interview!"
BTW, he doesn't work there anymore but then neither do I. I guess we both exceeded the maximum IQ standard!
And people wonder why I say that only an idiot would join mensa. Your "l33t r34d1gg ski1z" underwhelm me.
- it's still a bullshit stat made by a pathetic "I scored high on an IQ test so you should believe me" wanker
- it means nothing in the current context, 'cuz I won't join because I'm not so insecure as to need "confirmation" that I'm smarter than the idiots who are in Mensa. I already know that, d'oh!
- I don't like elitism (typical Canadian "egalitiste" attitude, so what, if you don't like it, fuck you
:-)
- The typical member of Mensa has the sense of humour of a brick.
Membership? Tests? Scores? The rest of us, who think Mensa is bullshit, laugh at both the Mensa wannabes who actually paid good money for a useless test, and the members who continue to throw good money after bad every year.Oh, and it's "complain", not "compain".
It's amazing how many of the "Mensa Defenders" post anonymously - guess you don't like the fact that more than 99.9% of all geniuses don't want to "validate" your concept, and 100% of the rest of the world see you as a bunch of dolts who got suckered into someone else's make-money-off-of-other-people's-teenie-weenie-ego scam.
Remember - the reason I think you're stupid is because you have a club based on an IQ test result, and because you actually fork out good money every year to stay in that club.
A ticket to the big game simply gives you the right to experience the event. You take home nothing tangible, only memories. The entertainment industry is all about the sale of intangibles, pure data, if you like, and it has existed and prospered in recognizable form in the United States since before the Civil War.
Anyone who cares to google will get the company's history. They only published a sample, and not just in Mensa.
Or if you're too lzay to click, you could read this quote:
In other words, google was already in business for over half a decade, and already had 700 employees, when they advertised in a bunch of magazines (and not just Mensa).If the patent can't be upheld in court it is effectively invalid. I suspect that'd be the case with sudo as prior art is emminently provable.
Only if you have HUGE amounts of money to take the issue to court. It doesn't actually matter how obviously wrong a patent may be, very very few companies or individuals have the ability to take it to court - the other 99.9% out there are simply forced to back down and stop using the "technology". In fact, the fact that a patent won't be upheld in court is almost irrelevant - the effect could be the same for several years even if a big company (e.g. IBM?) is willing to take it to court ... that time would be used by MS to gain market share and thus further their "lock-in".
All signs do seem to point towards Microsoft gearing up to make a major 'patent-based' attack on Linux (their funding of the SCO lawsuit being the first round, if you will). With MS's effectively bottomless wallets, I wouldn't be quick to dismiss the possible negative impact on Linux. Especially if they push European patents through. (Although that still leaves Asia, at least.)
There is another negative effect that several Linux patent court cases could have, even if it was clear the patents were invalid: Companies considering using Linux would be more fearful of doing so, because of the perceived increased risk that the future of Linux may 'hang in the balance' or even just a perceived increased risk that their is a chance they could end up paying royalties for using 'patented technologies' in Linux. This point was already played up a lot in the Microsoft/SCO press FUD since the start of the SCO lawsuit, i.o.w. this strategy is already in use by Microsoft (indirectly) and will probably increase.
Note that although they are still winning in terms of desktop market share, Microsoft is increasingly losing the server market, and are desparate to make gains there as they need dominance on all fronts to truly ensure complete "lock-in" to their solutions. And since in the long run you can't win against OpenSource on a purely technological level, patents are probably MS's only possibly effective long-term strategy against Linux (well, that and DRM, which they are also trying). Look for MS to start using more of these in the years to come, especially if the DRM 'arm' of their strategy doesn't work well.
Stop Linux development like the Catholic Church stopped all science in the middle ages? It may slow things down a little, but it won't stop and eventually, everybody will convert to the new Free religion.
He does legal work for Scientology. Google for Jermey Malcolm Scientology" and see for yourself.
Since it's not posted directly under you, you've probably missed where I said this:
He made a statement with zero facts to back them up. Either he knew he was full of it, or, just as bad, he didn't. PEBKAC either way. With supposed "friends" spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about Linux, who needs enemies?Back to your comment about patent violations in the kernel - the patent office admits that 1/3 of their patents are bad patents. Eventually, either some enterprising lawyer is going to find a way to collect damages from companies with deep pockets that knowingly file bogus patents, or software patents will be found to be a legal non-entity, and we'll see this sort of stupidity stop (shit - maybe I should patent that as a business method! :-)
Remember this? Another lawyer who claimed possible patent problems in linux:
Of course, there's always this.Then who cares we take what we can and move to FreeBSD and let them hang.
And a mass exodus to OS X wouldnt kill most of the OSS crowd they would adapt and overcome.
Never ever call that man "Sir"...!
That would indicate that he's a citizen of Commonwealth, which he's surely isn't.
-Nybo
In a recent talk by RMS he mentioned that the Linux kernel violated around 300 software patents. He didn't mention what study he was quoting but he might have been talking about this one by the OSRM group: http://www.osriskmanagement.com/press_releases/pre ss_release_080204.pdf/
I don't know anything about these guys but this seems pretty legit.
Does anyone here have better info on this?
Actually, no. It's "Sir William" to us peons.
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
I call fud - this guy is just throwing stuff out there with no facts - he probably wouldn't even know how to look through the kernel for patent violations.
Can't get much more niche, or much more marginal, than that.
(now I'm going to have both the scientologists AND the mensans wanting my scalp. :-)
I joined purely to piss off my kid brother - got a higher IQ rating. I have to say the group sitting the test with me are far and away the most socially inept twunts I have ever had to share a room with, and I know a lot of techies and geeks!
Yes, there are interest groups, but why are most Mensans geeky introverts. I want to see more skydiving, jetskiing, stunt Mensans! (posting anonymously so I don't get a kicking from Mensans I have to work with!)
Point taken. I withdraw my critique with prejudice. ;-)
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Hey, it's all good :-)
Uuuh...I'm kinda new to this. Are you guys actually being serious about all this? Should you or I care what other people do with their money? And what does this have to do with software patents? I'm more interested in stopping that than stopping people from possibly spending their money foolishly. It's Wednesday, so you can answer honestly :-)
What?
We had a similar problem last year with a guy claiming 283 "possible patent violations" in the linux kernel.
So when someone comes along and starts saying "It's a given that there are patent violations in linux -- I'm a lawyer (for the *cough* scientologists *cough*) so you should believe me -- I'm in Mensa so I should know", I think "3 strikes against him".
The thin-skinned Mensa defenders are more worried about me deflating their egos than what I originally posted on, which again shows both their priorities and their stupidity.
Kind of reminds me of how there are two types of women that I've dated - those who don't ask me if I think they're intelligent, and those who do.
Those who don't ask are okay with themselves. Those that do, I lie and say "Yes, you're intelligent" (it's a lie, because if they have to ask, they're self-selecting into the "not all that smart" group).
Mensa members are as insecure as the people buying into this guys FUD. To paraphrase Torvalds "There may be patent violations in the kernel. There may also be Mensa members who are not insecure about their "mental capabilities". The likelyhood is low enough that I'm not going to loose any sleep over either case."
BTW: Notice how most of the "Mensa defenders" are too chicken to post under a user name, never mind their real names ... another sign of insecurity ... they're afraid people will go - "You - Mensa? What a joke!"
After all, we won our revolution against the UK this way. They won more battles and held the ports, but they had to defeat the continentals in the field to stop the rebellion. In the field the colonial army still lost many battles, but won the two biggies (Saratoga and Yorktown).
Another reason we should know better: the strategy is being used against us in Iraq. Suicide bombing could even be considered the purest form of this strategy.
Ok. I wasn't talking about the kernel per se, but more of the issue of software patents in general. I don't believe theere are patent issues with the kernel either, but if software patents become law that could all change. If something like that were to happen, I would hope that developement continues anonymously. I just saw this quote in somebody's sig: "It's amazing what you can accomplish when you don't care who gets the credit." - Harry S. Truman. Not that I care about Truman, but the quote works for me. As a side note, I wouldn't get so worked up over the Mensa thing. It's just another "restricted" membership country club...if you get my drift. They are as irrelevent as the Oscars. Let 'em have their fun. I'm having mine. If we take these people too seriously, then the terrorists(tm) have won :-) And remember, if you're ever looking for an acting job, the "Church" of Scientology is probably THE best agency you could use. You don't even need talent. Just look at Tom Cruise. Man! If I only had enough money...Then I could afford to offend everyone.
What?
PS: If you're posting "HTML Formatted", you might want to insert some <br> and <p> tags - like this: <br> (the ampersand, "ell" and "tee", and a semicolon, then the tag, then the ampersand, "ell" and "tee", and another semicolon. Don't worry - it gets easy after a while :-)
Guess I should have explained a bit better: If you want the tags to be visible, you have to do the & - lt - semicolon thing ... if you want them to work as html, just type the less-than, tag text and greater-than keys.
OK, so far you've proved that someone doesn't have to take the test but still needs to prove their qualification?
And the problem is...........?
Seeing as you wrote:
s/mensa/geico/;
even your incredible intellect must have thought that Mensa was an adequate substitute for Geico ??!!!
And yes thanks, I'd already shopped around. Insurance where I live isn't cheap; and as you say, it's not only Mensa members that get discounts, I was just stating that it's one way to get a percentage discount.
I stated Mensa was the first, whether through accidentally good timing or purposeful placement, it doesn't matter... does it.
It's OK tom... but please don't blame a respected organisation for your mental inadequacy for qualification.
Your pseudo intellectual comments made against Mensa and it's members reeks of a person who couldn't meet their standards.
Bad losers are too obvious.
You know your posts are quite humerous.
You point out I spelled a word wrong; big deal guess that means I'll have to read the dictionary again.
And trying to ridicule someone for posting a bogus stat? Most stats you've posted are false.
I'm truly sorry you couldn't pass the Mensa entrance test, but please don't blame Mensa, it's not their fault you're a slightly retarted-early twenties-socially reject moron.
Where you just see a simple statement, I see a parody of the geico commercials. If you *still* don't see it ... like I said, the explanation is for the humour-impaired and Mensa members ...
So lighten up and laugh, already. It's funny.
So it's a credibility problem on the part of the Mensa defenders. If they're as smart as they claim, and not a self-selected bunch of misfits with self-image problems, why do they keep getting the basics of their own organization wrong?
One logical explanation is that they're not as smart as they seem to think they are, and that the > 99.9% of the geniuses, and the 100% of the rest of the world, who see Mensa as a joke, a cult, a collection of social misfits, and/or a waste of time, are right.
Most of us think Mensans have hit their "Peter Principle" ceiling by the act of joining Mensa. It's not like they really, deep down, believe all their crap anyway - otherwise, why bother checking the "post anonymously" box?
Or maybe they're modest? From what I've seen on slashdot re. mensans, they have much to be modest about.
Now, to get back on-topic - (what a scary thought - on-topic posts on slashdot) - the point has been made (by me) that the guy spreading the "linuk has code that infirnges patents" FUD is a member of Mensa.
So, is Mensa now an "intellectual integrity optional" organization? Or is honesty just for the peasants?
You all have been very consistent in avoiding this issue. So, why not address it from the security of another AC post?
I hope you don't mean the Scientologists that the "kernel has ip problems" FUD-spreader named Jeremy Mark Malcolm also likes defending ...
And, yes, I'm being intentionally dense - since all these "AC Mensa Defenders of the Faith" seem most intent on ignoring the real question, which is why anyone should believe a twit like Malcolm, especially since he seems to like both Mensa and Scientology - 2 groups not exactly renowned for their members' common sense..
I also gave the figures on which that calculation was based.
Nobody has been able to refute them. Will you be the first?
Jeremy Mark Malcolm, on the other hand (to drag this thread back on-topic) has been pushing his "linux kernel patent infringement" FUD for at least a year, without any proof to back it up. If he's as smart as Mensa members claim they are, he should be able to come up with SOME proof.
But what do you expect from someone whose "niche law practice" includes harrassing ISPs for people posting the truth about Scientology, including damning quotes from its' founder.
Which brings up another point - how the fuck would anyone with any brains, never mind claiming to be a genius, believe in scientology? Tis to laugh.
The police officer can "try" to ticket you, but the court will throw one out and keep the other standing.