Real do have widespread adoption, and they do make money on servers. They have competition from Microsoft and Apple, doing exactly the same thing, which is the only issue they face. So, you're claiming removing patents would be good, because it would give Real a monopoly patents currently prevent?!
In a way, yes. It would be a short-lived monopoly, but yes. If Real had come out with a patent-free, Open Source format, and had sold servers (yes, you _can_ profitably sell Open Sorce software) and sold expertise in setting them up, they would've temporarily had a very lucrative monopoly. Eventually their prices would've had to come down because of competition from others, which they could do nothing to prevent. But, until others became credibly well-versed in the technology they created, they would've had their monopoly.
All, hard, well thought ought analysis of why IP in general is a bad idea, and why patents actually stifle innovation instead of encourage it.
Yeah, and that's why video sucks so badly under Linux.
Funny, it's fine for me, even Windows Media files.
Yeah, and you are technically infrining on several patents using half those programs. Fear of liability is why RedHat doesn't bundle mplayer with their system. The only reason those programs exist is because their existence serves other purposes of the creators of the format, and there's nobody with deep enough pockets to be worth suing.
Unacceptable to whom? Plenty of startups have managed to create something worthwhile, and benefit from patent protection for it. (Tivo, Real.)
And, just how much have they been actually helped by their patents? It's not as if ReplayTV didn't also exist. Also seems to me that Real's patents have actually hurt them. They'd have widespread adoption if it weren't for patents. They'd be able to make a ton more money installing and setting up servers for people.
They ran out years ago, and secure digital cash systems are already deployed.
No, actually, there is an important one that hasn't. Mojo nation used it to implement Mojo, but Mojo nation's libre spinoffs can't use it. I can find the references to the system if you'd like. The patents don't run out for a couple of years.
How do you justify that claim? MP3 was developed by a company in exchange for the license revenue they now receive. Ditto almost every other major format, from CDs to MPEG-4.
Yeah, and that's why video sucks so badly under Linux. Stupid patents. I hate those garbage patented formats. Trash spawning a stupid maze of incompatibility. It's ridiculous. Doesn't help developers, doesn't help users, the only people it helps are people like Microsoft and Apple.
Give me ogg any day.
Bollocks. They're a source of revenue for the developers who create the systems in question. They are not "weapons", except in precisely the way they were intended: to lock out competitors for a limited time. Develop a new system, and you can either license it to others (making money from the patent licensing fee) or exploit it yourself (making money from your temporary monopoly). That's exactly how the system was intended to work from the outset.
Yeah, right. They lock out small competitors while the big ones quietly cross license. It's extremely damaging to competition and represents an unacceptably large barrier to entry.
And, the developers don't get paid a cent. They get their salaries sure, but no money for the patent.
No, patents are a weapon.
If a developer wants to be paid for spending all that time on something, they can hire themselves out as an implementation consultant, or state in broad terms what the idea is, and say they'll release details after getting a certain amount of money. Both of those systems are much better and more market driven than patents. In fact, that's how Counterpane, one of the better security firms in the business, does all of their work.
Patents, more monopolies, by monopolies, for monopolies, your government working hard to prevent any upset of the people who line the pocketbooks of its politicians.
None, they just had to give some money to the developers if they were making commercial use of it. "You can use my program if you give me some money for it. It's free for non-commercial use, too." What's wrong with that?
What wrong is that the security of the Internet as a whole was comprimised in the meantime. What's wrong is that secure digital cash based systems aren't being deployed right now, instead of when the patents run out. That is a huge cost born by everybody.
It's been widely used for years anyway.
Yeah, by people who can afford the infrastructure it takes to have lawyers and licensing agreements.
A lot of people here seem to have missed something. A patent does not prohibit using an algorithm, it just allows the developer to set a price for it.
It prohibits using the algorithm for me, and for a lot of other people. I'm unemployed, and writing encryption software right now. I can't afford a lawyer. I can't afford licensing fees, and I'm not going to burden myself with having to do those things if I should ever start selling my program. (BTW, the program will be released under the GPL whether or not I sell it).
Of course, given my luck, even with my care to avoid published algorithms that are patented, I'll probably re-invent some stupid thing that someone has patented and end up getting sued anyway.
Unless you're demanding that you get it "free as in beer", there's no problem: just pay the license fee! (It doesn't even prevent GPLed implementations, AIUI: your implementation may be freely copyable but not include a patent license.)
So, each individual user will have to purchase the license separately in order to use the program? That sounds workable.
Patents are one of the largest stifling forces in the software world today. They do nothing to encourage innovation. They are merely weapons for corporations to use against one another in the marketplace.
Yeah, and how many years were people afraid to implement RSA until the big hullabaloo over the patent expiring? We might've had those technologies widely deployed as much as a decade earlier if those patents weren't there. And currently systems that combine encryption and MACs, and authentication schemes are in a similar state. It's really quite pathetic and awful.
Actually, the thing that patents have done the most to hamper is encryption.
And the reality of the gif patents is that Unisys just hadn't gotten around to extorting money from the authors of the programs you name yet. xv died because Unisys started demanding money from the author for its gif support.
Linksys should not require you to reverse-engineer their product to figure out which portions are GPL before they will comply with a request for the GPL portions of the code.
This is clearly not acceptable.
They need to tell you which portions are GPL so you can request them. Also, a SASE should be considered a distribution mechanism of unreasonable cost in time and effort to the person requesting the code. The Internet is ubiquitous, and practically every Linksys customer will have access to it. They should provide it for free download.
If they're worried about everybody downloading it, they only need to require you to enter the serial number of one of their products. That would stop most random people who they didn't distribute a binary version to.
"The current approach of reacting to the viruses is simply not working."
While this is true, it has more to do with flaws in human nature - as long as 97.3% (according to the research of Dr. Vesselin Bontchev) of people do not react in an optimal way to a virus infection, viruses will continue to spread. I fail to see how development of more viruses will help in that regard.
I'm pretty tired of programmers who think people should adapt to machines instead of machines to people. So, people don't react in an optimal way to a virus infection. Perhaps someone will have some new ideas about how to create software that either makes the behavior change required easier and less annoying than not changing behavior, or makes it completely unecessary. Software is for people. People aren't for software.
Most virus writers are simply not of that caliber...forgetting the "script kiddies" and those that only modify existing viruses, the remainder write so bad code that (assuming the code shows their true abilities) they would have a hard time getting a real programming job.
This whole section has nothing to do with the point. Sure it takes more skill to write anti-virus software, but that doesn't mean a thorough understanding of how to write a virus wouldn't be helpful. It also doesn't mean that teaching someone how to write a virus turns them into a low skill programmer.
One could argue that all the pieces of source code lying around that are designed to reproduce themselves in their output are a form of virus, yet writing them is considered an interesting intellectual challenge worthy of a serious programmer.
I have a few comments regarding this section. It says that "No removable media will be taken out of the laboratory." I hope that this implies an armed guard at the door, doing a full body search of the students as they depart, because anything else would be insufficient. But what about things like printouts of the virus source code? Assuming that the students are really able to create a working virus, I sincerely hope that they will not be able to take home a printout of it, only to type it back in on their home machine. I would very much like to see some assurances in this area.
This requirement is predicated on the automatically assumed malicious intent of anybody who writes a virus. The school is trying to protect against accidents, not a deliberate attempt to unleash a virus on the net as a whole.
Preventing source code printouts is only a very minor deterrent against such maliciousness. So I don't think think it's worth considering putting into practice as it invites circumvention by treating the people taking the class as if they were criminals. People treated as criminals from the outset are more likely to act like criminals.
The vast majority of the anti-virus community condemns the part that involves writing viruses, considering it ethically unacceptable, pointless, and outright stupid. On all mailing lists in the anti-virus community, all real virus researchers have agreed that what you are doing is unacceptable, and simply stupid.
You may be secure in your academic ivory tower, not caring that your course is going to help legitimize virus writing, and will only lead to more viruses being written in the future - more problems in the real world which YOU will be responsible for.
You create a mess, and then we have to clean up after you.
The only valid point in the entire thing.
The rest of it is all predicated on the assumption that anybody who takes the course automatically has criminal intent. I prefer not calling people criminals until they commit a crime. Writing a virus shouldn't be a crime. Releasing one into the wild should be.
The social consequences of making virus writing seem legitimate is a real consideration. Though, I have an unfounded suspicion that the attitude that it isn't legitimate tends to inhibit a-life research some.
That survey is kind of amusing. Open Office and KOffice are missing from the office suite list. And my main reasons for choosing software (openness and lack of vendor lock-in) are missing from the factors influencing my software purchase.
That's just patently stupid. Many people I know have adapted to different versions of familiar programs. People aren't that inflexible. My housemate, for example, purposely downloaded Mozilla at her workplace because after using it on her Linux box at home, she realized how icky IE was in comparison.
The games issue is valid. But, otherwise, when usability reaches parity, most people are willing to try other things. Your scenario is ridiculously bleak and contrary to the behavior I've observed.
Ah, so pick a specific feature that you want, claim it as the general case, then say the average home user (who likely doesn't even use this feature) will hate it because it doesn't support your pet feature. That's nice and honest of you.
Actually, on my stock RH Linux distribution, I routinely open.doc,.ppt, and a few other Windows file formats that get emailed to me with nary a thought. It's trivial, and I can't imagine it'd be anymore difficult with Lindows. What rock have you been living under?
If that company could really develop your billing software better than you could, what reason is there for your company to exist? Seems to me to be a rather parasitic relationship if you're not adding enough value and they're only keeping you around because you hold them by the short hairs of a license.
Criminals have always been subject to having their constitutional rights curtailed in various ways. For example, they're not allowed to vote. So, is the fact that criminals are not allowed to vote a justification for poll taxes and poll tests and other 'needs of society' reasons to keep people from voting?
And, it actually appears to be fixed in Mozilla 1.3. After carefully looking over the exploit code, I ran it, and it failed to do anything. It IS a problem for Mozilla 1.2 though, which many RH 8.0 users still use.
Doesn't seem to me to be in the least bit different than the case with standard commercial licensing. You're just upset that the industry is changing business models, and you don't want to go with.
But, it's not _their_ source code. It's Linux source code. How can it contain anything proprietary and trade secreted? I mean, if they did something really spiffy, they could make it a kernel module or application, and then they wouldn't have to release that part at all.
This whole 'commercial success depends on not showing people the blueprints' business is a stupid meme that needs to be squashed like the dirty little bug it is.
SO if I find out that wearing a red shirt, carrying a purple sword, and wearing elf shoes, gave me GOD mode, I should be punished for using it?
I don't think so. That would be like someone coming after you because they gave you too much change.
Sure, the polite thing to do would be to give it back, but there is no, nor should there be, law that states I have to give the money back.
Well, the jokes on you then, because the law does require you to give it back. There's a whole list of people who found bank errors, didn't report them, and had to cough up the money and them some later.
These people wandered around the server, wreaking havoc and destroying the experience for others. Perhaps, since you seem so keen on justifying their behavior, each user who's character was mucked with should be allowed 5 minutes alone with them with no repercussions for whatever happens.
No, it wouldn't be a trade secret issue. Only if the people who 'discovered' the problem only learned of it from documents obtained under an NDA.
If they were running the game on their own system and discovered this, it'd be fine. The reason it's a problem is that they affected the service of lots of other connected people.
When you use that undocumented pattern to affect a service that's also being provided to other people, it's wrong. You are purposely making a system that is used by others act in a manner that's contrary to its overt and publicly stated design. That's wrong.
Now, discovering the byte pattern, and publishing it somewhere out in the open isn't wrong. Anybody who then uses it to subvert the system is doing something wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
In a way, yes. It would be a short-lived monopoly, but yes. If Real had come out with a patent-free, Open Source format, and had sold servers (yes, you _can_ profitably sell Open Sorce software) and sold expertise in setting them up, they would've temporarily had a very lucrative monopoly. Eventually their prices would've had to come down because of competition from others, which they could do nothing to prevent. But, until others became credibly well-versed in the technology they created, they would've had their monopoly.
If it's their system, then why do patent protections run out? You don't suddenly stop owning your car after 5 years. Ideas can't be owned.
Also, it's probably costing the economy billions upon billions of dollars for these people to have their monopoly. It's inefficient and state granted.
Here are some good papers on exactly how economically inefficient patents are. Their arguments are somewhat different from mine.
All, hard, well thought ought analysis of why IP in general is a bad idea, and why patents actually stifle innovation instead of encourage it.
Yeah, and you are technically infrining on several patents using half those programs. Fear of liability is why RedHat doesn't bundle mplayer with their system. The only reason those programs exist is because their existence serves other purposes of the creators of the format, and there's nobody with deep enough pockets to be worth suing.
And, just how much have they been actually helped by their patents? It's not as if ReplayTV didn't also exist. Also seems to me that Real's patents have actually hurt them. They'd have widespread adoption if it weren't for patents. They'd be able to make a ton more money installing and setting up servers for people.
No, actually, there is an important one that hasn't. Mojo nation used it to implement Mojo, but Mojo nation's libre spinoffs can't use it. I can find the references to the system if you'd like. The patents don't run out for a couple of years.
Yeah, and that's why video sucks so badly under Linux. Stupid patents. I hate those garbage patented formats. Trash spawning a stupid maze of incompatibility. It's ridiculous. Doesn't help developers, doesn't help users, the only people it helps are people like Microsoft and Apple.
Give me ogg any day.
Yeah, right. They lock out small competitors while the big ones quietly cross license. It's extremely damaging to competition and represents an unacceptably large barrier to entry.
And, the developers don't get paid a cent. They get their salaries sure, but no money for the patent.
No, patents are a weapon.
If a developer wants to be paid for spending all that time on something, they can hire themselves out as an implementation consultant, or state in broad terms what the idea is, and say they'll release details after getting a certain amount of money. Both of those systems are much better and more market driven than patents. In fact, that's how Counterpane, one of the better security firms in the business, does all of their work.
Patents, more monopolies, by monopolies, for monopolies, your government working hard to prevent any upset of the people who line the pocketbooks of its politicians.
What wrong is that the security of the Internet as a whole was comprimised in the meantime. What's wrong is that secure digital cash based systems aren't being deployed right now, instead of when the patents run out. That is a huge cost born by everybody.
Yeah, by people who can afford the infrastructure it takes to have lawyers and licensing agreements.
It prohibits using the algorithm for me, and for a lot of other people. I'm unemployed, and writing encryption software right now. I can't afford a lawyer. I can't afford licensing fees, and I'm not going to burden myself with having to do those things if I should ever start selling my program. (BTW, the program will be released under the GPL whether or not I sell it).
Of course, given my luck, even with my care to avoid published algorithms that are patented, I'll probably re-invent some stupid thing that someone has patented and end up getting sued anyway.
Unless you're demanding that you get it "free as in beer", there's no problem: just pay the license fee! (It doesn't even prevent GPLed implementations, AIUI: your implementation may be freely copyable but not include a patent license.)
So, each individual user will have to purchase the license separately in order to use the program? That sounds workable.
Patents are one of the largest stifling forces in the software world today. They do nothing to encourage innovation. They are merely weapons for corporations to use against one another in the marketplace.
Yeah, and how many years were people afraid to implement RSA until the big hullabaloo over the patent expiring? We might've had those technologies widely deployed as much as a decade earlier if those patents weren't there. And currently systems that combine encryption and MACs, and authentication schemes are in a similar state. It's really quite pathetic and awful.
Actually, the thing that patents have done the most to hamper is encryption.
And the reality of the gif patents is that Unisys just hadn't gotten around to extorting money from the authors of the programs you name yet. xv died because Unisys started demanding money from the author for its gif support.
Yes, I guess that's true. :-)
Linksys should not require you to reverse-engineer their product to figure out which portions are GPL before they will comply with a request for the GPL portions of the code.
This is clearly not acceptable.
They need to tell you which portions are GPL so you can request them. Also, a SASE should be considered a distribution mechanism of unreasonable cost in time and effort to the person requesting the code. The Internet is ubiquitous, and practically every Linksys customer will have access to it. They should provide it for free download.
If they're worried about everybody downloading it, they only need to require you to enter the serial number of one of their products. That would stop most random people who they didn't distribute a binary version to.
I'm pretty tired of programmers who think people should adapt to machines instead of machines to people. So, people don't react in an optimal way to a virus infection. Perhaps someone will have some new ideas about how to create software that either makes the behavior change required easier and less annoying than not changing behavior, or makes it completely unecessary. Software is for people. People aren't for software.
This whole section has nothing to do with the point. Sure it takes more skill to write anti-virus software, but that doesn't mean a thorough understanding of how to write a virus wouldn't be helpful. It also doesn't mean that teaching someone how to write a virus turns them into a low skill programmer.
One could argue that all the pieces of source code lying around that are designed to reproduce themselves in their output are a form of virus, yet writing them is considered an interesting intellectual challenge worthy of a serious programmer.
This requirement is predicated on the automatically assumed malicious intent of anybody who writes a virus. The school is trying to protect against accidents, not a deliberate attempt to unleash a virus on the net as a whole.
Preventing source code printouts is only a very minor deterrent against such maliciousness. So I don't think think it's worth considering putting into practice as it invites circumvention by treating the people taking the class as if they were criminals. People treated as criminals from the outset are more likely to act like criminals.
The only valid point in the entire thing.
The rest of it is all predicated on the assumption that anybody who takes the course automatically has criminal intent. I prefer not calling people criminals until they commit a crime. Writing a virus shouldn't be a crime. Releasing one into the wild should be.
The social consequences of making virus writing seem legitimate is a real consideration. Though, I have an unfounded suspicion that the attitude that it isn't legitimate tends to inhibit a-life research some.
I mistakenly assumed that you were mgv. Oops.
That survey is kind of amusing. Open Office and KOffice are missing from the office suite list. And my main reasons for choosing software (openness and lack of vendor lock-in) are missing from the factors influencing my software purchase.
That's just patently stupid. Many people I know have adapted to different versions of familiar programs. People aren't that inflexible. My housemate, for example, purposely downloaded Mozilla at her workplace because after using it on her Linux box at home, she realized how icky IE was in comparison.
The games issue is valid. But, otherwise, when usability reaches parity, most people are willing to try other things. Your scenario is ridiculously bleak and contrary to the behavior I've observed.
Ah, so pick a specific feature that you want, claim it as the general case, then say the average home user (who likely doesn't even use this feature) will hate it because it doesn't support your pet feature. That's nice and honest of you.
Actually, on my stock RH Linux distribution, I routinely open .doc, .ppt, and a few other Windows file formats that get emailed to me with nary a thought. It's trivial, and I can't imagine it'd be anymore difficult with Lindows. What rock have you been living under?
What would the point in having the source code be if they couldn't develop it better themselves?
If that company could really develop your billing software better than you could, what reason is there for your company to exist? Seems to me to be a rather parasitic relationship if you're not adding enough value and they're only keeping you around because you hold them by the short hairs of a license.
Criminals have always been subject to having their constitutional rights curtailed in various ways. For example, they're not allowed to vote. So, is the fact that criminals are not allowed to vote a justification for poll taxes and poll tests and other 'needs of society' reasons to keep people from voting?
And, it actually appears to be fixed in Mozilla 1.3. After carefully looking over the exploit code, I ran it, and it failed to do anything. It IS a problem for Mozilla 1.2 though, which many RH 8.0 users still use.
Doesn't seem to me to be in the least bit different than the case with standard commercial licensing. You're just upset that the industry is changing business models, and you don't want to go with.
But, it's not _their_ source code. It's Linux source code. How can it contain anything proprietary and trade secreted? I mean, if they did something really spiffy, they could make it a kernel module or application, and then they wouldn't have to release that part at all.
This whole 'commercial success depends on not showing people the blueprints' business is a stupid meme that needs to be squashed like the dirty little bug it is.
Why is it bad business? I don't get why it would hurt Linksys to release the source code.
Well, the jokes on you then, because the law does require you to give it back. There's a whole list of people who found bank errors, didn't report them, and had to cough up the money and them some later.
These people wandered around the server, wreaking havoc and destroying the experience for others. Perhaps, since you seem so keen on justifying their behavior, each user who's character was mucked with should be allowed 5 minutes alone with them with no repercussions for whatever happens.
No, it wouldn't be a trade secret issue. Only if the people who 'discovered' the problem only learned of it from documents obtained under an NDA.
If they were running the game on their own system and discovered this, it'd be fine. The reason it's a problem is that they affected the service of lots of other connected people.
When you use that undocumented pattern to affect a service that's also being provided to other people, it's wrong. You are purposely making a system that is used by others act in a manner that's contrary to its overt and publicly stated design. That's wrong.
Now, discovering the byte pattern, and publishing it somewhere out in the open isn't wrong. Anybody who then uses it to subvert the system is doing something wrong.
Because hacking into other people's systems is illegal whether or not they're running a game on it. And it should be illegal.
Most people's houses are horribly insecure. Does that make it their fault when someone breaks in and trashes the place?