you're confusing patents with copyrights. copyrights cover code and other "text".
in the wonderful world of patents, you don't even have to create anything to make a shit load of money.
all you have to do is spend a lot of money and convince the patent office that you have some new idea. in the last ten years or so, technology companies have begun taking advantage of the patent office's obvious ignorance regarding anything more complex than a horse and carriage, particularly computer and internet "technologies".
now we've got bottom-feeder parasites like amazon and ebola (er whatever the fu** the company is called) patenting intentionally broad and vague ideas and then figuring out ways to apply their silly patents to other people's actual creations.
plugins have been around since about the time ebola obtained their patent (i believe). chances are the patent author saw the plugin model about to emerge and then obtained the patent.
then he waited a few years for a big ripe victim. what better victim than M$. everyone but dumb end users, pseudo geeks and managers hate M$. who's going to sympathize with them? virtually nobody. GO GET EM, the crowd cheers, not realizing the long term damage being done. legitimizing these absurdly broad and useless patents threatens the future of technology as a whole. who knows what patent parasites will strike you when you come up with a great idea?
amazon, ebola and all other companies that attempt to make a payday out of these patents are doing major damage to all users of technology. the only good patent holder is one who holds on to patent in order to protect the idea realm from patent parasites, and i don't even know that such patent holders exist.
i'm truly sick of these leeches. but all i can do is boycott (and i do) and maybe convince a few others not to cheer on the side of companies like ebola in these types of lawsuits.
I feel that anyone that uses (and or profit$ from) open source software *and* develops modifications to that code that might be useful to the rest of the users of that application has an obligation to give it back to the community or come as close to doing so as possible. If you are not paying for your own time and don't own the code you develop, then all you can do is explain to the suits the concept of open source and the long term benefits (for everyone) of contributing modifications back to the community as long as they don't compromise corporate IP. Any good manager shouldn't have a problem allowing you to do that (possibly on your own time). If they turn you down, they are probably too stupid to understand anything larger than a paycheck and there's nothing you can do. But you've done your part, you've made the effort!
Slashdot Mirror
Omg, rofl
check the date on your calendars
lol
you're confusing patents with copyrights. copyrights cover code and other "text".
in the wonderful world of patents, you don't even have to create anything to make a shit load of money.
all you have to do is spend a lot of money and convince the patent office that you have some new idea. in the last ten years or so, technology companies have begun taking advantage of the patent office's obvious ignorance regarding anything more complex than a horse and carriage, particularly computer and internet "technologies".
now we've got bottom-feeder parasites like amazon and ebola (er whatever the fu** the company is called) patenting intentionally broad and vague ideas and then figuring out ways to apply their silly patents to other people's actual creations.
plugins have been around since about the time ebola obtained their patent (i believe). chances are the patent author saw the plugin model about to emerge and then obtained the patent.
then he waited a few years for a big ripe victim. what better victim than M$. everyone but dumb end users, pseudo geeks and managers hate M$. who's going to sympathize with them? virtually nobody. GO GET EM, the crowd cheers, not realizing the long term damage being done. legitimizing these absurdly broad and useless patents threatens the future of technology as a whole. who knows what patent parasites will strike you when you come up with a great idea?
amazon, ebola and all other companies that attempt to make a payday out of these patents are doing major damage to all users of technology. the only good patent holder is one who holds on to patent in order to protect the idea realm from patent parasites, and i don't even know that such patent holders exist.
i'm truly sick of these leeches. but all i can do is boycott (and i do) and maybe convince a few others not to cheer on the side of companies like ebola in these types of lawsuits.
why would a read a book by a guy who makes up words like "portence"?
They're running out of common terms to steal and obfuscate, aren't they?
oh geez, that settles it, ie/winblos/outlook is actually a very solid product after all.
I feel that anyone that uses (and or profit$ from) open source software *and* develops modifications to that code that might be useful to the rest of the users of that application has an obligation to give it back to the community or come as close to doing so as possible. If you are not paying for your own time and don't own the code you develop, then all you can do is explain to the suits the concept of open source and the long term benefits (for everyone) of contributing modifications back to the community as long as they don't compromise corporate IP. Any good manager shouldn't have a problem allowing you to do that (possibly on your own time). If they turn you down, they are probably too stupid to understand anything larger than a paycheck and there's nothing you can do. But you've done your part, you've made the effort!
one of our wonderful staff came over and told me it was a fire hazard and that i had to take it down. good luck