This is the general idea. M$ (or preferably a proxy, like SCO or someone smarter) will single out some very large users that are using Linux. They will be sued for patent infringement.
You will be hearing the word indemnification so much your ears will fall off.
The other companies will be FUDed into not considering Linux because who can offer indemnification? M$ can offer indemnification to all its customers because it is cross-licensing its patent portfolio. Can your company risk using IT without indemnification guarantees?
That FOSS go underground with a vengeance fits perfectly with M$ plans. That way it won't get any backing from commercial vendors. Linux can be tolerated if it stays a hobby project.
I do not, however, know how one can clearly distinguish between software and non-software patents.
Is the invention still novel and patentable if you rip out the software and replace it by some other controlling mechanism?
Rather than making a distinction, you could allow the patents, but have a law that says that merely publishing software or running software can never be a patent infringement.
I've heard this kind of logic from the patent lobby numerous times:
"If we don't get software patents in Europe, we can't develop stuff there. We have to develop in in the US where we have software patents available."
This is pure FUD and BS. Why can't we develop stuff in Europe and apply for patents in the US? Most of the technology in patent applications in Europe was developed in foreign countries.
The smart thing to do is to develop tech where you have smart people. And apply for software patents in the US and have a free market without software monopolies in Europe. If you develop a product that happen to infringe on a forest of software patents, you can only market it profitably in Europe. Too bad for the US.
I hope politicians learn to call this kind of extortionist bluff soon.
the core concept is that it is not only possible, but moral and just, to own an idea
Hmmm...
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.
Patents on software, patents on mechanics, patents on business models, patents on tools, patents on architecture, patents on nature -- no matter what type of patent, the core concept is that it is not only possible, but moral and just, to own an idea.
I'm not convinced that software patents are any more counter-productive and unjust than any other type of patent.
Even in the US, you can't get patents on artwork, film scripts or a plot in a book. Yet. Even though there certainly are novel ideas behind many film scripts or book plots. Would you think it would be just and moral to grant Spielberg a monopoly on films with dinosaurs or Rowling on books with young wizards? Would it advance culture? It would certainly help those that received the monopolies to get rich! Wouldn't that be great?
I think it would be awful. And since software texts is art or written work just as much as a plot in a book, I think software patents are bizarre too. They stop software authors from publishing their original works.
Pattents exist to protect a company's means of income
I disagree.
Patents are monopolies handed out by the government. The original reason we allow the monopolies is that we want the technology behind the patent to be exposed rather than kept secret. This way, the public gets a benefit from handing out the monopoly, the knowledge in technology can advance.
Since I'm pro free market, I'm very much against monopolies. I would rather have the companies compete. The company that can produce the best products win, in an open competition. We should not pass laws to protect the income of companies. If they can't earn it, too bad! That said, I can tolerate patents if they are truly inventive. And helps progress. Tolerate!
However, when it comes to software we need to understand that it is not technological but mathematical. Software is written, not manufactured. And since it is written we have copyright protection for it. You protect cars and machinery by patents, not copyright. You protect films, books and software by copyrights, not patents. With software patents, the author of software texts is denied his right to publish his independently created works.
No, European software patents are not dead yet. But we managed to close the backdoor so it won't be introduced that way.
The patent lobby has not given up. The process will now be restarted and they will try with any means possible to get their way. Fortunately, awareness is rising. Politicians begin to understand that not only big companies and patent lawyers are interested in whether software can be patented. And some of the FUD and lies from the patent lobby is beginning to be exposed. So there is hope for the future.
But the battle is not over yet! PLEASE write your politician and support ffii.org. Now you can make a difference.
You got Wordpad which is good enough to read/write docs, Internet Explorer, Outlook Express and MSN Messenger to do your stuff online, a nice picture viewer, media player...
Now I remember why I left Windows a couple of years ago. All that bundled spyware-infested virus-inviting low-quality crap I couldn't get rid of.
Xerox should have patented these inventions but Apple had no grounds to patent what they copied from Xerox PARC.
Although I am very much against software patents, because they are usually frivolous, these inventions were truly novel enough to warrant patents!
Considering that the reason we have patents is to promote disclosure of inventions that would otherwise have been kept secret, I think this example shows that such disclosure would happen anyway if software patents were not available.
Can we all remember this please? The reason the government hands out 20-year monopolies (patents) is to promote disclosure of inventions, NOT to hand out weapons to lawyers and corporations to stop competition or collecting ransom.
If you create something really novel, even if it is in software, why *shouldn't* you be able to get a patent on it?
If you create something really novel, even if it is a plot in a book, why *shouldn't* you be able to get a patent on it?
Can't you see how wonderful it would be if JRR Tolkien could be awarded a monopoly on writing about Dragons? Rowlings could get a monopoly on books with young wizards? Spielberg could patent films with dinosaurs? That would advance science and culture, wouldn't it? Why should patentability be limited? Granting monopolies is good, isn't it? Because those that gets those monopolies can get rich!
You need to understand that software is written by authors. What a programmer "creates" is merely text that he can publish in a book or on the internet. Nothing else! If we introduce software patents we remove the right of expression for software authors. The author can be sued for expressing his original thoughts in a book or on the internet because he might (or might not) have stepped on a monopoly.
I think the right of expression for all authors is more important that the right to get rich by those few that can get a monopoly granted.
the ms solution was cheaper... if you factored in the "retraining costs" required to move your "existing i.t. staff" to use linux
That's an angle I haven't thought of before: The "independent" M$ studies demonstrates that once you start to use M$ tech, it becomes costly to switch. The study actually shows the cost of exercising your freedom to switch to an alternate supplier once you have been entangled in M$ lock-in tech.
Why don't you spend some time explaining why should they use one of Linux distros instead? Burn Knoppix CD and let them try it? Install FC3? I can't imagine under what circumstances would they decide on their own to switch OS?
Frankly, I don't care if my parents and friends use Windows. If they use Windows and like it, I think they should continue using it. If they have too much malware, I say they can try to use a Mac.
I also tell them why I stopped using Windows and switched to Linux. There are plenty of reasons. If they are interested, I can surely show them what it is like, or give them a Knoppix CD. I also offer help installing and setting up a Linux system. But I'm also telling them that because of the monopoly, they might get into problems if they try to buy hardware or software for their system in an ordinary store. So if they decide to remain in the monopoly I'm cool about it, but they can't get any support from me since I don't know much about Windows.
what other products besides Google Desktop Search, Spybot Search & Destroy, Google Toolbar and Service Pack 2 are Slashdotters installing on their parents' Windows machines?
Nothing. I tell them that I haven't used Windows stuff for several years and have forgotten so much about it that they are better off if they turn to (and pay) a professional that still do Windows.
If they decided to upgrade to a Linux system, I'd be glad to help them though.
What happens when you use your card on a PC that's pwn3d by dozens of pieces of spyware? Does the card use VPN or some kind of encryption wrapper that protects the link between the card and the other end even from a haxored PC?
A smart card contains a microprocessor that can sign stuff that the PC send to it. It contains a secret private key for signing that never leaves the silicon, so no PC can get at it.
The viruses can't steal the identity in the smart card. The smart card will happily prove its identity to the viruses. The important thing to understand is that while the smart card can prove its identity, it can't prove that its owner is actually at the keyboard or that the IE session withdrawing funds is run by a human in charge of the transactions... There are smart cards with built-in keyboard/display for that. Or you use a Palladium PC...
This has been in Mac OS for awhile... as Keychains... mine is on my USB thumb drive...
Absolutely not. A smart card is nothing like an USB drive where you store a password or cryptographic key.
A smart card contains a closed microprocessor and a small memory. The point is that you cannot get at the contents of the memory at all (unless you have a silicon lab). The microprocessor has a private key that it never shows outside the silicon and a public key that the PC knows about. The smart card can prove its identity by signing stuff the PC sends to it using the secret private key.
Smart cards have been around for a long time. They are not a M$ invention and I'm sure that there are open-source drivers that can talk to smart cards.
Sinclair machines were very popular over in Europe, right? Could anyone tell me why they took off over there and not over here?
The first machine I bought was a Sinclair ZX-80. I bought it because it was very inexpensive. It was the first complete system to sell for under 100 pounds, which was revolutionary cheap for the time.
The circuitry was amazing. It had 1 KByte of memory which also serverd as video memory! I remember that someone crammed in a chess program into that. The original BASIC interpreter was 4K. (Why are all program so damned big nowadays?)
To make the system very cheap, it had no dedicated video circuitry! You stored characters in RAM and ended each line with 0x76. (The less text you had on display, the less memory it used.) To display the text on the screen, you set a special bit in hardware and jumped to the RAM character buffer. The CPU would start to fetch instructions from the text buffer, but the hardware would clear all bits fed to the CPU (00=NOP). Instead the RAM output was fed to the BASIC ROM which now served as a character generator. When the end of line was reached, the 0x76 code was fed to the CPU which interprets that code as a HLT (halt) instruction. So no more bits were fed to the display until horizontal sync, which gave the CPU another interrupt. So with a minimum of 74xx logic gates video text could be generated at low cost and extremely low memory requirements. Of course, the screen went blank when executing BASIC code.
It was an amazing machine and I have many fond memories playing with it. The schematics was included so you could do some hardware hacking as well.
Another interesting application is to create a personalized bomb. Now you can create a device that explodes when John Doe, age 44 from Brainerd, Minnesota is nearby. Just wait for this RFID tech to make it into (mandated) identity cards. Great stuff for terrorists and assassins!
back in the days of fortran we had whitespace-sensitive code and we were grateful for what we had!
What are you talking about?? Back in my day, I had whitespace-insensitive code in my FORTRAN programs. Yeah, that's right, you didn't have to include any spaces at all in the code. In fact, the parser first removed all spaces, THEN parsed it.
C Loop from 1 to 10
DO10I=1,10 C Set variable DO10I to 1.10
DO10I=1.10
And a good old FORTRAN don't need you to declare variables either! If it begins with a D it's a float. And we were grateful!
But after a few years why would you want a 4gig when you can get a much larger size(GB) at a much smaller size and lighter weight, with more features, etc... This is tech we're talking about, it doesn't linger on for years like this.
*putting my tinfoil hat on again* Because in a few years, all new devices come with Fritz-chips which are mandated by the government. OGG is declared "terrorist software", and all legal music files are DRM WMA NGSCB. You can't buy a new player that would play my counterfeit files. That's why I want to be able to keep my old player;-)
With so many manufacturers, I'm sure that more than 50% of them will be bought or out of business in 2-3 years. Many of them use proprietary Li-polymer batteries (they are wonderfully small) that can only be replaced by the factory. Since the lifespan of these batteries are maybe two years, you better hope that someone still manufactures those proprietary batteries and is willing to change them for you. At what price? Did you choose the right model?
When I put my tinfoil hat on I can see it clearly; built-in batteries is a godsend for manufacturers since it allows them to create product that don't last for more than 3-4 years which will create more future buyers. You don't own your MP3 player. You just rent it on a 2-3 year basis.
Cool, you copy the same text posted five minutes earlier and get Karma!
Re:With C#, stuck in windoze
on
Java 1.5 vs C#
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You are right. One main feature that Sun designed for Java was WORA (Write Once Run Anywhere). M$ thought this sucked. They tried to destroy that feature and got sued over it. So the invented C# instead. C# isn't WORA, it is WORM (Write Once Run on Microsoft). With C#, you are locked in again. That's the whole point with C#.
Slashdot Mirror
Or are they going to sue the end-users?
This is the general idea. M$ (or preferably a proxy, like SCO or someone smarter) will single out some very large users that are using Linux. They will be sued for patent infringement.
You will be hearing the word indemnification so much your ears will fall off.
The other companies will be FUDed into not considering Linux because who can offer indemnification? M$ can offer indemnification to all its customers because it is cross-licensing its patent portfolio. Can your company risk using IT without indemnification guarantees?
That FOSS go underground with a vengeance fits perfectly with M$ plans. That way it won't get any backing from commercial vendors. Linux can be tolerated if it stays a hobby project.
I do not, however, know how one can clearly distinguish between software and non-software patents.
Is the invention still novel and patentable if you rip out the software and replace it by some other controlling mechanism?
Rather than making a distinction, you could allow the patents, but have a law that says that merely publishing software or running software can never be a patent infringement.
I've heard this kind of logic from the patent lobby numerous times:
"If we don't get software patents in Europe, we can't develop stuff there. We have to develop in in the US where we have software patents available."
This is pure FUD and BS. Why can't we develop stuff in Europe and apply for patents in the US? Most of the technology in patent applications in Europe was developed in foreign countries.
The smart thing to do is to develop tech where you have smart people. And apply for software patents in the US and have a free market without software monopolies in Europe. If you develop a product that happen to infringe on a forest of software patents, you can only market it profitably in Europe. Too bad for the US.
I hope politicians learn to call this kind of extortionist bluff soon.
the core concept is that it is not only possible, but moral and just, to own an idea
Hmmm...
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac McPherson, 1813
Patents on software, patents on mechanics, patents on business models, patents on tools, patents on architecture, patents on nature -- no matter what type of patent, the core concept is that it is not only possible, but moral and just, to own an idea.
I'm not convinced that software patents are any more counter-productive and unjust than any other type of patent.
Even in the US, you can't get patents on artwork, film scripts or a plot in a book. Yet. Even though there certainly are novel ideas behind many film scripts or book plots. Would you think it would be just and moral to grant Spielberg a monopoly on films with dinosaurs or Rowling on books with young wizards? Would it advance culture? It would certainly help those that received the monopolies to get rich! Wouldn't that be great?
I think it would be awful. And since software texts is art or written work just as much as a plot in a book, I think software patents are bizarre too. They stop software authors from publishing their original works.
Pattents exist to protect a company's means of income
I disagree.
Patents are monopolies handed out by the government. The original reason we allow the monopolies is that we want the technology behind the patent to be exposed rather than kept secret. This way, the public gets a benefit from handing out the monopoly, the knowledge in technology can advance.
Since I'm pro free market, I'm very much against monopolies. I would rather have the companies compete. The company that can produce the best products win, in an open competition. We should not pass laws to protect the income of companies. If they can't earn it, too bad! That said, I can tolerate patents if they are truly inventive. And helps progress. Tolerate!
However, when it comes to software we need to understand that it is not technological but mathematical. Software is written, not manufactured. And since it is written we have copyright protection for it. You protect cars and machinery by patents, not copyright. You protect films, books and software by copyrights, not patents. With software patents, the author of software texts is denied his right to publish his independently created works.
No, European software patents are not dead yet. But we managed to close the backdoor so it won't be introduced that way.
The patent lobby has not given up. The process will now be restarted and they will try with any means possible to get their way. Fortunately, awareness is rising. Politicians begin to understand that not only big companies and patent lawyers are interested in whether software can be patented. And some of the FUD and lies from the patent lobby is beginning to be exposed. So there is hope for the future.
But the battle is not over yet! PLEASE write your politician and support ffii.org. Now you can make a difference.
You got Wordpad which is good enough to read/write docs, Internet Explorer, Outlook Express and MSN Messenger to do your stuff online, a nice picture viewer, media player...
Now I remember why I left Windows a couple of years ago. All that bundled spyware-infested virus-inviting low-quality crap I couldn't get rid of.
Xerox should have patented these inventions but Apple had no grounds to patent what they copied from Xerox PARC.
Although I am very much against software patents, because they are usually frivolous, these inventions were truly novel enough to warrant patents!
Considering that the reason we have patents is to promote disclosure of inventions that would otherwise have been kept secret, I think this example shows that such disclosure would happen anyway if software patents were not available.
Can we all remember this please? The reason the government hands out 20-year monopolies (patents) is to promote disclosure of inventions, NOT to hand out weapons to lawyers and corporations to stop competition or collecting ransom.
If you create something really novel, even if it is in software, why *shouldn't* you be able to get a patent on it?
If you create something really novel, even if it is a plot in a book, why *shouldn't* you be able to get a patent on it?
Can't you see how wonderful it would be if JRR Tolkien could be awarded a monopoly on writing about Dragons? Rowlings could get a monopoly on books with young wizards? Spielberg could patent films with dinosaurs? That would advance science and culture, wouldn't it? Why should patentability be limited? Granting monopolies is good, isn't it? Because those that gets those monopolies can get rich!
You need to understand that software is written by authors. What a programmer "creates" is merely text that he can publish in a book or on the internet. Nothing else! If we introduce software patents we remove the right of expression for software authors. The author can be sued for expressing his original thoughts in a book or on the internet because he might (or might not) have stepped on a monopoly.
I think the right of expression for all authors is more important that the right to get rich by those few that can get a monopoly granted.
...and a biometric fingerprint scanner for security
I am stunned! A fingerprint scanner. And they use it for security?!? How?
Come on. Seriously, how!?!
the ms solution was cheaper... if you factored in the "retraining costs" required to move your "existing i.t. staff" to use linux
That's an angle I haven't thought of before: The "independent" M$ studies demonstrates that once you start to use M$ tech, it becomes costly to switch. The study actually shows the cost of exercising your freedom to switch to an alternate supplier once you have been entangled in M$ lock-in tech.
Why don't you spend some time explaining why should they use one of Linux distros instead? Burn Knoppix CD and let them try it? Install FC3? I can't imagine under what circumstances would they decide on their own to switch OS?
Frankly, I don't care if my parents and friends use Windows. If they use Windows and like it, I think they should continue using it. If they have too much malware, I say they can try to use a Mac.
I also tell them why I stopped using Windows and switched to Linux. There are plenty of reasons. If they are interested, I can surely show them what it is like, or give them a Knoppix CD. I also offer help installing and setting up a Linux system. But I'm also telling them that because of the monopoly, they might get into problems if they try to buy hardware or software for their system in an ordinary store. So if they decide to remain in the monopoly I'm cool about it, but they can't get any support from me since I don't know much about Windows.
what other products besides Google Desktop Search, Spybot Search & Destroy, Google Toolbar and Service Pack 2 are Slashdotters installing on their parents' Windows machines?
Nothing. I tell them that I haven't used Windows stuff for several years and have forgotten so much about it that they are better off if they turn to (and pay) a professional that still do Windows.
If they decided to upgrade to a Linux system, I'd be glad to help them though.
What happens when you use your card on a PC that's pwn3d by dozens of pieces of spyware? Does the card use VPN or some kind of encryption wrapper that protects the link between the card and the other end even from a haxored PC?
A smart card contains a microprocessor that can sign stuff that the PC send to it. It contains a secret private key for signing that never leaves the silicon, so no PC can get at it.
The viruses can't steal the identity in the smart card. The smart card will happily prove its identity to the viruses. The important thing to understand is that while the smart card can prove its identity, it can't prove that its owner is actually at the keyboard or that the IE session withdrawing funds is run by a human in charge of the transactions... There are smart cards with built-in keyboard/display for that. Or you use a Palladium PC...
This has been in Mac OS for awhile... as Keychains... mine is on my USB thumb drive...
Absolutely not. A smart card is nothing like an USB drive where you store a password or cryptographic key.
A smart card contains a closed microprocessor and a small memory. The point is that you cannot get at the contents of the memory at all (unless you have a silicon lab). The microprocessor has a private key that it never shows outside the silicon and a public key that the PC knows about. The smart card can prove its identity by signing stuff the PC sends to it using the secret private key.
Smart cards have been around for a long time. They are not a M$ invention and I'm sure that there are open-source drivers that can talk to smart cards.
Nevada's Ministry of Propaganda for the Democrats: UNR
Could someone explain to me what that has to do with WPA? or D-Link keys?
Sinclair machines were very popular over in Europe, right? Could anyone tell me why they took off over there and not over here?
The first machine I bought was a Sinclair ZX-80. I bought it because it was very inexpensive. It was the first complete system to sell for under 100 pounds, which was revolutionary cheap for the time.
The circuitry was amazing. It had 1 KByte of memory which also serverd as video memory! I remember that someone crammed in a chess program into that. The original BASIC interpreter was 4K. (Why are all program so damned big nowadays?)
To make the system very cheap, it had no dedicated video circuitry! You stored characters in RAM and ended each line with 0x76. (The less text you had on display, the less memory it used.) To display the text on the screen, you set a special bit in hardware and jumped to the RAM character buffer. The CPU would start to fetch instructions from the text buffer, but the hardware would clear all bits fed to the CPU (00=NOP). Instead the RAM output was fed to the BASIC ROM which now served as a character generator. When the end of line was reached, the 0x76 code was fed to the CPU which interprets that code as a HLT (halt) instruction. So no more bits were fed to the display until horizontal sync, which gave the CPU another interrupt. So with a minimum of 74xx logic gates video text could be generated at low cost and extremely low memory requirements. Of course, the screen went blank when executing BASIC code.
It was an amazing machine and I have many fond memories playing with it. The schematics was included so you could do some hardware hacking as well.
Another interesting application is to create a personalized bomb. Now you can create a device that explodes when John Doe, age 44 from Brainerd, Minnesota is nearby. Just wait for this RFID tech to make it into (mandated) identity cards. Great stuff for terrorists and assassins!
back in the days of fortran we had whitespace-sensitive code and we were grateful for what we had!
What are you talking about?? Back in my day, I had whitespace- in sensitive code in my FORTRAN programs. Yeah, that's right, you didn't have to include any spaces at all in the code. In fact, the parser first removed all spaces, THEN parsed it.
C Loop from 1 to 10
DO10I=1,10
C Set variable DO10I to 1.10
DO10I=1.10
And a good old FORTRAN don't need you to declare variables either! If it begins with a D it's a float. And we were grateful!
But after a few years why would you want a 4gig when you can get a much larger size(GB) at a much smaller size and lighter weight, with more features, etc... This is tech we're talking about, it doesn't linger on for years like this.
;-)
*putting my tinfoil hat on again*
Because in a few years, all new devices come with Fritz-chips which are mandated by the government. OGG is declared "terrorist software", and all legal music files are DRM WMA NGSCB. You can't buy a new player that would play my counterfeit files. That's why I want to be able to keep my old player
So which ones have user replacable batteries?
With so many manufacturers, I'm sure that more than 50% of them will be bought or out of business in 2-3 years. Many of them use proprietary Li-polymer batteries (they are wonderfully small) that can only be replaced by the factory. Since the lifespan of these batteries are maybe two years, you better hope that someone still manufactures those proprietary batteries and is willing to change them for you. At what price? Did you choose the right model?
When I put my tinfoil hat on I can see it clearly; built-in batteries is a godsend for manufacturers since it allows them to create product that don't last for more than 3-4 years which will create more future buyers. You don't own your MP3 player. You just rent it on a 2-3 year basis.
Cool, you copy the same text posted five minutes earlier and get Karma!
You are right. One main feature that Sun designed for Java was WORA (Write Once Run Anywhere). M$ thought this sucked. They tried to destroy that feature and got sued over it. So the invented C# instead. C# isn't WORA, it is WORM (Write Once Run on Microsoft). With C#, you are locked in again. That's the whole point with C#.
Probably. An insanely awesome device would have been able to play OGG files.