If information really wants to be free, and free/open source software development will really beat out closed source/proprietary software, why not simply forget about licenses and release software and code expressly into the public domain? Why worry about licensing, control, copyright/left, and all these other headaches?
? The GPL is 100% about control--control of the code released under it. The fact that FSF is willing to go to the lengths of suing under its terms is clear and convincing evidence that the GPL is about control. If your position is that control in order to make money is bad and control in order to keep free software free is good, that is a fair argument. But it's a lot different from saying that the GPL is not about control!
Your point is well taken. But what if TimeWarnerAOL buys some legislation allowing them to block some content (e.g., suspected pirate material) while not taking on common carrier status? I would not discount this possibility.
Your point is well taken. However, the RIAA can take the same kinds of actions that the Feds used to take against draft dodgers, particularly selective prosecution and show trials. They simply have to pick a few middle-class suburban kids who have downloaded a particularly large volume of Britney Spears MP3s, and prosecute them in a particularly showy way. Media coverage of crying teens & of college students having liens slapped on them for damages will scare away a large number of users, without the need to prosecute each and every one of them.
I wonder if the RIAA really would file a lien against a college student to recover damages?
Further, you can sue colleges for allowing the students to use Gnutella by not providing blocking software or the like, as it is not a secret that a lot of, if not most, pirates are college students.
No shortage of people to sue! If you use your imagination, you can easily come up with some more.
I would be surprised if most of the readers and contributors to/. didn't sustain themselves by selling intellectual property, or have their salaries/consulting fees paid by companies who are at least in part in the business of selling intellectual property.
Ignoring cease and desist letters will often result in a complaint being filed, at which point you are in litigation, which is significantly more expensive than having a lawyer simply write politely nasty letters to the guy who sent you the C&D letter. If you want to keep doing what you're doing (e.g., running your web site), it's best to have a lawyer deal with the cease and desist letter ASAP to attempt to stay out of litigation.
However, if your plan is simply to cave at the moment you receive the complaint, then by forcing your opponent to incur legal expenses to prepare a complaint, you have caused him to expend resources over and above writing a cease and desist letter, thereby harming him, which is what you as his opponent want. FYI, preparing and filing a complaint, when done by decent big-firm types, can easily cost $5K.
Isn't the weak link in Gnutella, Freenet and the like the fact that most average people (not/. ubergeeks, of course) access the Internet through AOL? I would think AOL/Time Warner would have a vested interest in prohibiting their subscribers from using any sort of distributed anonymity program, for obvious reasons.
Indeed, what percentage of people access the Internet through the top 10 ISPs? That's only 10 entities to convince to ban the use of Gnutella and the like--with a huge impact on the usefulness of such software.
You are absolutely correct that CD sales are hurt by MP3 trading. I believe in the whole gamut of intellectual property (copyright, trademark, even (gasp!) patent), and will not defend those who are stealing music from others, regardless of the strident rationalizing that they use.
That said, the issue of how much CD sales are hurt by MP3 trading is separate--damages vs. liability, as we say in the law biz. Each MP3 download doesn't equal one lost sale, regardless of what the RIAA might think. (1)Many MP3 users are simply listening to songs to determine if they like the band, and delete the songs if they don't like them. Such users would not go out and buy the album without a chance to see if they like one or two of the songs. So, MP3s downloaded to those folks cannot constitute damages. (2) Many MP3 users cannot afford to go out and buy all of the CDs on which their MP3s are legitimately located. Thus, if they didn't have the MP3 option, they wouldn't have bought the CD. MP3s over and above what the customer could have purchased can't be damages. This is analogous to the situation where Mr. Softee goes after software pirates in China who sell bootlegged Windows and Office; most customers of that pirated software couldn't afford the real thing anyway, so there cannot possibly be as many lost sales as the number of pirate copies made, no matter what MSFT might want. (3) Finally, each MP3 cannot = 1 lost CD sale, because CDs have more than one song.
While the RIAA has every right to seek compensation for the theft of copyrighted music, they should receive no sympathy for attempts to inflate their damages.
Brandenburg was an employee who traded his rights in any inventions he might make to his employer (the Institute) in exchange for a steady salary. Many risk-averse people prefer this arrangement. Now assume there is no such thing as a patent. Because the Institute could not obtain patent rights to Brandenburg's invention, what is the point of employing him to invent things? Indeed, what is the incentive for any private employer to employ anyone to innovate or be creative? So, Brandenburg would be out on the street washing car windows, or greeting people at WalMart.
Many of these posts pick apart the abstract of the patent. But, the claims and _only_ the claims define the scope of the patent! If you want to analyze something, analyze the broadest claim, claim 1: (direct from www.uspto.gov): 1. A remote access apparatus for providing end-user access through a human interface to a desired remote utility service on a remote host computer, comprising: a) a local host computer; b) a remote host computer; c) a network connection between said local host computer and said remote host computer allowing data transfer therebetween; wherein said local host computer further comprises: 1) a human interface service means, for handling input from, and output to, an end-user; 2) a human interface server, for mediating requests for human interface services, said requests from human interface clients resident on at least one of said remote host computer and said local host computer, said human interface server operative to process said requests from said human interface clients during normal operation and exception operation; and 3) a starter client means, for issuing requests to a starter server means on said remote host computer, said requests for initiating interaction with the desired remote utility service on said remote host computer; wherein said remote host computer further comprises: 1) said starter server means, for responding to requests from said starter client means; 2) a desired remote utility service, resident on said remote host computer and platform-independent of said local host computer; 3) a remote object client, for issuing requests for human interface services to said human interface server, for issuing requests for said desired remote utility service and for translating a response from said desired remote utility service into a request for human interface services issued to said human interface server; and 4) a starter service means, for initiating a remote object client indicated by said starter server means.
"Software patents threaten to devastate America's computer industry." Yeah, the software industry is in real trouble--people walking away from their mortgages in the Valley, engineers and coders selling apples in the street because they can't get jobs. Those software patents are sure destroying the modern economy!
I do not think that Gnutella and FreeNet will allow for the kind of widespread music theft that the RIAA fears and some in the user community eagerly await. Virtually all Americans who use the Internet access it through a large ISP (AOL, Earthlink) or a university. It is naive to think that AOL will not monitor data traffic through it to see who is trading Time Warner music files, whether through Gnutella, FreeNet or another service. It is also naive to think that the big ISPs and the universities will resist any demands by the RIAA to monitor data traffic and take action against users who are pirating music. I believe this may be the future action that Lars discusses briefly in the interview.
The device that was patented, as far as I can tell from the story, was a device for reading genes. The genes themselves have nothing to do with the patented device.
It is true that the Feds have rights in inventions they fund. No big surprise there. The key question here is whether the Feds actually funded the development of the patented machine. Given that the LA Times broke this story, and that I am an LA resident familiar with the quality of journalism exhibited by that fine paper, I would tend to believe the patentees.
You have to enforce a _trademark_ against all violators, or it will eventually pass into the public domain. "Aspirin" and "escalator" are two good examples. However, a patent owner need not enforce a patent against anyone; its validity is not affected by the number of infringers that the owner decides to sue. However, if the owner knows that Company A is infringing, and doesn't take any action for a long period of time, the owner may be legally barred from ever taking any action against Company A.
You are correct that the claims define the scope of what's protected. The title is meaningless and typically reflects what the applicant would like to cover, instead of what is actually covered by the patent itself. Although the claims define the scope of the patent, the claims have to be interpreted based on the disclosure in the patent, and on the history of the application. That is, MS may have had to make some concessions to the Patent Office to get this patent allowed, and it can't now interpret the patent contrary to those concessions. The only way to see how valid and broad this patent really is would be to order the file history from the usual places and take a good hard look. I can't believe, off the top of my head, that this patent covers much at all. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a patent attorney & deal with this stuff all the time. I imagine that I have just painted a big red target on myself by bringing that up. FYI, on a related topic, people interested in patent reform should check out New Zealand's patent law. I think it offers some good ideas that should be considered for use in the US (e.g., an opposition period so that interested parties who have access to prior art can submit it to the Examiner).
Slashdot Mirror
If information really wants to be free, and free/open source software development will really beat out closed source/proprietary software, why not simply forget about licenses and release software and code expressly into the public domain? Why worry about licensing, control, copyright/left, and all these other headaches?
? The GPL is 100% about control--control of the code released under it. The fact that FSF is willing to go to the lengths of suing under its terms is clear and convincing evidence that the GPL is about control. If your position is that control in order to make money is bad and control in order to keep free software free is good, that is a fair argument. But it's a lot different from saying that the GPL is not about control!
Your point is well taken. But what if TimeWarnerAOL buys some legislation allowing them to block some content (e.g., suspected pirate material) while not taking on common carrier status? I would not discount this possibility.
I wonder if the RIAA really would file a lien against a college student to recover damages?
Further, you can sue colleges for allowing the students to use Gnutella by not providing blocking software or the like, as it is not a secret that a lot of, if not most, pirates are college students.
No shortage of people to sue! If you use your imagination, you can easily come up with some more.
I would be surprised if most of the readers and contributors to /. didn't sustain themselves by selling intellectual property, or have their salaries/consulting fees paid by companies who are at least in part in the business of selling intellectual property.
The Church of the Sub-Genius will do the job just fine! I can't wait to spend eternity on the Pleasure Saucers of the X-ists!
Microsoft is dead for giving away free things. Will Linux be next?
You must avoid the LA Times as fastidiously as I do!
Ignoring cease and desist letters will often result in a complaint being filed, at which point you are in litigation, which is significantly more expensive than having a lawyer simply write politely nasty letters to the guy who sent you the C&D letter. If you want to keep doing what you're doing (e.g., running your web site), it's best to have a lawyer deal with the cease and desist letter ASAP to attempt to stay out of litigation.
However, if your plan is simply to cave at the moment you receive the complaint, then by forcing your opponent to incur legal expenses to prepare a complaint, you have caused him to expend resources over and above writing a cease and desist letter, thereby harming him, which is what you as his opponent want. FYI, preparing and filing a complaint, when done by decent big-firm types, can easily cost $5K.
Isn't the weak link in Gnutella, Freenet and the like the fact that most average people (not /. ubergeeks, of course) access the Internet through AOL? I would think AOL/Time Warner would have a vested interest in prohibiting their subscribers from using any sort of distributed anonymity program, for obvious reasons.
Indeed, what percentage of people access the Internet through the top 10 ISPs? That's only 10 entities to convince to ban the use of Gnutella and the like--with a huge impact on the usefulness of such software.
You are absolutely correct that CD sales are hurt by MP3 trading. I believe in the whole gamut of intellectual property (copyright, trademark, even (gasp!) patent), and will not defend those who are stealing music from others, regardless of the strident rationalizing that they use.
That said, the issue of how much CD sales are hurt by MP3 trading is separate--damages vs. liability, as we say in the law biz. Each MP3 download doesn't equal one lost sale, regardless of what the RIAA might think.
(1)Many MP3 users are simply listening to songs to determine if they like the band, and delete the songs if they don't like them. Such users would not go out and buy the album without a chance to see if they like one or two of the songs. So, MP3s downloaded to those folks cannot constitute damages.
(2) Many MP3 users cannot afford to go out and buy all of the CDs on which their MP3s are legitimately located. Thus, if they didn't have the MP3 option, they wouldn't have bought the CD. MP3s over and above what the customer could have purchased can't be damages. This is analogous to the situation where Mr. Softee goes after software pirates in China who sell bootlegged Windows and Office; most customers of that pirated software couldn't afford the real thing anyway, so there cannot possibly be as many lost sales as the number of pirate copies made, no matter what MSFT might want.
(3) Finally, each MP3 cannot = 1 lost CD sale, because CDs have more than one song.
While the RIAA has every right to seek compensation for the theft of copyrighted music, they should receive no sympathy for attempts to inflate their damages.
Brandenburg was an employee who traded his rights in any inventions he might make to his employer (the Institute) in exchange for a steady salary. Many risk-averse people prefer this arrangement. Now assume there is no such thing as a patent. Because the Institute could not obtain patent rights to Brandenburg's invention, what is the point of employing him to invent things? Indeed, what is the incentive for any private employer to employ anyone to innovate or be creative? So, Brandenburg would be out on the street washing car windows, or greeting people at WalMart.
"another case of the patent system being corrupt"
/. end up bashing patents in some way or another? I suppose it's reassuring, in an odd kind of way.
Is it just me, or does every single thread on
Many of these posts pick apart the abstract of the patent. But, the claims and _only_ the claims define the scope of the patent! If you want to analyze something, analyze the broadest claim, claim 1: (direct from www.uspto.gov):
1. A remote access apparatus for providing end-user access through a human interface to a desired remote utility service on a remote host computer, comprising:
a) a local host computer;
b) a remote host computer;
c) a network connection between said local host computer and said remote host computer allowing data transfer therebetween;
wherein said local host computer further comprises:
1) a human interface service means, for handling input from, and output to, an end-user;
2) a human interface server, for mediating requests for human interface services, said requests from human interface clients resident on at least one of said remote host computer and said local host computer, said human interface server operative to process said requests from said human interface clients during normal operation and exception operation; and
3) a starter client means, for issuing requests to a starter server means on said remote host computer, said requests for initiating interaction with the desired remote utility service on said remote host computer;
wherein said remote host computer further comprises:
1) said starter server means, for responding to requests from said starter client means;
2) a desired remote utility service, resident on said remote host computer and platform-independent of said local host computer;
3) a remote object client, for issuing requests for human interface services to said human interface server, for issuing requests for said desired remote utility service and for translating a response from said desired remote utility service into a request for human interface services issued to said human interface server; and
4) a starter service means, for initiating a remote object client indicated by said starter server means.
"Software patents threaten to devastate America's computer industry."
Yeah, the software industry is in real trouble--people walking away from their mortgages in the Valley, engineers and coders selling apples in the street because they can't get jobs. Those software patents are sure destroying the modern economy!
I do not think that Gnutella and FreeNet will allow for the kind of widespread music theft that the RIAA fears and some in the user community eagerly await. Virtually all Americans who use the Internet access it through a large ISP (AOL, Earthlink) or a university. It is naive to think that AOL will not monitor data traffic through it to see who is trading Time Warner music files, whether through Gnutella, FreeNet or another service. It is also naive to think that the big ISPs and the universities will resist any demands by the RIAA to monitor data traffic and take action against users who are pirating music. I believe this may be the future action that Lars discusses briefly in the interview.
It is true that the Feds have rights in inventions they fund. No big surprise there. The key question here is whether the Feds actually funded the development of the patented machine. Given that the LA Times broke this story, and that I am an LA resident familiar with the quality of journalism exhibited by that fine paper, I would tend to believe the patentees.
You have to enforce a _trademark_ against all violators, or it will eventually pass into the public domain. "Aspirin" and "escalator" are two good examples. However, a patent owner need not enforce a patent against anyone; its validity is not affected by the number of infringers that the owner decides to sue. However, if the owner knows that Company A is infringing, and doesn't take any action for a long period of time, the owner may be legally barred from ever taking any action against Company A.
You are correct that the claims define the scope of what's protected. The title is meaningless and typically reflects what the applicant would like to cover, instead of what is actually covered by the patent itself. Although the claims define the scope of the patent, the claims have to be interpreted based on the disclosure in the patent, and on the history of the application. That is, MS may have had to make some concessions to the Patent Office to get this patent allowed, and it can't now interpret the patent contrary to those concessions. The only way to see how valid and broad this patent really is would be to order the file history from the usual places and take a good hard look. I can't believe, off the top of my head, that this patent covers much at all. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a patent attorney & deal with this stuff all the time. I imagine that I have just painted a big red target on myself by bringing that up. FYI, on a related topic, people interested in patent reform should check out New Zealand's patent law. I think it offers some good ideas that should be considered for use in the US (e.g., an opposition period so that interested parties who have access to prior art can submit it to the Examiner).