There is that outside the scope of patents, what is not patentable and therefore cannot be restrained from freedom of use by anyone.
The problem with software, abstraction manipulation mechanics, the natural laws of the physical phenomenon of how we create and use abstractions, is that it has not yet been honestly established, verified and publicly taught, made out as common knowledge and common sense.
As such there is much that is currently protected by Intellectual Property Law in regards to Software which should not be.
For genuine computer science to establish such things, genuine software engineering would also become much better established as well as the line between what is and is not IP protectable in software.
Once these this identifications happen, I really don't think there will be any conflict between what people like RMS, ER, T o'R, and the many other IP interested parties would agree upon.
It's like we are living in the age of witches and magicians with their magic spells, all of which eventually vanished away completely when chemical engineering established chemical mega-plants. Only with software we haven't gotten away from the crystal balls, majic wands, and boomsticks.
COMDEX SPRING and WINDOWS WORLD 95
Power Panel - "What's Wrong with Software Development"
** In The U.S. Only **
$81 Billion = 31% of software development gets cancelled before complete
$59 Billion = 53% of software development has cost over-runs of 189%
16% success - project success and failure ratio
61% customer requested features and functions make it in
Maintenance and repair is where most of the U.S. dollars are going, instead of new, better, easier to use software.
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN - Sept. 1994
Article - "Software's Chronic Crisis"
Mary M. Shaw of Carnegie Mellon University, observes a parallel between chemical engineering evolution and software engineering evolution. However, this evolution has not made the connection between science and commercialization required to establish a consistent experimental foundation for professional software engineering.
---
Pretty much there is a difference between what is called a Software Engineer today and what a genuine software Engineeer is. That difference is between what is a majority of psuedo Software engineering or the skill of reinvention vs. limited cases of genuine software engineering in the form of isolated examples of algorithims, data structures, compiler construction.
What this says, is that most of what goes on today is not software engineering, but rather doing again what has already been established. Or what should be better automated so that even the typical end user could much more easily "program".
It is the creation of such automaton that makes programming easier for everyone, that is where genuine software engineering has it's place today.
Such a direction as is generally described by IBMs autonomic computing direction only not with such a stiff white collar high pay end user perspective.
The product of genuine software engineering should not be the final product but the tools used by everyone to do what in essence is programming, that of automating what one needs to automate in order to make their use of computers more productive. And I'm talking about the end user doing what they know they need, not the psuedo engineer/programming reinventing something again not quite what the user wants to again sell it to the user.
The science of Software creation, the practice of automation creation by the end users is what the goal is of genuine software engineering should technically be.
A structural engineer figures out and creates the blue prints. But it is the builder that then use that blue print to create the structures. Sometimes in the process of building, even finding errors in the engineering, which are then feed-back to the engineer to verify and correct.
Personally I believe what I've described within a Responce to a USPTO RFC, as the Virtual Interaction Configuration, is that "expermental foundation" needed and refered to by Mary Shaw, as well as being the specific configuration of functionality and details of, which is absent in IBMs presentation.
.
.
"Kemeny and Kurtz never protected BASIC by copyright or patent, preferring to let it be in the public domain so it would be readily available to all people. "
"The version of BASIC created by Bill Gates and Paul Allen for the MITS Altair in 1975 was an interpreted language...... Of this version of BASIC, Kemeny and Kurtz said, 'A remarkable achievement, but disastrous to the BASIC language. Compromises had to be made, to be sure, but among the compromises were many mistakes.' "
The year was 1975, Bill Gates and co. begain porting BASIC (where did they get the source?) to the Altair, but it was taking them longer then they had planned. Many had long already paid for it, as they had for hardware they had yet to receive or had gotten but didn't work.
Well the hombrew computer club.....
There was a show at some hotel, where the Altair was running Bill's port of BASIC, but many wondered why they didn't yet have it as they had already paid for it.
Sooooo, someone took a copy of the paper tape and made some copies. Took these copies to the club meeting and gave them out with one requirement. That the receiving parties also make copies and bring them to the next club meeting and share.
Bill didn't want to release his BASIC yet because he claimed it still had some bugs in it. But by the time he did release it, the buggy paper tape version had already spread across the country. But not only had it spread, but people were debugging it, learning how it worked and fixing it themselves and even selling their bosses and companies they worked for on buying it. Certainly knowing how it worked was a big plus.
Well Bill got mad that he finally released version of BASIC wasn't selling very well and coined the term "Piracy". The matter even made it to the front cover of TIME Magizine as "The Great Software Flap"
So yeah, Bill Started OSS, But sure as hell, not because he wanted to.
All this can be found in an early book by Steven Levy like "hacker: heros of the computer revolution"
How about I get paid to read web pages? I mean with things like MS IE web page popups into your face and have you ever gone to a XXX site and set off endless popup????
How about all the pages I access in trying to find some information thru google?
Seems to me that the bottom line would inspire people to write one word web pages to cause you to have to access 50 pages for a fifty word new article.
I already Pay my ISP for access and time online.
and we seem to be annually fighting off internet taxes.
But I guess the way to reduce internet use is to charge a penny a page and then 2 cents more to collect that penny and an additional penny in web page tax. And of course the telephone companies will figure out additional charges, like they do on my phone bill ($1.50 month for single bill fee? - Don't I get an option?) etc..
patents and copyrights will expire and as such there is a growing base of public domain. Intentional injection into this and compatable directions only helps to establish benefits for all alot sooner, like while we are still alive, you and me. It's what is presenting MS with it's real threat. Natural legal evolution of software property.
It's funny how not only MS doesn't realize what it is deaing with but that even a large number of linux supporters don't realize.
MS being fearful of linux/gnu/gpl is as silly as being afraid of the ground doing damage to the foundation of a house. Trying to dig the dirt away to protect the foundation.
Linux/gnu/gpl is a natural evolution of common open computer science/industry/application that is only comming into focus now because MS's distraction (which started with Bill Yelling Piracy) is being seen for what it is, a distraction of what would have otherwise beter evolved.
There is no way to stop this evolution, it's been held back long enough. And to add to this, IBM has begun to recognize the need to openly move towards auto-coding techniques - autonomic computing and an open source bridge tool eclipse
As a matter of genuine computer science and the core of autonomic computing there are the NINE action/function constants
In short: MS is trying to battle what is in essence genuine computer science, the natural laws of the physical phenomenon of how we use abstractions. Inherently MS will lose, for even it has to use these in the distractions and distortions it tries to create.
The fact this direction is being called linux is perhaps a distraction from the GNU effort which is in fact just a label that is being used to identify this open source direction.
Then Patent what was before defined as the physical phenomenon of the natural laws of how we use abstractions (I.E., math and software) and then arrest anyone who infringes on it (anyone who thinks for themselves.) Then spy on their communications with their lawyers (so to insure they don't further infringe of the patents....
When do we build the crosses and who gathers the firewood.
inqusition and witch killings for anyone who thinks and therefore is, a witch..
Unless they have a license to think for themselves.
The really scary part of all this is not what words that come out of MicroSofts obviously lying mouth, but that there are MS drones, customers and stock holders that actually believe it.
I find it additionally scary that there are so called OSS and linux supporters here that don't know the facts enough to know that open source existed before Gates made BASIC for the Altair.
Where do you think he got the source to BASIC from?
There is also the hackers ethic, as written by Steven Levy in an early book he did. An ethics which existed prior to Gates Altair BASIC.
How come alot of the posters here don't seem to know this?
The fact is, Bill Gates Yelled "Piracy" and coined the word. And in the process of what happened, the honest became distrustful and the dishonest rationalized their taking Gates BASIC for the Altair and fixing it, and selling their bosses on buying it.
In the process of Bill Yelling Piracy (and making the cover of TIME Magazine - "The Great Software Flap") he busted up a natural evolution of software development directions, one of trust and openness.
For him to now try talking credit, the only credit he should get on this matter is that of causing a great distraction and detour of what would have been a far more innovative direction of not only software but hardware. Stalling out a major forward direction in order to apply consumer entrapment abuse so as to extract monies from consumers of such products.
In legal terms It's called Anti-Trust. WHY DON'T PEOPLE KNOW THIS?!
The problem with the case and settlement is that it is not likley to address the unfair advantage MS anticompetitive practice has given it over the years.
A real settlement would take this gained longterm advantage away from MS. But how do you do that.
The game of chess uses the concept of sacrifice, so does the game MS has played, but this ain't chess and it was proven that MS does practice sacrifice.
What would have things been like had MS not done all the stuff we know it did, even beyond the few points the case is all about?
Since nobody can know that, then perhaps the most fair thing to do is to cause MS to suffer the unfair competitive actions it applied to others. What you can say is an eye for an eye justice.
Most of all, whatever the settlement is, the statement "The Computer Industry will NOT abuse the consumer, otherwise it will suffer strick penalties" needs to be made loud and clear.
What this is really about is concern over terrorist attacks. But given what the targets have been so far, large events don't seem to be on the target list. So why the concern? Is there something different about the computer industry
that would make it a good target?
The story of Microsofts Reno licensings office getting an anthrax letter seems to have been dropped, even from the list of anthrax hits.
So the computer industry must be alot closer to being angels than world markets, news media and politics?
What is really needed is a reasonable use policy or such that limits cookies in how they are used.
The initial/original idea of using cookies was pretty much for productive things. But the use of cookies in ways it was not intended have evoloved.
Perhaps this news item can be a good place to argure what is acceptable and what is not. And that these responces may then be forwarded to the EU.
in the links of the above post "prio rart" should be "priorart" - so simple remove the space before hitting return in your browser.
I also forgot to add that it's not going to be an open source monopoly but rather an evolving common and open computing baseline that competition will have to continue to be competitive and innovative in order to stay above this evolving baseline.
Let's see now:
It's written by two Sun MicroSystem Employees and IBM is supportive of what? Open Source directions?
Because of why?
http://www.research.ibm.com/autonomic/
This Autonomic Computing direction sounds extreamly familiar.
The core of which contains nine functions or action constants identified here.
http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/KNMVIC.html
(USPTO published as one [#4] of the written responces to given RFC ***)
This project in the Python Programming Language
http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/python/python- IQ.html
Timothy Rue
***
Issues Related to the Identification of Prior Art During the Examination of a Patent Application
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/pr io rart/prior_art1.doc
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/pr io rart/0714pato.doc
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/pr io rart/comments_book.doc
#4-> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/prio rart/comments.doc
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/pr io rart/comments2.doc
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/pr io rart/comments3.doc
Open source is not and can never become a monopoly. But what it is and can be is consumer choice.
At best open source is nothing more than the check and balance of what would be an otherwise open season on consumer abuse.
As time goes by, patent and other computer industry intellectual property control runs out and as the effect of it is to go into the piublic domain, open source will be there to integrate it into a base line of product standards functionality, quality, etc..
The commercial market will have to do better.
Without open source the commercial market would have no reason to do better.
In the bandwogon, what happened to the anthrax letter that some reno shop of MS licensing received? Seems to have been totally removed from the list of Anthrax hits.
Could this have been a MS jumping on the band wagon that back fired?
Seems to be real helpful as to explaining the value of development talent vs. ideas. To bad those with good ideas have to deal with coding difficulties created by the development talent.
Slashdot Mirror
There is that outside the scope of patents, what is not patentable and therefore cannot be restrained from freedom of use by anyone.
The problem with software, abstraction manipulation mechanics, the natural laws of the physical phenomenon of how we create and use abstractions, is that it has not yet been honestly established, verified and publicly taught, made out as common knowledge and common sense.
As such there is much that is currently protected by Intellectual Property Law in regards to Software which should not be.
For genuine computer science to establish such things, genuine software engineering would also become much better established as well as the line between what is and is not IP protectable in software.
Once these this identifications happen, I really don't think there will be any conflict between what people like RMS, ER, T o'R, and the many other IP interested parties would agree upon.
It's like we are living in the age of witches and magicians with their magic spells, all of which eventually vanished away completely when chemical engineering established chemical mega-plants. Only with software we haven't gotten away from the crystal balls, majic wands, and boomsticks.
.
.
COMDEX SPRING and WINDOWS WORLD 95
Power Panel - "What's Wrong with Software Development"
** In The U.S. Only **
$81 Billion = 31% of software development gets cancelled before complete
$59 Billion = 53% of software development has cost over-runs of 189%
16% success - project success and failure ratio
61% customer requested features and functions make it in
Maintenance and repair is where most of the U.S. dollars are going, instead of new, better, easier to use software.
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN - Sept. 1994
Article - "Software's Chronic Crisis"
Mary M. Shaw of Carnegie Mellon University, observes a parallel between chemical engineering evolution and software engineering evolution. However, this evolution has not made the connection between science and commercialization required to establish a consistent experimental foundation for professional software engineering.
---
Pretty much there is a difference between what is called a Software Engineer today and what a genuine software Engineeer is. That difference is between what is a majority of psuedo Software engineering or the skill of reinvention vs. limited cases of genuine software engineering in the form of isolated examples of algorithims, data structures, compiler construction.
What this says, is that most of what goes on today is not software engineering, but rather doing again what has already been established. Or what should be better automated so that even the typical end user could much more easily "program".
It is the creation of such automaton that makes programming easier for everyone, that is where genuine software engineering has it's place today.
Such a direction as is generally described by IBMs autonomic computing direction only not with such a stiff white collar high pay end user perspective.
The product of genuine software engineering should not be the final product but the tools used by everyone to do what in essence is programming, that of automating what one needs to automate in order to make their use of computers more productive. And I'm talking about the end user doing what they know they need, not the psuedo engineer/programming reinventing something again not quite what the user wants to again sell it to the user.
The science of Software creation, the practice of automation creation by the end users is what the goal is of genuine software engineering should technically be.
A structural engineer figures out and creates the blue prints. But it is the builder that then use that blue print to create the structures. Sometimes in the process of building, even finding errors in the engineering, which are then feed-back to the engineer to verify and correct.
Personally I believe what I've described within a Responce to a USPTO RFC, as the Virtual Interaction Configuration, is that "expermental foundation" needed and refered to by Mary Shaw, as well as being the specific configuration of functionality and details of, which is absent in IBMs presentation.
.
.
Given current event, it's my understanding there are some countries that completely ban the internet. Am I wrong?
A history of BASIC
..... Of this version of BASIC, Kemeny and Kurtz said, 'A remarkable achievement, but disastrous to the BASIC language. Compromises had to be made, to be sure, but among the compromises were many mistakes.' "
"Kemeny and Kurtz never protected BASIC by copyright or patent, preferring to let it be in the public domain so it would be readily available to all people. "
"The version of BASIC created by Bill Gates and Paul Allen for the MITS Altair in 1975 was an interpreted language.
more:
Google findings on {"software flap" BASIC}
.
.
The year was 1975, Bill Gates and co. begain porting BASIC (where did they get the source?) to the Altair, but it was taking them longer then they had planned.
Many had long already paid for it, as they had for hardware they had yet to receive or had gotten but didn't work.
Well the hombrew computer club.....
There was a show at some hotel, where the Altair was running Bill's port of BASIC, but many wondered why they didn't yet have it as they had already paid for it.
Sooooo, someone took a copy of the paper tape and made some copies. Took these copies to the club meeting and gave them out with one requirement. That the
receiving parties also make copies and bring them to the next club meeting and share.
Bill didn't want to release his BASIC yet because he claimed it still had some bugs in it. But by the time he did release it, the buggy paper tape version had
already spread across the country. But not only had it spread, but people were debugging it, learning how it worked and fixing it themselves and even selling
their bosses and companies they worked for on buying it. Certainly knowing how it worked was a big plus.
Well Bill got mad that he finally released version of BASIC wasn't selling very well and coined the term "Piracy".
The matter even made it to the front cover of TIME Magizine as "The Great Software Flap"
So yeah, Bill Started OSS, But sure as hell, not because he wanted to.
All this can be found in an early book by Steven Levy like "hacker: heros of the computer revolution"
How about I get paid to read web pages? I mean with things like MS IE web page popups into your face and have you ever gone to a XXX site and set off endless popup????
How about all the pages I access in trying to find some information thru google?
Seems to me that the bottom line would inspire people to write one word web pages to cause you to have to access 50 pages for a fifty word new article.
I already Pay my ISP for access and time online.
and we seem to be annually fighting off internet taxes.
But I guess the way to reduce internet use is to charge a penny a page and then 2 cents more to collect that penny and an additional penny in web page tax. And of course the telephone companies will figure out additional charges, like they do on my phone bill ($1.50 month for single bill fee? - Don't I get an option?) etc..
A collection of many cultures, beliefs, economic systems and governments under the scope and control of Disney.
.......some disney ride or attraction.
:)
So when the computer industry ask you AGAIN, where do you want to go (hell they really don't know), tell them
Next year they will present you with a program that makes it possible. Buy our product and we'll give you a free ticket to Disney.
Even though you are already there.
.
patents and copyrights will expire and as such there is a growing base of public domain. Intentional injection into this and compatable directions only helps to establish benefits for all alot sooner, like while we are still alive, you and me. It's what is presenting MS with it's real threat. Natural legal evolution of software property.
It's funny how not only MS doesn't realize what it is deaing with but that even a large number of linux supporters don't realize.
MS being fearful of linux/gnu/gpl is as silly as being afraid of the ground doing damage to the foundation of a house. Trying to dig the dirt away to protect the foundation.
Linux/gnu/gpl is a natural evolution of common open computer science/industry/application that is only comming into focus now because MS's distraction (which started with Bill Yelling Piracy) is being seen for what it is, a distraction of what would have otherwise beter evolved.
There is no way to stop this evolution, it's been held back long enough. And to add to this, IBM has begun to recognize the need to openly move towards auto-coding techniques - autonomic computing and an open source bridge tool eclipse
As a matter of genuine computer science and the core of autonomic computing there are the NINE action/function constants
In short: MS is trying to battle what is in essence genuine computer science, the natural laws of the physical phenomenon of how we use abstractions. Inherently MS will lose, for even it has to use these in the distractions and distortions it tries to create.
The fact this direction is being called linux is perhaps a distraction from the GNU effort which is in fact just a label that is being used to identify this open source direction.
Lets' see now:
First change the laws of physics.
Then Patent what was before defined as the physical phenomenon of the natural laws of how we use abstractions
(I.E., math and software) and then arrest anyone who infringes on it (anyone who thinks for themselves.) Then
spy on their communications with their lawyers (so to insure they don't further infringe of the patents....
When do we build the crosses and who gathers the firewood.
inqusition and witch killings for anyone who thinks and therefore is, a witch..
Unless they have a license to think for themselves.
.
It's called the ThinkOn
Geee, maybe I can patent it.
.
The really scary part of all this is not what words that come
out of MicroSofts obviously lying mouth, but that there are MS
drones, customers and stock holders that actually believe it.
I find it additionally scary that there are so called OSS and
linux supporters here that don't know the facts enough to know
that open source existed before Gates made BASIC for the Altair.
Where do you think he got the source to BASIC from?
There is also the hackers ethic, as written by Steven Levy in
an early book he did. An ethics which existed prior to Gates
Altair BASIC.
How come alot of the posters here don't seem to know this?
The fact is, Bill Gates Yelled "Piracy" and coined the word. And
in the process of what happened, the honest became distrustful
and the dishonest rationalized their taking Gates BASIC for the
Altair and fixing it, and selling their bosses on buying it.
In the process of Bill Yelling Piracy (and making the cover of
TIME Magazine - "The Great Software Flap") he busted up a natural
evolution of software development directions, one of trust and
openness.
For him to now try talking credit, the only credit he should get
on this matter is that of causing a great distraction and detour
of what would have been a far more innovative direction of not
only software but hardware. Stalling out a major forward direction
in order to apply consumer entrapment abuse so as to extract
monies from consumers of such products.
In legal terms It's called Anti-Trust. WHY DON'T PEOPLE KNOW THIS?!
The problem with the case and settlement is that it is not likley to address the unfair advantage MS anticompetitive practice has given it over the years.
A real settlement would take this gained longterm advantage away from MS. But how do you do that.
The game of chess uses the concept of sacrifice, so does the game MS has played, but this ain't chess and it was proven that MS does practice sacrifice.
What would have things been like had MS not done all the stuff we know it did, even beyond the few points the case is all about?
Since nobody can know that, then perhaps the most fair thing to do is to cause MS to suffer the unfair competitive actions it applied to others. What you can say is an eye for an eye justice.
Most of all, whatever the settlement is, the statement "The Computer Industry will NOT abuse the consumer, otherwise it will suffer strick penalties" needs to be made loud and clear.
.
What this is really about is concern over terrorist attacks. But given what the targets have been so far, large events don't seem to be on the target list. So why the concern? Is there something different about the computer industry
that would make it a good target?
The story of Microsofts Reno licensings office getting an anthrax letter seems to have been dropped, even from the list of anthrax hits.
So the computer industry must be alot closer to being angels than world markets, news media and politics?
Hmmm, well it's just a thought. Are you Skerd?
OK, Don't really care about all the political crap, all the big money crap, all the technical crap.....
I'm Joe Consumer, where does this put me and what I can buy and use?
How does it all entrap me?
Does anyone know or even care?
What is really needed is a reasonable use policy or such that limits cookies in how they are used.
The initial/original idea of using cookies was pretty much for productive things. But the use of cookies in ways it was not intended have evoloved.
Perhaps this news item can be a good place to argure what is acceptable and what is not. And that these responces may then be forwarded to the EU.
HTML template patents:
2 32 &mode=thread
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/17/005
This poses a big contridiction about IBMs autonomic computing direction.
IBMs two faces? Open source and patented software?
Another set of links:
g .c om+software+patents
http://www.google.com/search?q=timrue@mindsprin
Hmmm, something is screwy with slashdot adding spaces where they don't belong!
remove any blank spaces slashdot adds to the url
damn windows cut and paste....
in the links of the above post "prio rart" should be "priorart" - so simple remove the space before hitting return in your browser.
I also forgot to add that it's not going to be an open source monopoly but rather an evolving common and open computing baseline that competition will have to continue to be competitive and innovative in order to stay above this evolving baseline.
Let's see now:
- IQ .html
r io rart/prior_art1.doc
r io rart/0714pato.doc
r io rart/comments_book.doc
o rart/comments.doc
r io rart/comments2.doc
r io rart/comments3.doc
It's written by two Sun MicroSystem Employees and IBM is supportive of what? Open Source directions?
Because of why?
http://www.research.ibm.com/autonomic/
This Autonomic Computing direction sounds extreamly familiar.
The core of which contains nine functions or action constants identified here.
http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/KNMVIC.html
(USPTO published as one [#4] of the written responces to given RFC ***)
This project in the Python Programming Language
http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/python/python
Timothy Rue
***
Issues Related to the Identification of Prior Art During the Examination of a Patent Application
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/p
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/p
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/p
#4-> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/pri
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/p
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/p
Don't cha think Sony is taking this "can't teach an old dog new tricks" a bit to seriously?
The topic alone is a troll.
Open source is not and can never become a monopoly.
But what it is and can be is consumer choice.
At best open source is nothing more than the check and balance of what would be an otherwise
open season on consumer abuse.
As time goes by, patent and other computer industry intellectual property control runs out and
as the effect of it is to go into the piublic domain, open source will be there to integrate it
into a base line of product standards functionality, quality, etc..
The commercial market will have to do better.
Without open source the commercial market would have no reason to do better.
In the bandwogon, what happened to the anthrax letter that some reno shop of MS licensing received? Seems to have been totally removed from the list of Anthrax hits.
Could this have been a MS jumping on the band wagon that back fired?
Or was it some computer virus called anthrax?
Seems to be real helpful as to explaining the value of development talent vs. ideas.
To bad those with good ideas have to deal with coding difficulties created by the
development talent.
[shrug] if only coding was alot easier.....