After the smoke clears, the key elements of this deal are obvious;
No one thinks the world is going to be all one or the other (ok, no one but RMS and his flock). MSFT understands that linux in the server room is here to stay, and it's better to make money off of mixed environments than to lose money pouting.
On the Novell side, there is a recognition that "hey, maybe it would be nice to get some value out of the IP created when we used to spend money on R&D". So by cross licensing, they get protected, and get access to all the other valuable ideas that they might have been concerned about using for fear of patent violations.
The adults in the room at saying that there may actually be something to the notion that ideas themselves are valuable - and microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on good ideas.
The biggest question now will be 'do Red Hat and ubuntu strike similar deals?'
Wow, I think your tinfoil hat is on a little to tight.
To say "they are going to create an broken implmentation" is silly. They don't control sourceforge, and the tool is released under the BSD license. So essentally they don't control any element of it.
This is a 'duh' story - essentally Microsoft put some money into a project that converts from one OPEN standard to another OPEN standard. It's not like they gave up any secret sauce.
If you want to make sure that the "page break" problem is solved, get yourself to sourceforge and add some code to the project!
Ugh! what is it with stupid people continuing to repeat stupid rumors!
For the record, neither Apple nor Microsoft STOLE THE GUI FROM PARC!!!
Apple took a license from Xerox in exchange for Xerox being allowed to buy shares of Apple at a low price.
and in possibly one of the dumbest acts of licensing ever, Apple gave Microsoft a license for the GUI in exchange for an agreement to make Excel for the new Macintosh platform.
All of this info is readily available on the entarweb. go forth and search!
I've said it three times here, and I'll say it again: FUD By whom?! By Microsoft?
At this point, the only FUD monger seems to be Adobe...
look at the Wall St. Journal article as well as the Reuters bit. what is being said is that Adobe is threatening to sue not on the license, but under anti-trust regulation.
Clearly, Adobe is making Microsoft 'fear' legal retaliation. They may not have a leg to stand on, but the threat alone has caused Microsoft to agree to pull save as PDF from the installer, and make it a free d/l. So the "Fear"part seemed to have worked.
Uncertainty has been created around what the definition of 'open' means
And Doubt about what will be allowed in future products.
If Adobe can make an open standard only open to approved partners, then it isn't open. and because they can't use the terms of the license to pick friends (as you so accurately point out) it looks like they want to use Anti-trust law.
Regardless if Microsoft sucks or not, this is a huge threat by Adobe on the concept of an open standard.
It's not really anything like Java, it's more like ANSI C. PDF has two ISO approved standards PDF/A and PDF/X, anyone is free to implement them. You can't say "Adobe backs this" because Adobe doesn't. All MSFT can say is "Office 12 will allow you to save as PDF". Now if Microsoft does a crappy implementation, we could bitch about that, but there's nothing to make an extend and embrace angle.
There are literally thousands of 3rd party programs that implement save as PDF, and not all of them are written well. If MSFT did an implementation that could not be read by Adobe Reader, then what would be the point of saving as pdf? Moreover, Adobe doesn't charge for reader, so the market potential of creating your own reader based on the pdf standard doesn't really put more dollars in the MSFT kitty... It's unlikley that you would sell ads on a MSFT only pdf reader, and MSFT has their own.doc to protect.
No matter how I twist this one around in my head, it still comes back to a simple truth. Either PDF is a real standard, freely implementable, or it isn't.
Many of the comments here focus on "well, if MS licensed it, what's the problem". These sentiments get to the right conclusion, but by the wrong path. Microsoft is talking about implementing the ISO standard version of PDF. Adobe has made PDF a standard, and therefore they don't get to pick and choose who uses it.
This concept is at the very core of open standards!
So yes, "what's the problem" is the right conclusion, but the message has to be "anyone can implement an open standard, including microsoft"
FUD how? By whom? I keep seeing people say "FUD" but not defining whom is doing the Fudding.
Clearly, if Adobe is telling MSFT they have to charge to implement an open standard, that's not FUD. And the General Counsel of Microsoft doesn't go on the record with the Wall Street Journal if he is going to make things up - that's what minions are for.
Even if we were to suppose 'spin' by MSFT, what possible spin could there be? EIther Adobe is telling MSFT they will sue, or they are not. And any interference by Adobe in a third party implementation of an open standard is just BS. If Adobe is not threatening, then it's not a story.
Europe has never allowed 'software patents' instead, the allow "Computer Implemented Inventions"
Article 28.1 of the draft Community Patent Regulation provides that a community patent can be invalidated on the grounds that the subject matter of the patent is not patentable in accordance with Article 52 of the Munich Convention (that is, the European Patent Convention). Article 52 of the Europen Patent Convention provides that computer software "as such" is not patentable subject matter.
If the community patent regulation were actually adopted in its current form, one would be able to get and keep patent protection for computer software-implemented inventions in the same manner that it is currently possible under the European Patent Convention.
Unless the Commission is putting for a new version of Article 28.1 of the draft Community Patent Regulation that specifically repudiates the "as such" language in Article 52 of the European Patent Convention, the situation is the same as it ever was.
relevant text of orginal EPO Docs:
Methods of doing business are, according to Article 52(2) EPC, not to be considered to be inventions. Although not explicitly stated, this exclusion is also considered to apply to a wide range of subject-matters which, while not literally methods of doing business, share the same quality of being concerned more with interpersonal, societal and financial relationships, than with the stuff of engineering - thus for example, valuation of assets, advertising, teaching, choosing among candidates for a job, etc.. The term "business methods" has become a generally used shorthand for all of these areas. Claims for business methods can be divided into three groups:
claims for a method of doing business in abstract, i.e. not specifying any apparatus used in carrying out the method; claims which specify computers, computer networks or other conventional programmable digital apparatus for carrying out at least some of the steps of the business method ("computer-implemented business methods"); claims which specify other apparatus (perhaps in addition to computers) e.g. mobile telephones.,/i>
I'm sorry, but where do you see that? No matter how much you may hate the sightfinder fiasco, that's not 'corruption'. There was no attempt to mislead. They implemented a service, got hammered into the ground for doing it, were forced to remove it, but never offered bribes to hide it. Pretty sure they actually applied for permission to implement from ICANN, which basically stalled the application forever.
I don't seem to recall VeriSign CEO or CFO going on trial like Ken Lay; I don't recall them buying votes from Randy "Duke" Cunningham and I don't think you can say they are 'verifiably' corrupt.
And to cast aspersions at VeriSign for having "a clear profit motive for everything it does" seems downright bizarre. They are a publicly traded company, so they BETTER have a clear profit motive for everything. If they didn't we'd call them a non-profit!
Before you relate your personal tale of woe dealing with their customer support or your domain name, remember that VeriSign does not own or control Network Solutions in any way. If VeriSign screwed your SSL cert, then you have a beef.
There seems to be lots of confusion in the comments about what role VeriSign has, and its competition with the registrars:
1. VeriSign is the Registry, not a Registrar. VeriSign is the authoritative registry for.com and.net domain names.(VeriSign runs the TLD servers) [Verisign registry role]
2. Registrars (goDaddy, Register.com) take your money and then give the info to VeriSign. They pay about $5 to VeriSign to run the registry.
3. Verisign used to own NSI/Network Solutions, but they no longer do, so they don't have a retail presence. They have a retail presence for security certs, and payment services. You, as an individual, do NOT register a name with VeriSign.
So to repeat VeriSign = Registry GoDaddy = Registrar
VeriSign is NOT a registrar any more, so they don't care if you get your name from goDaddy or Register or some other sketchy outfit that sends you false renewal notices in the mail.
So the 19 companies whining about this all have a vested interest in keeping VeriSign from becoming a competitor for any services.
Since you are more familiar with the existing caselaw than 99.9999_ percent of the slashdot crowd, you are going to think about existing obviousness problems. Not only that, but we have problems with Willfulness, (and no, KNORR-BREMSE doesn't help). And it doesn't stop there: Injunction questions and 'weighing of the equities'; 271 (f) and questions of what is a golden master, the need to go to First Inventor To File, expansion of inter partes re-examination, etc. etc. etc. (so yes, I have more than a vague notion of what I am talking about)
When I talk about adding more information to the patent system, I am speaking of Rule 99 filing. The current rules and the limited time window of 2 months may make this difficult to use, but it is one of our only hopes to presenting art prior to the issuance of a patent. Using Sourceforge as well as systems from all the major software shops (like Nokia, Oracle, MSFT, Apple, CA, SAP) could be a way for examiners in the Biz Method division to get more prior art into their search, and knock out bad patents so that we don't have to litigate throw them out.
For the slashdot crowd, an understanding of what could be done under a prior art filing is about the best we can hope for. But ultimately, many folks here are the very programmers we want to be active and engaged in participating in any sourceforge or other system.
I'll keep trying to educate in tiny slivers - it's all we can do.
The industry and millions of consumers are breathing a collective sigh of relief tonight.
Despite averting a BlackBerry shutdown, however, this case is just more proof that the US Patent Office is in crisis. While some of NTP's patents may prove to be valid, it is clear that many of them should never have been granted in the first place.
The US Patent Office's failure to ensure quality threatens the patent system that is so critical to innovative small tech firms. If the quality of patents is not improved, the industry may lose faith in the entire system.
Some may not like software patents, but the reality is that companies have them. Open Source Champion IBM is the single largest patenter in the WORLD. they still make billions (with a b) off of patent licensing - including software/method patent licensing. Small companies like 'slingbox' have patents to ensure that they get VC funding and to prevent Sony from just creating the exact same product and steamrolling them.
I, along with Diane Peters from OSDL, Bruce Perens, lawyers from IBM and others got together at the USPTO last month to talk about ways to improve patent quality. No solutions yet, but some good discussion.
The quality issue MUST be solved, and NOW; so before you launch into a general "patents suck" rage, take a reality check and think about ways to get more prior art into the patent system and improve the quality.
It will be several years before patent reform legislation becomes law, so we are going to to have to find technology solutions that we can implement now, and hope that legislation fixes the things we can't.
I was at the hearing, and most of the reporters left before Asia and Pacific Chairman Jim Leach (R-IA) asked the most important question of the day.
Leach to Google: how did you decide what to block, what would be excluded?
Google: We used existing search engines and our own search tools to see what terms were already blocked, and what sites were appearing within China, and we used that to create google.cn
Leach: So you weren't given a list? That sounds like instead of creating a 'best practices' solution, you created a WORST practices solution. If I want to learn about how to censor, it sounds like I should come to you!
During this dialog, Elliot kept referring to the need to "follow the law in order to be granted a license". He kept hitting that point; and while he was right in saying that, it's pretty clear that Google was finding ways to make sure the Chinese were happy, rather than find the very edge of the law, and push.
I think it is open to debate regarding enagement vs. containment, but another Congressman, Robert Wexler (D-FL), hit it right on the head. He said the decision about engagement is in the hands of government, not in the hands of businesses. It is up to Congress and the Administration to set foreign policy. Businesses are beholden to their shareholders, Congress is beholden to the voters.
Ok, I'm not sure why this stupid belief keeps popping up like whack-a-mole, but there is no inherent security goodness to OSS vs. Windows.
The license model plays no role in insuring security. Don't believe me? How about Andrew Morton, keeper of the Linux Kernel. He made these comments at a U.S. Senate Roundtable on "Policy Implications of Open Source Software":
"... the software stack is a very deep thing and a number of security problems don't really happen down at the low level operating system. They can happen at the application level and the application integration level. I find for the open source world it is hard to come up with a hard and fast rule. If there's a security problem in the kernel it's fixed in a flash. But other applications, depending on how active the development team is it might take longer. But generally the responsibility for solving those lies with the distributor... all I can say is I've seen studies which tend to indicate that the resolution rates are approximately the same between free and proprietary software products". http://www.tech-forum.org/upcoming/transcripts/Tra nscript_OpenSource_07-15-04.pdf
Or if not him, how about Gene Spafford from CERIAS? Or how about this recent article in security pipeline "Five Linux Security Myths You Can Live Without"? http://www.securitypipeline.com/160902138
The list goes on. No credible security expert says that Open Source is inherently more secure.
Think of it this way, would you BLAME the GPL if software you used had a buffer overflow? No, you figure it was bad programming.
In simple terms, if you have good programmers and good methodology you have good code. If you don't, you have bad code. The license model is irrelevant to the security holes found in Open Source or proprietary software.
A little clarification would be a good idea though --
#1 It IS a mandate. Page 18 of v3.5 of the ETRM states that documents shall be saved in the ODF format. Not a mandate for OO.o, but a mandate for ODF; the ETRM spells out what programs are currently supported. It's an odd mandate because page 21 that says "oh yeah, you can use pdf as well".
The fact that they list off supported programs gets a little fuzzy. Government documents often 'require' things by listing off acceptable purchases. Even odder is the fact that at the time the ETRM was released, NONE of the listed programs supported the OASIS standard ODF format in a non-beta version. So the fact that they listed programs that were expected to support definitely suggests a pseudo-mandate. If they had left the named programs off, I think it would have been far cleaner and less suspect.
Here's the relevant lines from ETRM v3.5:
Guidelines - The OpenDocument format must be used for office documents such as text documents (.odt), spreadsheets (.ods), and presentations (.odp). The OpenDocument format is currently supported by a variety of office applications including OpenOffice.org, StarOffice, KOffice, and IBM Workplace.
Any acquisition of new office applications must support the OpenDocument standard.
#2 is obviously totally wrong. ODF doesn't make anything automatically OSS.
I think what they were complaining about was Eric Kriss' line that "Sovereignty trumps IP 100% of the time", but who knows.
My biggest beef with the whole thing is how everyone pretends that this is something other than a corporate battle between Sun, IBM and Microsoft. With Google just hanging out on the sidelines, waiting to crush all.
An IBM owned company produced the study that led to this decision, Sun and IBM dominate the board of OASIS, and Microsoft is likley to control the board of ECMA for their new OpenXML standard.
This isn't good versus evil, it's big publicly held companies using the standards process to do battle. It ain't nothing new, just look at the standards wars in the wireless phone space!
Right, and this is at the heart of my point: It SUCKS to be a computer programmer in this new world. Especially one where IP is devalued. Even if I had an idea that I wanted to sell, your business' ability to hire cheap programmers in India or China and duplicate my work pretty much destroys my incentive to run up my credit card bills on the hopes of selling my software to make a living.
So customers "win" in the short term, but we may harm truly radical innovation. I frankly don't care that "customers win" if it means "I lose".
I don't think I understand "The-Trav-Man's" point up above. It's pretty hard to make more than an hourly living fixing issues for complaining customers. That's consulting work, and it can put a roof over your head, but it doesn't put a Lamborgini in your garage. You end up having to hire other cheaper programmers but charging your (higher) rates. -- you become a manager. You aren't spurring innovation, you're reading resumes.
one of the parent posters had it right, we may be seeing the end of COTS software as we knew it.
On top of that, there aren't Millions of eyes on any project, and most OSS projects have about a dozen key programmers who do 99.999999% of all the work.
I know that's how it works on everything I've been involved with.
Sure, the LAMP stuff may have more reviewers, but how 'bout bug FIX submitters??
I look over the lists and I see lots of complainers and very few new coders.
There's also a larger problem with this approach - it sucks for small companies trying to become bigger.
If you are only able to profit off of service contracts, you can't 'write once, reach many' like you can with COTS software. Moreover, companies like IBM and Novell which have large established sales and service teams will win all the larger contracts.
If you write a great peice of software, and then have to sell, educate the customer AND hire/train all the workforce, how much time are you going to have to devote to Rev. 2 of your world beating product?
Whenever folks talk about OSS in the context of markets, I think it should be with a jaundiced eye towards our "helpmates" at IBM, Novell, SAP/MySQL and Sun.
Ultimately, IBM et al are about making money for shareholders, if they didn't see that as the likley outcome, they would not be out there pimping OSS.
I think a world where software is only 'sold' in the context of a service contract is bad for the next great idea. OSS is great in its place, but to preclude software for sale isn't the answer.
The Slashdot analysis is slapdash. The summary of the AAAS/SIPPI report itself is as follows:
Early in 2005, SIPPI undertook a survey of about 1,100 AAAS members to determine what effects patenting, if any, has had on research conducted by scientists in academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations. Among its results, the survey found that by a suprising 2:1 margin, industry scientists reported having more difficulty in accessing patented technologies than academic scientists. However, this could be the result of the greater volume of intellectual property created by industry, as well as industry's heavy reliance on licensing-a process more sophisticated and time-consuming than the means used in academia for technology transfer.
First, the numbers the original poster used are fabrications. The numbers quoted are not representative of the entire sampled population (1,111), but are percentages of those who answered a specific question. The numbers [n's] from the body of the report have been plugged into the following analysis , which should make this clear. Remember, this was a relatively small sample, but still one of the largest to date on the topic of patents and research) Of the 40% of respondents [n=72 of the 179 of the 1,111 who answered this question] who reported their work had been affected, 58% [n=42] said their work was delayed, 50% [n=36] reported they had to change the research, and 28% [n=20] reported abandoning their research project.
In the detailed sections of the survey, they do indicate that some scientists changed or discontinued research due to IP issues. They also seek IP protection in large numbers - so there is at best a mixed message. For those for whom IP was a disincentive, it is not clear what really lay behind it - lack of sophistication, lack of support from tech transfer offices, a desire to just not hassle with it, the fact that the reseach was more late stage (nearing commercialization) than early (more academic) or what. The IP devil here really is in the details and without that detail an appropriate policy response (other than the sky is falling) cannot be made.
The constant truth here is that Bayh-Dole has worked and technologies are being brought from academic research to the market. Without IP, research efforts would satisfy academic curiosity, but there was no incentive for the investment to develop that research into market able products. The report makes it clear that this is the general rule - academics use the IP system to protect what they have created. Other evidence makes it clear that obtaining this IP protection - as noted - leads to products and services being brought to market.
So, where does this leave us. The AAAS study has brought to light issues we all know about intuitively. That is, that IP issues are complicated and sometimes lead to changes in behavior. But that does not mean that we throw out the systems or discredit it - in particular if the same community that is discomfited by the system also enjoys its benefits. It means that we need to improve the system - patent reform, training, improved tech transfer operations. It also means that certain systemic issues can be addressed in a systemic way. For example, the AAAS has an ongoing program of study on "humanitarian licenses." (http://sippi.aaas.org/hue.shtml#Report).
The effort there is to really understand how intellectual property can be managed to facilitate humanitarian use and applications of technologies - in particular those that arise out of the academic sector. The particular focus in such humanitarian efforts is to promote the use of health and agricultural product innovations by poor and disadvantaged groups, particularly in developing countries. It beggars belief that the same organization - AAAS - can on the one hand be reporting (as Slashdot suggests) that research projects in the United States are being chilled by patent holders while at the same time providing information as to how patents can be managed to further health and agricultural programs in the developing world.
You are 100% correct here. "free" does not guarantee security, or number of eyeballs, or that the code of a project is any good at all. All it secures is your right to access and modify the code for YOUR purposes.
The problem is, people have taken instances of good software and attached global meaning.
So while your post is right, don't you think that this message needs to be heard by those who say "OSS is inherently more secure" or "OSS is better because thousands of people have reviewed and improved the code"?
Ahh, the old "Vendor Lock-In!!! Run for Your Lives!" argument. The policy Massachusetts is proposing is a lock-in, it's just a standard-based one.
If the state ONLY saves documents in that format from this point forward, then they will be unable to take advantage of any newly developed tech, be it standard or proprietary. ie, if Massachusetts 'locked in" on wax cylinders for playing sounds, it would make it hard to get my CD, cassette tape or futuristic crystal cube device into the state's procurement process.
Instead of making pronouncements about which standard will be used forever more, how about deciding what goal you are trying to achieve (lifetime access to the data, easy interoperability with different vendor solutions, no unlockable DRM technology) instead of picking permanent winners and losers based on a static moment in time. This plan should have laid out WHAT they were trying to achieve, not name a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Of all people, slashdot-ers should know that there is something newer and cooler coming soon, regardless what the technology is.
We shouldn't let the desire to see Microsoft impaled blind us to the reality of government types who abrogate their responsibility, and instead say "whoops, can't use that, we standardized on the other one back in ought six".
The commonwealth's decision is a meaningless whack at Microsoft - I can't get excited when the underlying myopia is so technology unfriendly.
Slashdot Mirror
After the smoke clears, the key elements of this deal are obvious;
No one thinks the world is going to be all one or the other (ok, no one but RMS and his flock). MSFT understands that linux in the server room is here to stay, and it's better to make money off of mixed environments than to lose money pouting.
On the Novell side, there is a recognition that "hey, maybe it would be nice to get some value out of the IP created when we used to spend money on R&D". So by cross licensing, they get protected, and get access to all the other valuable ideas that they might have been concerned about using for fear of patent violations.
The adults in the room at saying that there may actually be something to the notion that ideas themselves are valuable - and microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on good ideas.
The biggest question now will be 'do Red Hat and ubuntu strike similar deals?'
Wow, I think your tinfoil hat is on a little to tight.
To say "they are going to create an broken implmentation" is silly. They don't control sourceforge, and the tool is released under the BSD license. So essentally they don't control any element of it.
This is a 'duh' story - essentally Microsoft put some money into a project that converts from one OPEN standard to another OPEN standard. It's not like they gave up any secret sauce.
If you want to make sure that the "page break" problem is solved, get yourself to sourceforge and add some code to the project!
Ugh! what is it with stupid people continuing to repeat stupid rumors!
For the record, neither Apple nor Microsoft STOLE THE GUI FROM PARC!!!
Apple took a license from Xerox in exchange for Xerox being allowed to buy shares of Apple at a low price.
and in possibly one of the dumbest acts of licensing ever, Apple gave Microsoft a license for the GUI in exchange for an agreement to make Excel for the new Macintosh platform.
All of this info is readily available on the entarweb. go forth and search!
I've said it three times here, and I'll say it again: FUD By whom?! By Microsoft?
At this point, the only FUD monger seems to be Adobe...
look at the Wall St. Journal article as well as the Reuters bit. what is being said is that Adobe is threatening to sue not on the license, but under anti-trust regulation.
Clearly, Adobe is making Microsoft 'fear' legal retaliation. They may not have a leg to stand on, but the threat alone has caused Microsoft to agree to pull save as PDF from the installer, and make it a free d/l. So the "Fear"part seemed to have worked.
Uncertainty has been created around what the definition of 'open' means
And Doubt about what will be allowed in future products.
If Adobe can make an open standard only open to approved partners, then it isn't open. and because they can't use the terms of the license to pick friends (as you so accurately point out) it looks like they want to use Anti-trust law.
Regardless if Microsoft sucks or not, this is a huge threat by Adobe on the concept of an open standard.
It's not really anything like Java, it's more like ANSI C. PDF has two ISO approved standards PDF/A and PDF/X, anyone is free to implement them. You can't say "Adobe backs this" because Adobe doesn't. All MSFT can say is "Office 12 will allow you to save as PDF". Now if Microsoft does a crappy implementation, we could bitch about that, but there's nothing to make an extend and embrace angle.
.doc to protect.
There are literally thousands of 3rd party programs that implement save as PDF, and not all of them are written well. If MSFT did an implementation that could not be read by Adobe Reader, then what would be the point of saving as pdf? Moreover, Adobe doesn't charge for reader, so the market potential of creating your own reader based on the pdf standard doesn't really put more dollars in the MSFT kitty... It's unlikley that you would sell ads on a MSFT only pdf reader, and MSFT has their own
No matter how I twist this one around in my head, it still comes back to a simple truth. Either PDF is a real standard, freely implementable, or it isn't.
Many of the comments here focus on "well, if MS licensed it, what's the problem". These sentiments get to the right conclusion, but by the wrong path. Microsoft is talking about implementing the ISO standard version of PDF. Adobe has made PDF a standard, and therefore they don't get to pick and choose who uses it.
This concept is at the very core of open standards!
So yes, "what's the problem" is the right conclusion, but the message has to be "anyone can implement an open standard, including microsoft"
But here's the bigger problem, PDF is an ISO standard, they CAN'T say "no, thanks" to Microsoft, nor should they be able to.
Standards by definition are built to allow anyone to use them. It's either an open standard or Adobe has a double standard.
Bottom line.
FUD how? what's the FUD? Are you saying that Microsoft really doesn't want to implement pdf, and they are _making this up_?
That's highly unlikley.
FUD how? By whom? I keep seeing people say "FUD" but not defining whom is doing the Fudding.
Clearly, if Adobe is telling MSFT they have to charge to implement an open standard, that's not FUD. And the General Counsel of Microsoft doesn't go on the record with the Wall Street Journal if he is going to make things up - that's what minions are for.
Even if we were to suppose 'spin' by MSFT, what possible spin could there be? EIther Adobe is telling MSFT they will sue, or they are not. And any interference by Adobe in a third party implementation of an open standard is just BS. If Adobe is not threatening, then it's not a story.
Not really room for "fud" here.
Europe has never allowed 'software patents' instead, the allow "Computer Implemented Inventions"
,/i>
Article 28.1 of the draft Community Patent Regulation provides that a community patent can be invalidated on the grounds that the subject matter of the patent is not patentable in accordance with Article 52 of the Munich Convention (that is, the European Patent Convention). Article 52 of the Europen Patent Convention provides that computer software "as such" is not patentable subject matter.
If the community patent regulation were actually adopted in its current form, one would be able to get and keep patent protection for computer software-implemented inventions in the same manner that it is currently possible under the European Patent Convention.
Unless the Commission is putting for a new version of Article 28.1 of the draft Community Patent Regulation that specifically repudiates the "as such" language in Article 52 of the European Patent Convention, the situation is the same as it ever was.
relevant text of orginal EPO Docs:
Methods of doing business are, according to Article 52(2) EPC, not to be considered to be inventions. Although not explicitly stated, this exclusion is also considered to apply to a wide range of subject-matters which, while not literally methods of doing business, share the same quality of being concerned more with interpersonal, societal and financial relationships, than with the stuff of engineering - thus for example, valuation of assets, advertising, teaching, choosing among candidates for a job, etc.. The term "business methods" has become a generally used shorthand for all of these areas.
Claims for business methods can be divided into three groups:
claims for a method of doing business in abstract, i.e. not specifying any apparatus used in carrying out the method;
claims which specify computers, computer networks or other conventional programmable digital apparatus for carrying out at least some of the steps of the business method ("computer-implemented business methods");
claims which specify other apparatus (perhaps in addition to computers) e.g. mobile telephones.
yes, they are a REGISTRY not a Registrar.
It's confusing, but there is a clear division between tasks.
Verisign is verifiably corrupt
I'm sorry, but where do you see that? No matter how much you may hate the sightfinder fiasco, that's not 'corruption'. There was no attempt to mislead. They implemented a service, got hammered into the ground for doing it, were forced to remove it, but never offered bribes to hide it. Pretty sure they actually applied for permission to implement from ICANN, which basically stalled the application forever.
I don't seem to recall VeriSign CEO or CFO going on trial like Ken Lay; I don't recall them buying votes from Randy "Duke" Cunningham and I don't think you can say they are 'verifiably' corrupt.
And to cast aspersions at VeriSign for having "a clear profit motive for everything it does" seems downright bizarre. They are a publicly traded company, so they BETTER have a clear profit motive for everything. If they didn't we'd call them a non-profit!
Before you relate your personal tale of woe dealing with their customer support or your domain name, remember that VeriSign does not own or control Network Solutions in any way. If VeriSign screwed your SSL cert, then you have a beef.
There seems to be lots of confusion in the comments about what role VeriSign has, and its competition with the registrars:
.com and .net domain names.(VeriSign runs the TLD servers) [Verisign registry role]
1. VeriSign is the Registry, not a Registrar. VeriSign is the authoritative registry for
2. Registrars (goDaddy, Register.com) take your money and then give the info to VeriSign. They pay about $5 to VeriSign to run the registry.
3. Verisign used to own NSI/Network Solutions, but they no longer do, so they don't have a retail presence. They have a retail presence for security certs, and payment services. You, as an individual, do NOT register a name with VeriSign.
So to repeat VeriSign = Registry GoDaddy = Registrar
You are close, but not quite right.
VeriSign is NOT a registrar any more, so they don't care if you get your name from goDaddy or Register or some other sketchy outfit that sends you false renewal notices in the mail.
So the 19 companies whining about this all have a vested interest in keeping VeriSign from becoming a competitor for any services.
Actually, I am "that guy" http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/0 8/01/1615232 when it comes to talking about patent reform on slashdot. I have had the unfortunate 'pleasure' of talking to Capitol Hill about HR 2795 for most of last year.
Since you are more familiar with the existing caselaw than 99.9999_ percent of the slashdot crowd, you are going to think about existing obviousness problems. Not only that, but we have problems with Willfulness, (and no, KNORR-BREMSE doesn't help). And it doesn't stop there: Injunction questions and 'weighing of the equities'; 271 (f) and questions of what is a golden master, the need to go to First Inventor To File, expansion of inter partes re-examination, etc. etc. etc. (so yes, I have more than a vague notion of what I am talking about)
When I talk about adding more information to the patent system, I am speaking of Rule 99 filing. The current rules and the limited time window of 2 months may make this difficult to use, but it is one of our only hopes to presenting art prior to the issuance of a patent. Using Sourceforge as well as systems from all the major software shops (like Nokia, Oracle, MSFT, Apple, CA, SAP) could be a way for examiners in the Biz Method division to get more prior art into their search, and knock out bad patents so that we don't have to litigate throw them out.
For the slashdot crowd, an understanding of what could be done under a prior art filing is about the best we can hope for. But ultimately, many folks here are the very programmers we want to be active and engaged in participating in any sourceforge or other system.
I'll keep trying to educate in tiny slivers - it's all we can do.
The industry and millions of consumers are breathing a collective sigh of relief tonight.
Despite averting a BlackBerry shutdown, however, this case is just more proof that the US Patent Office is in crisis. While some of NTP's patents may prove to be valid, it is clear that many of them should never have been granted in the first place.
The US Patent Office's failure to ensure quality threatens the patent system that is so critical to innovative small tech firms. If the quality of patents is not improved, the industry may lose faith in the entire system.
Some may not like software patents, but the reality is that companies have them. Open Source Champion IBM is the single largest patenter in the WORLD. they still make billions (with a b) off of patent licensing - including software/method patent licensing. Small companies like 'slingbox' have patents to ensure that they get VC funding and to prevent Sony from just creating the exact same product and steamrolling them.
I, along with Diane Peters from OSDL, Bruce Perens, lawyers from IBM and others got together at the USPTO last month to talk about ways to improve patent quality. No solutions yet, but some good discussion.
The quality issue MUST be solved, and NOW; so before you launch into a general "patents suck" rage, take a reality check and think about ways to get more prior art into the patent system and improve the quality.
It will be several years before patent reform legislation becomes law, so we are going to to have to find technology solutions that we can implement now, and hope that legislation fixes the things we can't.
Morgan Reed
I was at the hearing, and most of the reporters left before Asia and Pacific Chairman Jim Leach (R-IA) asked the most important question of the day.
Leach to Google: how did you decide what to block, what would be excluded?
Google: We used existing search engines and our own search tools to see what terms were already blocked, and what sites were appearing within China, and we used that to create google.cn
Leach: So you weren't given a list? That sounds like instead of creating a 'best practices' solution, you created a WORST practices solution. If I want to learn about how to censor, it sounds like I should come to you!
During this dialog, Elliot kept referring to the need to "follow the law in order to be granted a license". He kept hitting that point; and while he was right in saying that, it's pretty clear that Google was finding ways to make sure the Chinese were happy, rather than find the very edge of the law, and push.
I think it is open to debate regarding enagement vs. containment, but another Congressman, Robert Wexler (D-FL), hit it right on the head. He said the decision about engagement is in the hands of government, not in the hands of businesses. It is up to Congress and the Administration to set foreign policy. Businesses are beholden to their shareholders, Congress is beholden to the voters.
Ok, I'm not sure why this stupid belief keeps popping up like whack-a-mole, but there is no inherent security goodness to OSS vs. Windows.
... all I can say is I've seen studies which tend to indicate that the resolution rates are approximately the same between free and proprietary software products" .a nscript_OpenSource_07-15-04.pdf
The license model plays no role in insuring security. Don't believe me? How about Andrew Morton, keeper of the Linux Kernel. He made these comments at a U.S. Senate Roundtable on "Policy Implications of Open Source Software":
"... the software stack is a very deep thing and a number of security problems don't really happen down at the low level operating system. They can happen at the application level and the application integration level. I find for the open source world it is hard to come up with a hard and fast rule. If there's a security problem in the kernel it's fixed in a flash. But other applications, depending on how active the development team is it might take longer. But generally the responsibility for solving those lies with the distributor
http://www.tech-forum.org/upcoming/transcripts/Tr
Or if not him, how about Gene Spafford from CERIAS? Or how about this recent article in security pipeline "Five Linux Security Myths You Can Live Without"? http://www.securitypipeline.com/160902138
The list goes on. No credible security expert says that Open Source is inherently more secure.
Think of it this way, would you BLAME the GPL if software you used had a buffer overflow? No, you figure it was bad programming.
In simple terms, if you have good programmers and good methodology you have good code. If you don't, you have bad code. The license model is irrelevant to the security holes found in Open Source or proprietary software.
A little clarification would be a good idea though --
#1 It IS a mandate. Page 18 of v3.5 of the ETRM states that documents shall be saved in the ODF format. Not a mandate for OO.o, but a mandate for ODF; the ETRM spells out what programs are currently supported. It's an odd mandate because page 21 that says "oh yeah, you can use pdf as well".
The fact that they list off supported programs gets a little fuzzy. Government documents often 'require' things by listing off acceptable purchases. Even odder is the fact that at the time the ETRM was released, NONE of the listed programs supported the OASIS standard ODF format in a non-beta version. So the fact that they listed programs that were expected to support definitely suggests a pseudo-mandate. If they had left the named programs off, I think it would have been far cleaner and less suspect.
Here's the relevant lines from ETRM v3.5:
Guidelines - The OpenDocument format must be used for office documents such as text documents (.odt), spreadsheets (.ods), and presentations (.odp). The OpenDocument format is currently supported by a variety of office applications including OpenOffice.org, StarOffice, KOffice, and IBM Workplace.
Any acquisition of new office applications must support the OpenDocument standard.
#2 is obviously totally wrong. ODF doesn't make anything automatically OSS.
I think what they were complaining about was Eric Kriss' line that "Sovereignty trumps IP 100% of the time", but who knows.
My biggest beef with the whole thing is how everyone pretends that this is something other than a corporate battle between Sun, IBM and Microsoft. With Google just hanging out on the sidelines, waiting to crush all.
An IBM owned company produced the study that led to this decision, Sun and IBM dominate the board of OASIS, and Microsoft is likley to control the board of ECMA for their new OpenXML standard.
This isn't good versus evil, it's big publicly held companies using the standards process to do battle. It ain't nothing new, just look at the standards wars in the wireless phone space!
Right, and this is at the heart of my point: It SUCKS to be a computer programmer in this new world. Especially one where IP is devalued. Even if I had an idea that I wanted to sell, your business' ability to hire cheap programmers in India or China and duplicate my work pretty much destroys my incentive to run up my credit card bills on the hopes of selling my software to make a living.
So customers "win" in the short term, but we may harm truly radical innovation. I frankly don't care that "customers win" if it means "I lose".
I don't think I understand "The-Trav-Man's" point up above. It's pretty hard to make more than an hourly living fixing issues for complaining customers. That's consulting work, and it can put a roof over your head, but it doesn't put a Lamborgini in your garage. You end up having to hire other cheaper programmers but charging your (higher) rates. -- you become a manager. You aren't spurring innovation, you're reading resumes.
one of the parent posters had it right, we may be seeing the end of COTS software as we knew it.
On top of that, there aren't Millions of eyes on any project, and most OSS projects have about a dozen key programmers who do 99.999999% of all the work.
I know that's how it works on everything I've been involved with.
Sure, the LAMP stuff may have more reviewers, but how 'bout bug FIX submitters??
I look over the lists and I see lots of complainers and very few new coders.
There's also a larger problem with this approach - it sucks for small companies trying to become bigger.
If you are only able to profit off of service contracts, you can't 'write once, reach many' like you can with COTS software. Moreover, companies like IBM and Novell which have large established sales and service teams will win all the larger contracts.
If you write a great peice of software, and then have to sell, educate the customer AND hire/train all the workforce, how much time are you going to have to devote to Rev. 2 of your world beating product?
Whenever folks talk about OSS in the context of markets, I think it should be with a jaundiced eye towards our "helpmates" at IBM, Novell, SAP/MySQL and Sun.
Ultimately, IBM et al are about making money for shareholders, if they didn't see that as the likley outcome, they would not be out there pimping OSS.
I think a world where software is only 'sold' in the context of a service contract is bad for the next great idea. OSS is great in its place, but to preclude software for sale isn't the answer.
The Slashdot analysis is slapdash. The summary of the AAAS/SIPPI report itself is as follows:
Early in 2005, SIPPI undertook a survey of about 1,100 AAAS members to determine what effects patenting, if any, has had on research conducted by scientists in academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations. Among its results, the survey found that by a suprising 2:1 margin, industry scientists reported having more difficulty in accessing patented technologies than academic scientists. However, this could be the result of the greater volume of intellectual property created by industry, as well as industry's heavy reliance on licensing-a process more sophisticated and time-consuming than the means used in academia for technology transfer.
First, the numbers the original poster used are fabrications. The numbers quoted are not representative of the entire sampled population (1,111), but are percentages of those who answered a specific question. The numbers [n's] from the body of the report have been plugged into the following analysis , which should make this clear. Remember, this was a relatively small sample, but still one of the largest to date on the topic of patents and research) Of the 40% of respondents [n=72 of the 179 of the 1,111 who answered this question] who reported their work had been affected, 58% [n=42] said their work was delayed, 50% [n=36] reported they had to change the research, and 28% [n=20] reported abandoning their research project.
In the detailed sections of the survey, they do indicate that some scientists changed or discontinued research due to IP issues. They also seek IP protection in large numbers - so there is at best a mixed message. For those for whom IP was a disincentive, it is not clear what really lay behind it - lack of sophistication, lack of support from tech transfer offices, a desire to just not hassle with it, the fact that the reseach was more late stage (nearing commercialization) than early (more academic) or what. The IP devil here really is in the details and without that detail an appropriate policy response (other than the sky is falling) cannot be made.
The constant truth here is that Bayh-Dole has worked and technologies are being brought from academic research to the market. Without IP, research efforts would satisfy academic curiosity, but there was no incentive for the investment to develop that research into market able products. The report makes it clear that this is the general rule - academics use the IP system to protect what they have created. Other evidence makes it clear that obtaining this IP protection - as noted - leads to products and services being brought to market.
So, where does this leave us. The AAAS study has brought to light issues we all know about intuitively. That is, that IP issues are complicated and sometimes lead to changes in behavior. But that does not mean that we throw out the systems or discredit it - in particular if the same community that is discomfited by the system also enjoys its benefits. It means that we need to improve the system - patent reform, training, improved tech transfer operations. It also means that certain systemic issues can be addressed in a systemic way. For example, the AAAS has an ongoing program of study on "humanitarian licenses." (http://sippi.aaas.org/hue.shtml#Report).
The effort there is to really understand how intellectual property can be managed to facilitate humanitarian use and applications of technologies - in particular those that arise out of the academic sector. The particular focus in such humanitarian efforts is to promote the use of health and agricultural product innovations by poor and disadvantaged groups, particularly in developing countries. It beggars belief that the same organization - AAAS - can on the one hand be reporting (as Slashdot suggests) that research projects in the United States are being chilled by patent holders while at the same time providing information as to how patents can be managed to further health and agricultural programs in the developing world.
You are 100% correct here. "free" does not guarantee security, or number of eyeballs, or that the code of a project is any good at all. All it secures is your right to access and modify the code for YOUR purposes.
The problem is, people have taken instances of good software and attached global meaning.
So while your post is right, don't you think that this message needs to be heard by those who say "OSS is inherently more secure" or "OSS is better because thousands of people have reviewed and improved the code"?
Ahh, the old "Vendor Lock-In!!! Run for Your Lives!" argument. The policy Massachusetts is proposing is a lock-in, it's just a standard-based one.
If the state ONLY saves documents in that format from this point forward, then they will be unable to take advantage of any newly developed tech, be it standard or proprietary. ie, if Massachusetts 'locked in" on wax cylinders for playing sounds, it would make it hard to get my CD, cassette tape or futuristic crystal cube device into the state's procurement process.
Instead of making pronouncements about which standard will be used forever more, how about deciding what goal you are trying to achieve (lifetime access to the data, easy interoperability with different vendor solutions, no unlockable DRM technology) instead of picking permanent winners and losers based on a static moment in time. This plan should have laid out WHAT they were trying to achieve, not name a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Of all people, slashdot-ers should know that there is something newer and cooler coming soon, regardless what the technology is.
We shouldn't let the desire to see Microsoft impaled blind us to the reality of government types who abrogate their responsibility, and instead say "whoops, can't use that, we standardized on the other one back in ought six".
The commonwealth's decision is a meaningless whack at Microsoft - I can't get excited when the underlying myopia is so technology unfriendly.