We author and sell software which is adequately protected by copyright.
Clearly you do not understand the difference between patents and copyright. Copyright merely covers a specific representation of an invention. Patents cover the fundamental nature of the invention itself. Can you imagine coming up with an amazing invention in Java, only to have Microsoft copy it in.NET? Good luck trying that one under copyright law.
the problem, which you seem to acknowledge, of patents being completely useless to SMALL business
I acknowledged no such thing. I think patents can be quite useful for small businesses. My point is simply that all the rage directed at software patents in particular is somewhat misplaced.
Look, in an ideal world, small businesses would be able to sue big businesses to their heart's content. But in the real world, some people have more money than others. Unavoidable fact.
That doesn't mean that patents should be abolished entirely. It's just a variation of the old saying, "Democracy is the worst kind of government... except for all the others." Patents are the worst way of protecting intellectual property... except for all the others.
Please tell me how any of this is unique to software patents.
If you want to argue that the entire patent system should be abolished, feel free to do so. Otherwise, I'd love to hear what makes software patents a special case from a small vs. large business perspective...
I realize this is kind of a sappy/idealistic post, but, um, I think there's some measure of truth here.
While I tend to agree about the price of liberty being eternal vigilism, it's not clear from your post how that applies to software patents.
Whose liberties are being subverted by software patents? Don't say small entities -- they have exactly the same liberties as large entities. The fact that they have fewer resources for legal battles is a function of our economic system, not patent law specifically. It's also not even remotely unique to software patents. Is a small entity any more likely to be able to defend a mechanical patent in court?
I can't for the life of me figure out what makes people hate software patents more than other types of patents...
I'm serious. With their huge cash reserves, Microsoft could enter the market in toilet seats tomorrow, price them at 99 cents, drive everyone else out of business, and drive up the price to $10,000 a seat.
We've already seen them put Netscape out of business by giving away the browser, so can Apple (or any other manufacturer) cry 'foul' and accuse Microsoft of dumping? What are the laws in this situation?
Yes, and we all know how Microsoft ran up the price of Internet Explorer once Netscape was out of the picture...
Well, I certainly didn't expect my post to be modded informative or insightful, but offtopic? A bit harsh, no? Don't you think that mod point would have been better used elsewhere?
I posted with a karma bonus modifier, while NotoriousDAN did not. Therefore most people saw my post first. I'm sure it was not intended as a slight on NotoriousDAN.
But I wasn't talking about the effective filing date -- just the filing date of the linked document. You are correct, however, that for examination and patent term purposes, the date of the provisional filing is used.
Once again Slashdot shows its abyssmal understanding of patents.
This patent was not FILED August 10, 2006. It was PUBLISHED August 10, 2006. The actual filing date, shown later in the publication, is December 22, 2005.
It may seem a trivial, but in the digital media market, eight months can make the difference between being a leader and a follower.
No, you're missing the point. The linguists are talking about Windows, not the disc it comes on. The Windows software you get on a counterfeit disc is the actual software created by programmers at Microsoft. It is genuine Microsoft Windows, just not legal or authorized.
If you install from a counterfeited disc (or downloaded copy), the copy of Windows on your computer is also counterfeit. Why is this so hard for you to understand???
You're making two arguments here, which I shall address in turn:
I don't see how that has any relationship to the logic of recognizing that Microsoft is in fact the source of the software being sold by pirates.
Microsoft is the fundamental source of the code, yes. But Picasso is the fundamental source of his paintings' designs, too. Where the product originated does not change the fact that an illegitimate copy has been made.
You're positing a situation in which the source of the item is not the source claimed, which is the entire distinction between something genuine and something counterfeit.
There are plenty of outfits that try to pass off pirated copies of Windows as legit. By your definition, do those also not qualify as counterfeit?
So WGA is broken. To correctly detect the counterfeit copies it needs to check the hologram on the CD, since it's the CD that matters, not its contents.
Not at all. WGA is able to determine whether a genuine copy of Windows was used, without checking the hologram. Again, what matters is that a copy of Windows was made with fraudulent intent. Focusing on the code base, the physical medium, or any other such factor is entirely tangential.
Suppose I buy one license of windows, and get an install CD with it. Then use the CD to install windows on two computers. You're saying one copy now isn't genuine. Which one is the counterfeit?
The second one is counterfeit -- when you installed the first one, you were still within the bounds of the EULA. But you knew that you were breaking the EULA by installing the second one. Therefore, going back to the link between counterfeiting and intent, the second copy is the counterfeit.
Remember, the discussion isn't about whether I should be allowed to do that or not (that is where you would be going off topic). It is about semantics.
I'm not making any moral arguments. I'm just making the case that Microsoft's use of the term "genuine" is perfectly acceptable.
The fact that I disagree with your definition of genuine doesn't make me off-topic.
Your interpretation of "genuine" is inflexible and ignores all logic being presented to the contrary. You are repeatedly ignoring the "intent" component of counterfeiting.
Think about it. Your definition of "genuine" would also abolish all trademark law, simply by passing an original logo through a copy machine (analogous to a CD burner). Somehow I don't think that's really the direction you want to go with this.
Now imagine, six months later, I lend that backup copy I made to a friend so that he can install XP for free. He knows I bought XP, he knows I made a backup, and he's under no illusions that he has the legal right to install it. Now is it a counterfeit copy? If it is, then you're claiming that whether or not something is "genuine" can change depending on what someone does with it, irrespective of the nature of the object itself.
YES. Congratulations, sir, you are a winner. Ironic, considering that you wrote this in jest.
While we've been arguing about the media on the disk, we should probably take it one step further and consider the INSTALLED copy of Windows. If you do not have a license for that copy, it is fraudulent, and therefore counterfeit. Looking back to your example, the CD that you made for yourself is legitimate (or may be, depending on the terms of the EULA). The copy that you transfer from that CD to your friend's computer is counterfeit, i.e., copied for a fraudulent purpose.
But the physical medium is not what makes Microsoft Windows
You're missing the point. We're not arguing whether it's Windows on the CD, we're arguing whether it's a GENUINE copy of Windows.
No, but having a real $100 bill that is legally not supposed to exist (ie, it was heavily worn and exchanged by a bank for a new bill, after which it was supposed to be destroyed) does not make it less genuine. It is illegal, but not counterfeit.
Pointless analogy, since the copies of Windows that we're talking about ARE copies, not original Microsoft-produced Windows CDs that are not supposed to exist. Again, you have to consider the SOURCE of the CD to determine whether it's a counterfeit.
If someone made a Windows clone from scratch that coincidentally was the exact same code as the Microsoft version, it would be counterfeit. But nobody is claiming someone recoded Windows in a counterfeit version, they are claiming that pirates distribute the actual software created by Microsoft. It is genuine Microsoft Windows in counterfeit packaging.
The difference between the fake currency and the software copies is that an expert can determine whether a dollar is fake or not.
Pure drivel. Do you think that if somebody were to produce an absolutely perfect replica of a U.S. Mint hundred dollar bill, the government would stop caring? Believe it or not, the government's reasons for pursuing counterfeiters are not aesthetic.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how a broken economic and legal system justifies patenting what are a cross between a mathematical formula and an instruction booklet.
I'm not sure I understand your analogy... so before I respond, can you please provide an example to clarify?
For one thing, software already has copyright. Why does it also need patents?
Because software inventions are closer to mechanical inventions, with modules analogous to moving parts, than they are to a piece of art or prose.
Shouldn't the INVENTION be protected, not just the specific implementation of the invention?
We author and sell software which is adequately protected by copyright.
.NET? Good luck trying that one under copyright law.
Clearly you do not understand the difference between patents and copyright. Copyright merely covers a specific representation of an invention. Patents cover the fundamental nature of the invention itself. Can you imagine coming up with an amazing invention in Java, only to have Microsoft copy it in
the problem, which you seem to acknowledge, of patents being completely useless to SMALL business
I acknowledged no such thing. I think patents can be quite useful for small businesses. My point is simply that all the rage directed at software patents in particular is somewhat misplaced.
Look, in an ideal world, small businesses would be able to sue big businesses to their heart's content. But in the real world, some people have more money than others. Unavoidable fact.
That doesn't mean that patents should be abolished entirely. It's just a variation of the old saying, "Democracy is the worst kind of government... except for all the others." Patents are the worst way of protecting intellectual property... except for all the others.
... and that is why many IP cases are accepted on a contingency fee basis.
Remember, in the legal world, just because you can't afford it doesn't mean you won't find someone to take it on for you.
Please tell me how any of this is unique to software patents.
If you want to argue that the entire patent system should be abolished, feel free to do so. Otherwise, I'd love to hear what makes software patents a special case from a small vs. large business perspective...
I realize this is kind of a sappy/idealistic post, but, um, I think there's some measure of truth here.
While I tend to agree about the price of liberty being eternal vigilism, it's not clear from your post how that applies to software patents.
Whose liberties are being subverted by software patents? Don't say small entities -- they have exactly the same liberties as large entities. The fact that they have fewer resources for legal battles is a function of our economic system, not patent law specifically. It's also not even remotely unique to software patents. Is a small entity any more likely to be able to defend a mechanical patent in court?
I can't for the life of me figure out what makes people hate software patents more than other types of patents...
Out of curiosity, can you provide an example of when the patent system has failed to "PROTECT creative work"?
Is this dumping?
I'm serious. With their huge cash reserves, Microsoft could enter the market in toilet seats tomorrow, price them at 99 cents, drive everyone else out of business, and drive up the price to $10,000 a seat.
We've already seen them put Netscape out of business by giving away the browser, so can Apple (or any other manufacturer) cry 'foul' and accuse Microsoft of dumping? What are the laws in this situation?
Yes, and we all know how Microsoft ran up the price of Internet Explorer once Netscape was out of the picture...
I'm TIRED of these MOTHER******* SNAKES... oh, I see. Well, nevermind then.
ha ha, you should have replied as AC... *ouch*
I'd rather speak for myself, even if it means getting modded down by people with nothing better to do.
Well, I certainly didn't expect my post to be modded informative or insightful, but offtopic? A bit harsh, no? Don't you think that mod point would have been better used elsewhere?
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Apparently Slashdot has jumped on the DRM bandwagon...
one has to admire their quiet selfless heroism.
Buddha would have made a great astronaut.
I posted with a karma bonus modifier, while NotoriousDAN did not. Therefore most people saw my post first. I'm sure it was not intended as a slight on NotoriousDAN.
But I wasn't talking about the effective filing date -- just the filing date of the linked document. You are correct, however, that for examination and patent term purposes, the date of the provisional filing is used.
Once again Slashdot shows its abyssmal understanding of patents.
This patent was not FILED August 10, 2006. It was PUBLISHED August 10, 2006. The actual filing date, shown later in the publication, is December 22, 2005.
It may seem a trivial, but in the digital media market, eight months can make the difference between being a leader and a follower.
No, you're missing the point. The linguists are talking about Windows, not the disc it comes on. The Windows software you get on a counterfeit disc is the actual software created by programmers at Microsoft. It is genuine Microsoft Windows, just not legal or authorized.
If you install from a counterfeited disc (or downloaded copy), the copy of Windows on your computer is also counterfeit. Why is this so hard for you to understand???
You're making two arguments here, which I shall address in turn:
I don't see how that has any relationship to the logic of recognizing that Microsoft is in fact the source of the software being sold by pirates.
Microsoft is the fundamental source of the code, yes. But Picasso is the fundamental source of his paintings' designs, too. Where the product originated does not change the fact that an illegitimate copy has been made.
You're positing a situation in which the source of the item is not the source claimed, which is the entire distinction between something genuine and something counterfeit.
There are plenty of outfits that try to pass off pirated copies of Windows as legit. By your definition, do those also not qualify as counterfeit?
So WGA is broken. To correctly detect the counterfeit copies it needs to check the hologram on the CD, since it's the CD that matters, not its contents.
Not at all. WGA is able to determine whether a genuine copy of Windows was used, without checking the hologram. Again, what matters is that a copy of Windows was made with fraudulent intent. Focusing on the code base, the physical medium, or any other such factor is entirely tangential.
Suppose I buy one license of windows, and get an install CD with it. Then use the CD to install windows on two computers. You're saying one copy now isn't genuine. Which one is the counterfeit?
The second one is counterfeit -- when you installed the first one, you were still within the bounds of the EULA. But you knew that you were breaking the EULA by installing the second one. Therefore, going back to the link between counterfeiting and intent, the second copy is the counterfeit.
Remember, the discussion isn't about whether I should be allowed to do that or not (that is where you would be going off topic). It is about semantics.
I'm not making any moral arguments. I'm just making the case that Microsoft's use of the term "genuine" is perfectly acceptable.
The fact that I disagree with your definition of genuine doesn't make me off-topic.
Your interpretation of "genuine" is inflexible and ignores all logic being presented to the contrary. You are repeatedly ignoring the "intent" component of counterfeiting.
Think about it. Your definition of "genuine" would also abolish all trademark law, simply by passing an original logo through a copy machine (analogous to a CD burner). Somehow I don't think that's really the direction you want to go with this.
Now imagine, six months later, I lend that backup copy I made to a friend so that he can install XP for free. He knows I bought XP, he knows I made a backup, and he's under no illusions that he has the legal right to install it. Now is it a counterfeit copy? If it is, then you're claiming that whether or not something is "genuine" can change depending on what someone does with it, irrespective of the nature of the object itself.
YES. Congratulations, sir, you are a winner. Ironic, considering that you wrote this in jest.
While we've been arguing about the media on the disk, we should probably take it one step further and consider the INSTALLED copy of Windows. If you do not have a license for that copy, it is fraudulent, and therefore counterfeit. Looking back to your example, the CD that you made for yourself is legitimate (or may be, depending on the terms of the EULA). The copy that you transfer from that CD to your friend's computer is counterfeit, i.e., copied for a fraudulent purpose.
But the physical medium is not what makes Microsoft Windows
You're missing the point. We're not arguing whether it's Windows on the CD, we're arguing whether it's a GENUINE copy of Windows.
No, but having a real $100 bill that is legally not supposed to exist (ie, it was heavily worn and exchanged by a bank for a new bill, after which it was supposed to be destroyed) does not make it less genuine. It is illegal, but not counterfeit.
Pointless analogy, since the copies of Windows that we're talking about ARE copies, not original Microsoft-produced Windows CDs that are not supposed to exist. Again, you have to consider the SOURCE of the CD to determine whether it's a counterfeit.
If someone made a Windows clone from scratch that coincidentally was the exact same code as the Microsoft version, it would be counterfeit. But nobody is claiming someone recoded Windows in a counterfeit version, they are claiming that pirates distribute the actual software created by Microsoft. It is genuine Microsoft Windows in counterfeit packaging.
Moot in view of the above.
The difference between the fake currency and the software copies is that an expert can determine whether a dollar is fake or not.
Pure drivel. Do you think that if somebody were to produce an absolutely perfect replica of a U.S. Mint hundred dollar bill, the government would stop caring? Believe it or not, the government's reasons for pursuing counterfeiters are not aesthetic.