I wonder - what's their responsability for doing something illegal (assuming it is technically "illegal")? Could they be taken to court? Or could patent infringment claims be even considered since their not officially recongnized (as yet anyways)?
It can be an addiction - just like anything else - when it starts affecting other aspects of your life in a negative way, be in personal, professional way or otherwise.
Just because it's related to computers (or perhaps "geeks") doesn't make it any less of a problem that needs to be dealt with.
It might be useful for checking updates to modules (or plugins) inside the app (something SU can't do)
For example, if a printing place adds options, then only the module that displays the order/layout/etc stuff for that place need be updated, not the whole app, which is several MB in size, vs probably only a few 100k for the module, if that.
One obvious place would be something like sourceforge, but of course if you wanted to keep its source closed, then I suppose something like a shareware program, or just write up the concept and publish in a magazine, book, etc...
Of course I'm no patent expert (unlike some other./ trolls pretending to be), so even that might not be enough (for the poor little "examiners" at the PTO that is...) but as I understand it if the concept already exists 'in the open' before the application, then it can't be patented.
You can always "publish" it so as to make it piror art; of course if you wanted to make it painfully expensive for non-GPLed stuff then I guess you would really need a patent...
You mention only 1 company - I'm sure there are hundreds out there with a valid reason to sue for bogus patents, be it the PTO or a company that has abused the system
Then we also need to have the PTO and IP laws changed: file all the patents you want, even the kitchen sink; when an infringment suit comes along, the patent is re-examined before any lawsuits are allowed to go forth. Then when there truely is patent infrigment and the patent holds up, let the lawsuit go forth.
This would avoid the common scenario where the defendant is sued out of existance even though the case has no merit!
Until we see the Patent Office being sued by someone/company that suffered financially or otherwise because of a bogus patent that the PTO granted, we won't see any significant changes to the way things work now. After a lawsuit or two they might finally get the hint to stop granting such bogus patents and maybe even (gasp!) start reviewing past ones once they realize those might become a liability.
And for those that say such lawsuits would be a burden on the taxpayers, well, I'd say these bogus patent infrigment cases are taking away needed resources to convict criminals.
And besides, the taxpayers might finally take action once they see the PTO's bogus-patent-granting actions is raising their taxes, instead of only bitching and whining all the time.
Hell must have fozen over, right after it broke loose!
Well if we're lucky, the phones will be just about able to play songs encoded at 8Kbps speed. Of course when doing this the phones will be running hot as hell and you won't be able to hold or carry one... but don't worry, the next generation of phones will be able to play 9Kbps songs and will only be about 20 degrees hotter than the current ones when playing songs.
But the fact is that the UK high court is not 'ruining your rights' - it's the people who copy and sell games illegally that ruin the fun for everyone.
What about my right of not being automatically treated as a criminal by a corporation when I've purchased their products?
Since you'll be having your own domain for mail, and if you actually run the mail server that receives it, I would simply put in the server-to-server communication a condition that any spam is subject to a fee, and to not send the mail if they don't agree with the condition.
Then, when you get spam, just send them a bill.
When they don't pay, I'm sure you can get a judgement against them. Hell, you could probably put them on a list of dead-beat spammers and get them arrested eventually!
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder - what's their responsability for doing something illegal (assuming it is technically "illegal")? Could they be taken to court? Or could patent infringment claims be even considered since their not officially recongnized (as yet anyways)?
Just because it's related to computers (or perhaps "geeks") doesn't make it any less of a problem that needs to be dealt with.
perhaps learning how to properly make a working link on slashdot would be a good skill for you to learn
It might be useful for checking updates to modules (or plugins) inside the app (something SU can't do)
For example, if a printing place adds options, then only the module that displays the order/layout/etc stuff for that place need be updated, not the whole app, which is several MB in size, vs probably only a few 100k for the module, if that.
Sheesh!
Of course I'm no patent expert (unlike some other./ trolls pretending to be), so even that might not be enough (for the poor little "examiners" at the PTO that is...) but as I understand it if the concept already exists 'in the open' before the application, then it can't be patented.
You can always "publish" it so as to make it piror art; of course if you wanted to make it painfully expensive for non-GPLed stuff then I guess you would really need a patent...
Acutally I wouldn't mind seeing the individual examiner sued when it's determined a patent is invalid...
Wishful thinking....
So much for freedom to innovate
So much for justice
So much for the "free world"
</sarcasm>
This would avoid the common scenario where the defendant is sued out of existance even though the case has no merit!
Until we see the Patent Office being sued by someone/company that suffered financially or otherwise because of a bogus patent that the PTO granted, we won't see any significant changes to the way things work now. After a lawsuit or two they might finally get the hint to stop granting such bogus patents and maybe even (gasp!) start reviewing past ones once they realize those might become a liability.
And for those that say such lawsuits would be a burden on the taxpayers, well, I'd say these bogus patent infrigment cases are taking away needed resources to convict criminals.
And besides, the taxpayers might finally take action once they see the PTO's bogus-patent-granting actions is raising their taxes, instead of only bitching and whining all the time.
Well if we're lucky, the phones will be just about able to play songs encoded at 8Kbps speed. Of course when doing this the phones will be running hot as hell and you won't be able to hold or carry one... but don't worry, the next generation of phones will be able to play 9Kbps songs and will only be about 20 degrees hotter than the current ones when playing songs.
What about my right of not being automatically treated as a criminal by a corporation when I've purchased their products?
Show me a similar example with a software patent (or other similarly abstract, non-physical patent), and justify the validity of that patent.
I'll bet you'll have a hard time finding either.
Then, when you get spam, just send them a bill.
When they don't pay, I'm sure you can get a judgement against them. Hell, you could probably put them on a list of dead-beat spammers and get them arrested eventually!
I was going to beat down your argument point by point, but I see someone else already has.
And besides, why the hell should I bother with an AC troll like you anyways.