Now, just because they registered first doesn't mean that another company wasn't already using it as a de facto trade mark, but it does occur to me that the value of the mark should be determined by what it was before Google started using it, not what it's worth now. That the other claimant has a total market value of £3.24m ($5.6m) should be an indication that the GMail mark isn't worth "$48m to $64m" as they claim.
When you create or edit a page just before linking to it, thereby creating a temporary appeal to authority in order to win an argument. I think that's graduated from a hobby to an addiction in my case.
I'll lay money that in two years, we'll look back and with hindsight say this was the point where RedHat started to become another SCO. Young is a man of principle. What do we know about the remaining board?
If the competition gets too hot, he - or the future owners of the intellectual property - can just renege on Redhat's non-binding, non-perpetual patent "promise" to "refrain from enforcing the infringed patent" [my bold] against FOSS competitors.
Remember when SCO was FOSS's best buddy? Companies change hands, good intentions blow away in the wind, but patents sit there for 14 or 20 years, hissing and spitting venom at all who stray too near.
Patent abuse is a specific case of abusing intellectual property laws in the courtroom. SCO's case, such as it is, is predicated on them owning everything that's so much as been developed in the same room as a UNIX system, specifically including "methods and concepts" that are associated with patents.
Traditionally, companies made things and filed patents. When two companies crossed paths, they waved their stack of patents at each other much like two stag beetles comparing the size of their antlers. The company with the larger stack obliged the smaller company to pay up to continue making things. That situation suited Microsoft, IBM, Sun et al rather well, as they had a lot of patents which gave them leverage over each other.
Now along comes a rash of companies who exist for no other reason than to buy patents and use them to sue people. They don't make anything, and so they never infringe anybody else's patents. Now Microsoft finds itself with a jillion patents to Bucaneer Holdings Corp's one patent, but none of those jillion are relevant, while Bucaneer only needs their one patent to sue Microsoft with.
We joke that someone should patent the business practice of piratical patent abuse, but in truth, it's the only thing that could be used defensively against these leeches.
How do you cross license with a company that doesn't do anything except buy patents and sue you over them? You have to pay them real protection money to leave you alone for a while. That's what might tip Microsoft away from patents. I don't think it will, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
1) Yes, it's the everything should be OSS argument. It's not a hippy argument; as a developer who both writes and uses APIs and SDKs, the more code sharing that goes on in both directions, the easier my job is and the sooner I go home.
2) Yes, for the specific functionality that I'm interested in. An architecture diagram isn't specification. A user guide isn't specification. A spec says exactly what the product does. When I ever see a spec that does that, I might change my mind about specs being necessary.
Specification is documentation but not all documentation is specification. A spec defines what the product should do. You can have documentation that describes what it actually does (think Idiot's Guide), without that being an a priori specification.
Maybe that's true but largely irrelevant. Once a product (OS/library/API) is released and people are using it, whatever it does is a feature. Read The UNIX-HATERS Handbook; the number of users required to fix a featurebug in stone is 5.
As a user, and absent the ability to change the OS/library, you can either piss and whine about it, or you can figure it out and work around it. Having a spec to hand actively hinders doing the latter, as you waste time trying to figure out why it's behaving incorrectly.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't want another SCO when you get bought out by Sun or Microsoft.
How are you going to run Civ 3 on a "system" with no keyboard, mouse or OS?
"We set out to build a reasonable gaming system"
Build, not upgrade. System, not box.
Remember, Disney led the charge on non-skippable trailers on DVDs. They are basically pure evil in Corporate form.
You know, I'd like to see fewer "CRISIS! But wait! FooCorp can save you!" articles on Slashdot, and while we're at it, no dupes, and a pony.
You do know that most of Afghanistan is back in the control of the Taliban or the Taliban-By-Other-Names, right?
Now, just because they registered first doesn't mean that another company wasn't already using it as a de facto trade mark, but it does occur to me that the value of the mark should be determined by what it was before Google started using it, not what it's worth now. That the other claimant has a total market value of £3.24m ($5.6m) should be an indication that the GMail mark isn't worth "$48m to $64m" as they claim.
When you create or edit a page just before linking to it, thereby creating a temporary appeal to authority in order to win an argument. I think that's graduated from a hobby to an addiction in my case.
I'll lay money that in two years, we'll look back and with hindsight say this was the point where RedHat started to become another SCO. Young is a man of principle. What do we know about the remaining board?
Smells like desperation.
Zounds! Is it time for the "Niche Industry X is resurgent!" filler story again? No real news going on, I take it.
Excuse me, what? Cite the clause please.
It just means that they can outsource all of their jobs to ethnic Indians and it's right there in their company policy.
If the competition gets too hot, he - or the future owners of the intellectual property - can just renege on Redhat's non-binding, non-perpetual patent "promise" to "refrain from enforcing the infringed patent" [my bold] against FOSS competitors.
Remember when SCO was FOSS's best buddy? Companies change hands, good intentions blow away in the wind, but patents sit there for 14 or 20 years, hissing and spitting venom at all who stray too near.
First you tell your driver to take you to your mistresses' apartment, then when you're good and ready you tell him to take you to the office.
Patent abuse is a specific case of abusing intellectual property laws in the courtroom. SCO's case, such as it is, is predicated on them owning everything that's so much as been developed in the same room as a UNIX system, specifically including "methods and concepts" that are associated with patents.
Traditionally, companies made things and filed patents. When two companies crossed paths, they waved their stack of patents at each other much like two stag beetles comparing the size of their antlers. The company with the larger stack obliged the smaller company to pay up to continue making things. That situation suited Microsoft, IBM, Sun et al rather well, as they had a lot of patents which gave them leverage over each other.
Now along comes a rash of companies who exist for no other reason than to buy patents and use them to sue people. They don't make anything, and so they never infringe anybody else's patents. Now Microsoft finds itself with a jillion patents to Bucaneer Holdings Corp's one patent, but none of those jillion are relevant, while Bucaneer only needs their one patent to sue Microsoft with.
We joke that someone should patent the business practice of piratical patent abuse, but in truth, it's the only thing that could be used defensively against these leeches.
How do you cross license with a company that doesn't do anything except buy patents and sue you over them? You have to pay them real protection money to leave you alone for a while. That's what might tip Microsoft away from patents. I don't think it will, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
And the specs exactly describe the functionality? You've personally checked that, right?
Yes, I'm one of the smarter sort of coder. We're both salaried, right?
When did I say that they need more press releases? They need fewer idiotic press releases. I'll leave you to build some more silly strawmen.
1) Yes, it's the everything should be OSS argument. It's not a hippy argument; as a developer who both writes and uses APIs and SDKs, the more code sharing that goes on in both directions, the easier my job is and the sooner I go home.
2) Yes, for the specific functionality that I'm interested in. An architecture diagram isn't specification. A user guide isn't specification. A spec says exactly what the product does. When I ever see a spec that does that, I might change my mind about specs being necessary.
Specification is documentation but not all documentation is specification. A spec defines what the product should do. You can have documentation that describes what it actually does (think Idiot's Guide), without that being an a priori specification.
Maybe that's true but largely irrelevant. Once a product (OS/library/API) is released and people are using it, whatever it does is a feature. Read The UNIX-HATERS Handbook; the number of users required to fix a featurebug in stone is 5.
As a user, and absent the ability to change the OS/library, you can either piss and whine about it, or you can figure it out and work around it. Having a spec to hand actively hinders doing the latter, as you waste time trying to figure out why it's behaving incorrectly.
Maybe the fuckwit coders weren't given the docs until after they'd finished. Happens to me all the time.