When I'm ready to move up to the 64 bit processors, I'm already banking on AMD's 64 bit solution
So, when do you suppose ordinary computer users, or for that matter, geeky computer users like myself, are going to be moving up to 64 bits? The jump from 16 bits to 32 bits is obvious -- lots of useful programs use more than the 64KB that 16 bits directly addresses, and the work-arounds to get to more memory on a 16 bit CPU were a pain. 32 bits gave us 4GB to address directly. I don't see myself needing more than 4GB of directly addressable memory space soon. 64 bits gives you something like a bazillion bytes.
I know that high-end servers sometimes utilize a massive amount of memory -- and clearly that is the market for 64 bit CPUs now. Will the technology filter down to the user-level anytime soon? If so, why?
Computer programs, as well as other intangibles like literary works, exist as a pattern of something tangible (pattern of magnetic domains on a disk, pattern of optically opaque spots on a CD-ROM, pattern of ink on a page).
Is a government an intangible in this way? I guess you could say that a government exists as a pattern embedded in many people's minds. Sort of. The argument is getting close to semantics.
The point, which I may have obscured with an over-generalization, applies particularly to governments. Any definition of government which I know of includes the special feature that a government has a monopoly on the right to do certain things (tax, put people in jail, etc). If by "government" you mean something that fits this definition, then I see no evidence that a "government" exists. If you mean something else, then I don't have any idea what you mean by "government".
There are clearly many people who believe in government. If that means that there is some intangible entity (which either does or doesn't exist, depending on what you mean by "exist"), fine, we agree. But nothing about this implies that the intangible entity has the right to do things that ordinary individuals do not have the right to do, nor does it imply that such an entity exists. I believe that no such entity does exist.
I keep responding to essentially the same question, so you may find the answer to your question answered elsewhere in this thread. In short:
People exist. Organizations exist only in the minds of people. People do things in the name of organizations, but such actions are not actions of the organization -- they are actions of the persons involved. One effect of recognizing organizations (such as governments) as real entities is to relieve individuals of responsibility for some of their actions (i.e "the organization did it, not that person").
I never said there was a "better" system. I just said that the government is a social convention -- we don't have to pretend it is real.
People acting on behalf of an entity that they believe in does not make that entity real. I know people who act on behalf of one or more gods -- does that prove that all such gods exist?
I believe in trucks. I've seen them. I can touch them. I can't say the same for governments. I have only seen people (that exist), sitting in buildings (that exist), typing out paperwork (which exists in huge quantities). Some of these people have guns (which exist). None of that means that a government exists.
You may believe in a consensual reality in which "we all agree to abide by certain notions," but I believe in an objective reality. I don't believe that makes me either "irresponsible or insane." Please let me know how I should determine which of these "certain notions" I should choose to "abide by" -- I had though that viewing the world and making my own judgments was the proper way to go about it.
I don't happen to agree with you. But I guess, since you have labeled the issue beyond debate, I must be some kind of hard-headed person for disagreeing.
The fact is that governments, like corporations, partnerships, and organizations (I could go on here, but I think you get the point) do not exist apart from the beliefs of some individuals. They are all just social conventions. Some people believe in the existence of the entities, and that is the only extent to which they can be said to exist. Anything done in the name of one of these entities is done by individuals acting on behalf of the entities.
I pay my taxes. I would rather not be thrown in jail, thank you very much. But my belief in the existence of people who will make my life a living hell if I don't send a check to the appropriate people does not imply that I, in any sense, believe in the existence of the entity on behalf of which all of these people are acting.
I never set out to be an anarchist. For years I attempted to fit governments into a logical view of the world. But I failed, and I am simply admitting that I don't believe in the government or Santa Claus. I am not even sure that my state of mind is what is commonly meant by "anarchist", so I don't generally apply that label to myself (but feel free to label me as you wish).
I also want to point out that not believing in the existence of government does not imply a lack of appreciation for positive things done in the name of that entity. My life is certainly rather posh, as measured against the lives of most other people in this world. I appreciate that. I just don't happen to believe in the existence of that organization.
Individuals. Individuals who clearly are acting on behalf of an entity that they believe exists -- but it is, in the end, only individuals who are doing whatever it is that people believe the government is doing.
It is more than a little irritating to listen to people whine about my choice to not vote. I am a grown man who is able to look at the world and make my own decisions -- I don't need this "Oh, but you've just got to vote!" thrown at me.
The fact is, people don't vote for a variety of reasons, some of which are quite compelling. I don't believe in the system. How would my taking an active role in the system (i.e. by voting) be consistent with my beliefs? Regardless of what they taught you in school, you don't have to believe in the system. I am not protesting anything. It's just that I would no more go and vote for a fictional entity like a government than I would go to the North Pole to hang out with Santa Claus.
A covenant not to sue is, of course, just one type of license. I've dealt with MS before on these matters, and they love to try drawing distinctions that are not there (including the license/covenant thing).
By saying that there is no license, only a covenant not to sue, they are cutting out any of the (potentially) implied rights that commonly go with licenses (right to sublicense, etc).
Not that I like replying to my own post, but I think I figured it out.
Section 2.2 requires Corel to support.NET in at least one version of each of their products (except the "excluded" ones, of course).
Section 2.5 clarifies that Corel can put out products without.NET support (presumably where there are multiple versions of a product, at least one supports.NET, the others don't).
Corel appears to be required to support.NET to some extent in its products (section 2). But the last paragraph of section 2 appears to "clarify" that they aren't really required to support.NET. It seems contradictory.
The agreement also gives Corel a license to four MS patents covering (as far as I can tell) spreadsheet technology, database technology, UI technology and (apparently) spell-checking technology. This is in Section 4 of the agreement.
Section 6 renews Corel's license to VBA (Visual Basic for Applications). Has Corel used VBA in any applications thus far?
When I was 12, I started learning Basic in school (on Apple IIs at school, C64 at home). I quickly realized that Basic would not permit me to create the games that I could buy at the store. That made me wonder what those were programmed in. Asking around a bit, I was introduced to assmebly language.
Not realizing that assembly was supposed to be too much for a kid, I bought a C64 programmer's bible (which covered the assembly instructions) and started teaching myself. In no time, I had a working knowledge of assembly, and from that point on, I've been in love with programming.
The great thing about learning assembly early is that it makes learning other languages (Fortran, C, C++, etc) not seem so forbidding.
When (not if, but when) some 800 pound gorilla decides to extract some money from Open Source (distributors, corporate users, developers, etc...) based on a software patent, the best defense we may have is public sentiment. By showing the world how this closed-source company is extorting money, we might be able to put them in such a bad light that they choose to not continue the suit. Open Source currently enjoys much positive sentiment on the part of the general public (to the extent they have even heard of it).
If members of the Open Source community have patents that are being used against closed source companies, it will be hard not to look disingenuous when we argue that they shouldn't use their patents against us. It will be pointed out that we stand by our convictions only when it is convenient to us, and we will look worse than the 800 pound gorilla. Because the patent situation is one of the few Achilles' heels that Open Source really has, I think this is a potentially dangerous development.
I got the Webgear kit (2 cards) for about $150. I had a little trouble getting it to work at first, but once I got the newest version of the driver, I was flying wireless! For anyone out there who is married to a spouse that resents how much time you spend on the computer, a laptop with a wireless card is the way to go. I can sit in the living room (or anywhere else in the house) with my wife and chat while connected (wirelessly) to my Athlon and the internet. Now my wife can't complain that I'm always in the computer room.
Yes! When Battlezone (and hopefully Battlezone 2) gets ported to Linux, I can finally chuck my Windows partition. I have other Windows games, but I can (and am willing to) learn to live without them. But not Battlezone. No way. I need Battlezone.
This is an issue I have thought about a lot recently. It is part of the reason I wrote a Slashdot article about the basics of patent law. I am a techie (masters and bachelors degrees in aerospace engineering, programmer for most of my life, have a Linux network in my home), but I'm also a lawyer. I am always surprised when I see techies/engineers/scientists missing the point in legal discussions -- it's just not necessary.
The law is not that complicated, and most lawyers are less skilled at logical, rigorous thinking than are techies. Techies should be unphased by legal issues -- but in reality that is not the case. It seems that most techies write off the complexities of a legal issue at the outset, and then bluster through it (see the quality of discussion on Slashdot following a story about patents). Although the law is not extraordinarily complicated, there are complexities that must be thought through carefully. Any programmer should be able to reason through most legal issues without any problem.
The reason, I believe, for techies not "getting" legal issues is that (i) non-lawyers in our country are not explained even the rudimentary legal principals that govern our law, and (ii) techies are often unwilling to examine a legal issue at the level of detail that is required. I think that part (i) of the problem is deplorable, and lawyers are at the root of the problem. Many lawyers have a "guild" mentality and they don't want non-lawyers to understand the law. Non-laywers should demand to know how law works (as I said, it isn't that complicated). Part (ii) of the problem is something for techies to work on. When approaching a legal issue, try to avoid making snap judgments -- look for the nuances of the issue, and give it the attention it warrants.
I've been meaning to write another piece about techies and the law. Maybe I should do that soon... when I can find some time...
So there's a chance that another company can legally release CSS information now. (In fact, Creative may have done this. I know their Dxr2 drivers had some CSS-related files - did these include the full algorithm, and did they originate in any way from DeCSS? I'm pretty sure the Dxr2 does CSS in software...)
Apparently Creative hasn't released the same DVD decryption algorithms or keys. I found this in the "css.h" file in Creative's source code:
"And now, a quick note about CSS and this software: Although this program permits playing of encrypted DVDs, there are no "CSS secrets" contained in it, and none were used in it's construction. No decrypted keys/data are handled by this program AT ANY TIME. The DXR2 card does all the CSS decryption on-board, in hardware. All this program does is permit the exchange of *encrypted* keys and *encrypted* data between the drive and DXR2 card's hardware. The authors are NOT connected, in any way, with any of the "software CSS decryption" programs out there, and *DO NOT* endorse their use in any way. Piracy is a crime! Just wanted to make that ABSOLUTELY CLEAR."
I just got back from the hearing. During the hearing I did a head count. There were 40 individuals in the spectator area of the court-room, and it appeared (from conversations, T-shirts, etc.) that all were showing support for the good guys. In addition, there were a gaggle of lawyers for the DVD-CCA (I counted five, but they were flitting about so much it is hard to be sure), two lawyers for the defendants (one from the EFF), and one named defendant.
The judge said he'd try to make his decision by this afternoon. Keep your fingers crossed.
The judge is simply following the law. The fact that the patent law is a mockery of common sense is beyond her control.:-)
Seriously, the patent law presumes at the outset that any patent is valid unless it has already been ruled invalid by a court (after a trial). The fact that a patent appears to be obvious on its face is not enough to overcome this presumption.
More importantly, the fact that this patent is silly and obvious does not mean that it will be ruled invalid. As I explained in an article I wrote for/., our common sense ideas of what constitutes an obvious invention carries very little weight in patent infringement suits. The fact is, it is unlikely that the Amazon patent will be held invalid. Most patents are at least this obvious, and are rarely held invalid.
Boy, am I glad I put all of those lawyerly disclaimers in my post. I went back and looked at what Corel did, and it does appear that you are correct.
The gist of this is that anyone (over 18) who downloads the Corel distribution is free to distribute the GPL components of it to anyone (regardless of age). As you note, Corel is not prohibiting downloaders from distributing GPL programs to anyone.
Until I am once again informed I have overlooked the obvious, I agree with you.
:-)
BTW - I still think I am correct that Corel has no legitimate reason to be worried about minors downloading thier distribution.
I am a lawyer, but what follows is off the top of my head; don't quote me and don't rely on this as legal advice.
My recollection is that the general rule regarding contracts entered into by minors is that they are not void but are voidable. This means that minors can decide, after entering into an agreement, that they no longer want to be bound by the agreement. They are released from their obligations under the agreement, but they also give up any rights and benefits they obtained under the agreement.
That means that Corel doesn't have any legitimate reason to be worried about minors downloading their distribution. If a minor decides to void the EULA, the minor loses the rights granted under the EULA. At that point, the distribution is covered by background copyright law, so the minor is not legally permitted to copy the distribution. Only the EULA gives someone the right to copy the distribution. It makes sense, really. If the minor agrees to be bound by the EULA, the minor is permitted to do all of the things that Open Source is all about. If the minor rejects the agreement, the distribution is protected by copyright just like any other software.
I don't think Corel has any justifiable reason to be worried about minors downloading their distribution. And, of course, even if they did have a good reason to be worried, they do not appear to have the right under the GPL to add this clause to their EULA.
Judge Posner is one of the best known judges in the country. He is of the "Chicago School" of economics, which is to say that he thinks law should be applied in an economically efficient manner.
Although he is not opposed to antitrust law completely, he is certainly very skeptical of it. It is true that he will only be mediating (which means that nothing he does or says will be binding), but MS cannot be upset about this appointment.
Not all forking is bad. Where two groups intend to take a project in mutually incompatible directions, there should be a fork. For example, if one group wants to make the Linux kernel work well in multi-processor scenarios, and another wants to make the Linux kernal into an RTOS, there might be changes that each would need to make that would be incompatible with the other. In a case like this, there should be two different versions of the kernel, because they are justified by the very different goals of the two groups (before I get flamed, this is just a hypothetical scenario -- as far as I know an RTOS multiprocessor kernel is perfectly feasible -- but there must be some situations where incompatible goals spawn incompatible code).
What open source development discourages is bad forking. For instance, if I went into the Linux kernel and made a bunch of trivial changes to suit my tastes, without any real benefit to others, my forked kernel would sit there gathering dust -- no one else would work on it. That would be a bad fork. A good fork is one which is justified for a good reason, and for that reason it is supported by a community of developers willing to work on it.
One might argue (heck, I guess I am) that the problem isn't that these patents are being granted. The problem is that patents are being granted.
Ask yourself which patents you would not be huffing and puffing about on/. If there are any, could it be that you don't mind those "legitimate" patents because they are far removed from your area of technology (so they are only causing different kinds of geeks to get worked up)?
Really, folks, this is what patents are. These patents are troubling, I believe, because all patents should be troubling.
If a court finds that prior art covers what is claimed in a patent, the patent is invalidated. No one gets any patent rights as a result, instead patent rights disappear.
Slashdot Mirror
When I'm ready to move up to the 64 bit processors, I'm already banking on AMD's 64 bit solution
So, when do you suppose ordinary computer users, or for that matter, geeky computer users like myself, are going to be moving up to 64 bits? The jump from 16 bits to 32 bits is obvious -- lots of useful programs use more than the 64KB that 16 bits directly addresses, and the work-arounds to get to more memory on a 16 bit CPU were a pain. 32 bits gave us 4GB to address directly. I don't see myself needing more than 4GB of directly addressable memory space soon. 64 bits gives you something like a bazillion bytes.
I know that high-end servers sometimes utilize a massive amount of memory -- and clearly that is the market for 64 bit CPUs now. Will the technology filter down to the user-level anytime soon? If so, why?
Steve
Computer programs, as well as other intangibles like literary works, exist as a pattern of something tangible (pattern of magnetic domains on a disk, pattern of optically opaque spots on a CD-ROM, pattern of ink on a page).
Is a government an intangible in this way? I guess you could say that a government exists as a pattern embedded in many people's minds. Sort of. The argument is getting close to semantics.
The point, which I may have obscured with an over-generalization, applies particularly to governments. Any definition of government which I know of includes the special feature that a government has a monopoly on the right to do certain things (tax, put people in jail, etc). If by "government" you mean something that fits this definition, then I see no evidence that a "government" exists. If you mean something else, then I don't have any idea what you mean by "government".
There are clearly many people who believe in government. If that means that there is some intangible entity (which either does or doesn't exist, depending on what you mean by "exist"), fine, we agree. But nothing about this implies that the intangible entity has the right to do things that ordinary individuals do not have the right to do, nor does it imply that such an entity exists. I believe that no such entity does exist.
Steve
I keep responding to essentially the same question, so you may find the answer to your question answered elsewhere in this thread. In short:
People exist. Organizations exist only in the minds of people. People do things in the name of organizations, but such actions are not actions of the organization -- they are actions of the persons involved. One effect of recognizing organizations (such as governments) as real entities is to relieve individuals of responsibility for some of their actions (i.e "the organization did it, not that person").
I never said there was a "better" system. I just said that the government is a social convention -- we don't have to pretend it is real.
Steve
People acting on behalf of an entity that they believe in does not make that entity real. I know people who act on behalf of one or more gods -- does that prove that all such gods exist?
I believe in trucks. I've seen them. I can touch them. I can't say the same for governments. I have only seen people (that exist), sitting in buildings (that exist), typing out paperwork (which exists in huge quantities). Some of these people have guns (which exist). None of that means that a government exists.
You may believe in a consensual reality in which "we all agree to abide by certain notions," but I believe in an objective reality. I don't believe that makes me either "irresponsible or insane." Please let me know how I should determine which of these "certain notions" I should choose to "abide by" -- I had though that viewing the world and making my own judgments was the proper way to go about it.
Steve
I don't happen to agree with you. But I guess, since you have labeled the issue beyond debate, I must be some kind of hard-headed person for disagreeing.
The fact is that governments, like corporations, partnerships, and organizations (I could go on here, but I think you get the point) do not exist apart from the beliefs of some individuals. They are all just social conventions. Some people believe in the existence of the entities, and that is the only extent to which they can be said to exist. Anything done in the name of one of these entities is done by individuals acting on behalf of the entities.
I pay my taxes. I would rather not be thrown in jail, thank you very much. But my belief in the existence of people who will make my life a living hell if I don't send a check to the appropriate people does not imply that I, in any sense, believe in the existence of the entity on behalf of which all of these people are acting.
I never set out to be an anarchist. For years I attempted to fit governments into a logical view of the world. But I failed, and I am simply admitting that I don't believe in the government or Santa Claus. I am not even sure that my state of mind is what is commonly meant by "anarchist", so I don't generally apply that label to myself (but feel free to label me as you wish).
I also want to point out that not believing in the existence of government does not imply a lack of appreciation for positive things done in the name of that entity. My life is certainly rather posh, as measured against the lives of most other people in this world. I appreciate that. I just don't happen to believe in the existence of that organization.
Steve
Individuals. Individuals who clearly are acting on behalf of an entity that they believe exists -- but it is, in the end, only individuals who are doing whatever it is that people believe the government is doing.
Steve
It is more than a little irritating to listen to people whine about my choice to not vote. I am a grown man who is able to look at the world and make my own decisions -- I don't need this "Oh, but you've just got to vote!" thrown at me.
The fact is, people don't vote for a variety of reasons, some of which are quite compelling. I don't believe in the system. How would my taking an active role in the system (i.e. by voting) be consistent with my beliefs? Regardless of what they taught you in school, you don't have to believe in the system. I am not protesting anything. It's just that I would no more go and vote for a fictional entity like a government than I would go to the North Pole to hang out with Santa Claus.
Steve
A covenant not to sue is, of course, just one type of license. I've dealt with MS before on these matters, and they love to try drawing distinctions that are not there (including the license/covenant thing).
By saying that there is no license, only a covenant not to sue, they are cutting out any of the (potentially) implied rights that commonly go with licenses (right to sublicense, etc).
Steve
Not that I like replying to my own post, but I think I figured it out.
Section 2.2 requires Corel to support .NET in at least one version of each of their products (except the "excluded" ones, of course).
Section 2.5 clarifies that Corel can put out products without .NET support (presumably where there are multiple versions of a product, at least one supports .NET, the others don't).
Steve
Corel appears to be required to support .NET to some extent in its products (section 2). But the last paragraph of section 2 appears to "clarify" that they aren't really required to support .NET. It seems contradictory.
The agreement also gives Corel a license to four MS patents covering (as far as I can tell) spreadsheet technology, database technology, UI technology and (apparently) spell-checking technology. This is in Section 4 of the agreement.
Section 6 renews Corel's license to VBA (Visual Basic for Applications). Has Corel used VBA in any applications thus far?
Steve
See this overview of patent law I wrote for Slashdot a while back.
Hope it helps.
Steve
When I was 12, I started learning Basic in school (on Apple IIs at school, C64 at home). I quickly realized that Basic would not permit me to create the games that I could buy at the store. That made me wonder what those were programmed in. Asking around a bit, I was introduced to assmebly language.
Not realizing that assembly was supposed to be too much for a kid, I bought a C64 programmer's bible (which covered the assembly instructions) and started teaching myself. In no time, I had a working knowledge of assembly, and from that point on, I've been in love with programming.
The great thing about learning assembly early is that it makes learning other languages (Fortran, C, C++, etc) not seem so forbidding.
Steve
When (not if, but when) some 800 pound gorilla decides to extract some money from Open Source (distributors, corporate users, developers, etc...) based on a software patent, the best defense we may have is public sentiment. By showing the world how this closed-source company is extorting money, we might be able to put them in such a bad light that they choose to not continue the suit. Open Source currently enjoys much positive sentiment on the part of the general public (to the extent they have even heard of it).
If members of the Open Source community have patents that are being used against closed source companies, it will be hard not to look disingenuous when we argue that they shouldn't use their patents against us. It will be pointed out that we stand by our convictions only when it is convenient to us, and we will look worse than the 800 pound gorilla. Because the patent situation is one of the few Achilles' heels that Open Source really has, I think this is a potentially dangerous development.
Put me down as "against it."
-Steve
I got the Webgear kit (2 cards) for about $150. I had a little trouble getting it to work at first, but once I got the newest version of the driver, I was flying wireless! For anyone out there who is married to a spouse that resents how much time you spend on the computer, a laptop with a wireless card is the way to go. I can sit in the living room (or anywhere else in the house) with my wife and chat while connected (wirelessly) to my Athlon and the internet. Now my wife can't complain that I'm always in the computer room.
-Steve
Yes! When Battlezone (and hopefully Battlezone 2) gets ported to Linux, I can finally chuck my Windows partition. I have other Windows games, but I can (and am willing to) learn to live without them. But not Battlezone. No way. I need Battlezone.
-SteveThis is an issue I have thought about a lot recently. It is part of the reason I wrote a Slashdot article about the basics of patent law. I am a techie (masters and bachelors degrees in aerospace engineering, programmer for most of my life, have a Linux network in my home), but I'm also a lawyer. I am always surprised when I see techies/engineers/scientists missing the point in legal discussions -- it's just not necessary.
The law is not that complicated, and most lawyers are less skilled at logical, rigorous thinking than are techies. Techies should be unphased by legal issues -- but in reality that is not the case. It seems that most techies write off the complexities of a legal issue at the outset, and then bluster through it (see the quality of discussion on Slashdot following a story about patents). Although the law is not extraordinarily complicated, there are complexities that must be thought through carefully. Any programmer should be able to reason through most legal issues without any problem.
The reason, I believe, for techies not "getting" legal issues is that (i) non-lawyers in our country are not explained even the rudimentary legal principals that govern our law, and (ii) techies are often unwilling to examine a legal issue at the level of detail that is required. I think that part (i) of the problem is deplorable, and lawyers are at the root of the problem. Many lawyers have a "guild" mentality and they don't want non-lawyers to understand the law. Non-laywers should demand to know how law works (as I said, it isn't that complicated). Part (ii) of the problem is something for techies to work on. When approaching a legal issue, try to avoid making snap judgments -- look for the nuances of the issue, and give it the attention it warrants.
I've been meaning to write another piece about techies and the law. Maybe I should do that soon... when I can find some time...
-Steve
So there's a chance that another company can legally release CSS information now. (In fact, Creative may have done this. I know their Dxr2 drivers had some CSS-related files - did these include the full algorithm, and did they originate in any way from DeCSS? I'm pretty sure the Dxr2 does CSS in software...)
Apparently Creative hasn't released the same DVD decryption algorithms or keys. I found this in the "css.h" file in Creative's source code:
"And now, a quick note about CSS and this software: Although this program permits playing of encrypted DVDs, there are no "CSS secrets" contained in it, and none were used in it's construction. No decrypted keys/data are handled by this program AT ANY TIME. The DXR2 card does all the CSS decryption on-board, in hardware. All this program does is permit the exchange of *encrypted* keys and *encrypted* data between the drive and DXR2 card's hardware. The authors are NOT connected, in any way, with any of the "software CSS decryption" programs out there, and *DO NOT* endorse their use in any way. Piracy is a crime! Just wanted to make that ABSOLUTELY CLEAR."
Good thought, though.
-Steve
I just got back from the hearing. During the hearing I did a head count. There were 40 individuals in the spectator area of the court-room, and it appeared (from conversations, T-shirts, etc.) that all were showing support for the good guys. In addition, there were a gaggle of lawyers for the DVD-CCA (I counted five, but they were flitting about so much it is hard to be sure), two lawyers for the defendants (one from the EFF), and one named defendant.
The judge said he'd try to make his decision by this afternoon. Keep your fingers crossed.
-Steve
The judge is simply following the law. The fact that the patent law is a mockery of common sense is beyond her control. :-)
Seriously, the patent law presumes at the outset that any patent is valid unless it has already been ruled invalid by a court (after a trial). The fact that a patent appears to be obvious on its face is not enough to overcome this presumption.
More importantly, the fact that this patent is silly and obvious does not mean that it will be ruled invalid. As I explained in an article I wrote for /., our common sense ideas of what constitutes an obvious invention carries very little weight in patent infringement suits. The fact is, it is unlikely that the Amazon patent will be held invalid. Most patents are at least this obvious, and are rarely held invalid.
-Steve
Boy, am I glad I put all of those lawyerly disclaimers in my post. I went back and looked at what Corel did, and it does appear that you are correct.
The gist of this is that anyone (over 18) who downloads the Corel distribution is free to distribute the GPL components of it to anyone (regardless of age). As you note, Corel is not prohibiting downloaders from distributing GPL programs to anyone.
Until I am once again informed I have overlooked the obvious, I agree with you.
:-)
BTW - I still think I am correct that Corel has no legitimate reason to be worried about minors downloading thier distribution.
-Steve
I am a lawyer, but what follows is off the top of my head; don't quote me and don't rely on this as legal advice.
My recollection is that the general rule regarding contracts entered into by minors is that they are not void but are voidable. This means that minors can decide, after entering into an agreement, that they no longer want to be bound by the agreement. They are released from their obligations under the agreement, but they also give up any rights and benefits they obtained under the agreement.
That means that Corel doesn't have any legitimate reason to be worried about minors downloading their distribution. If a minor decides to void the EULA, the minor loses the rights granted under the EULA. At that point, the distribution is covered by background copyright law, so the minor is not legally permitted to copy the distribution. Only the EULA gives someone the right to copy the distribution. It makes sense, really. If the minor agrees to be bound by the EULA, the minor is permitted to do all of the things that Open Source is all about. If the minor rejects the agreement, the distribution is protected by copyright just like any other software.
I don't think Corel has any justifiable reason to be worried about minors downloading their distribution. And, of course, even if they did have a good reason to be worried, they do not appear to have the right under the GPL to add this clause to their EULA.
-Steve
Judge Posner is one of the best known judges in the country. He is of the "Chicago School" of economics, which is to say that he thinks law should be applied in an economically efficient manner.
Although he is not opposed to antitrust law completely, he is certainly very skeptical of it. It is true that he will only be mediating (which means that nothing he does or says will be binding), but MS cannot be upset about this appointment.
-Steve
Not all forking is bad. Where two groups intend to take a project in mutually incompatible directions, there should be a fork. For example, if one group wants to make the Linux kernel work well in multi-processor scenarios, and another wants to make the Linux kernal into an RTOS, there might be changes that each would need to make that would be incompatible with the other. In a case like this, there should be two different versions of the kernel, because they are justified by the very different goals of the two groups (before I get flamed, this is just a hypothetical scenario -- as far as I know an RTOS multiprocessor kernel is perfectly feasible -- but there must be some situations where incompatible goals spawn incompatible code).
What open source development discourages is bad forking. For instance, if I went into the Linux kernel and made a bunch of trivial changes to suit my tastes, without any real benefit to others, my forked kernel would sit there gathering dust -- no one else would work on it. That would be a bad fork. A good fork is one which is justified for a good reason, and for that reason it is supported by a community of developers willing to work on it.
Just my random thoughts on the matter.
-Steve
One might argue (heck, I guess I am) that the problem isn't that these patents are being granted. The problem is that patents are being granted.
Ask yourself which patents you would not be huffing and puffing about on /. If there are any, could it be that you don't mind those "legitimate" patents because they are far removed from your area of technology (so they are only causing different kinds of geeks to get worked up)?
Really, folks, this is what patents are. These patents are troubling, I believe, because all patents should be troubling.
-Steve
If a court finds that prior art covers what is claimed in a patent, the patent is invalidated. No one gets any patent rights as a result, instead patent rights disappear.
-Steve