Way to post anonymous and waste everyone's time. Tell ya what, when someone sues you (or the company you work with) for software patent infringement, and you've actually read the patent, you'll understand that they really can and do patent ideas. It would be great if people patented useful algorithms. It would rock if I could type into a patent search engine "dithering algorithm" and look at all of Adobe's patents. If I could even license em, that would be great. But it's not the case. Software patents consist of terms like "method for sending information derived from random number generator to server". The bozos at the patent office don't know what they're doing so they approve the patent and all of a sudden every client/server app on earth is infringing on this guy's patent. Sure, there is "prior art" but going to court and proving this is more expensive than just paying his blood sucking lawyer.
"copyright theft" is not an actual crime, you just made it up or are repeating some bastardization of the law. Here in Australia we don't have criminal copyright infringement, that's some crazy shit the americans made up. On the other hand, you're statement about importing is more debatable. I'll just ask my girlfriend who happens to work in freight and knows all the customs regulations. She says that customs would not be involved because they don't regulate internet traffic. Recently some movie critics were apauled that Ken Park was refused classification. They decided to import it and put on a screening. These are well respected movie critics and it would not do to have them locked up and thrown in jail for importing the movie. So thier lawyers instructed them to send the film over the net (with the permission of the creators of the film) and this would not be considered importing it. They did this and when they announced the public screening of the film the police showed up and took the CD out of the drive and physically prohibited them from playing it.
Sigh. There's nothing about religion here. It is simply that the classification board does not recognise that adults play video games. Therefore all ratings on video games are for the benefit of parents to decide what their children should be playing. Nothing rated R is considered acceptable for children.
No-one is interested in an edited version of LSL. We simply will not buy an edited version. Why? Because to make LSL a 15+ game they would have to take out everything that is LSL.
So you're going to copy it (hurting the game maker) because your government is stupid?
Umm, excuse me, but how in God's name is this hurting the game maker? They are not permitted to sell it to Australia. We can't import it. It's debatable in the general case whether copyright infringement does any damage to the game maker, but in this case it's absolutely impossible to count any copyright infringement of their game made by someone in Australia as a loss. So how does it hurt?
Yes, it sucks that our "classification board" is being used as a "censorship board" and the sooner they recognise that games are an important but of adult life as well as childhood the better, but to claim that it is the public that is causing harm to the maker of this game and not the classification board is rediculous.
Patent: protects an invention (but not an idea itself)
What does that mean exactly? Why use a term that conveys no meaning like that unless you're deliberately trying to mislead people. Call a spade a spade man.
Patent: restricts what others can do with an invention (which can be an idea, cause that's all software is and it's patentable)
One could say that Google has a monopoly on web search technology. With Google launching all these different services, aint they using that monopoly in one market to enter another? Isn't that against anti-trust laws? Isn't that was the Microsoft case was all about?
Thanks for your reply, but you don't know what you are talking about. Microsoft has a number of patents that cover the exact things that they have put into the ECMA standard. They are simply not suing anybody with these patents yet because it is not YET in their interest.
Umm no. Say Microsoft decides to go after Open Office because they're messin' with their market share (and they will). There is no company to sue, so Microsoft goes after the individual developers who have infringed on their patents (and you can be sure that they have). The mere threat of a lawsuit will be enough to bankrupt most the developers, but say one actually goes to court. Microsoft will drag out the case (which will cost the developer a fortune) then they'll win and get a huge award of cash from the developer (which he/she won't be able to pay and will go bankrupt as a result of) and then the court will order that Open Office cannot be distributed. That will be the death of Open Source. Every single developer out there (like me) will stop contributing to Open Source projects because any day you could be driven bankrupt by a lawsuit.
True, and remember, Microsoft is playing the "our language is standardized" game until they have captured the hearts and minds of developers everywhere, then they'll squash all other implementations of their language (dotGNU, mono) with big patent infringement cases.
Hardly cuts to the bone though does it? As I said, you have a great choice of software if all you use is Shareware. Doesn't mean you're very free. If you want to make the case that FOSS is all about choice then talk about the choice to fix your software yourself, or the choice to hire someone else to fix your software, or the choice to modify your software to your personal liking and share that software with others. These are the choices that have given you the choice over which window manager you use. If it were not for these choices (call them developer choices) we wouldn't have the other choices (call them user choices). Choice is about freedom, but you can trade your freedom for choice.. if that's a good deal to you then fine, do it.
Worse is when they see that you're not turning the map sideways/upside down and assume you are not looking then proceed to yell at you or turn the opposite direction to the one you said cause they got confused by you not turning the map upside down.
I wish people would stop saying this. Free Software is about freedom. Open Source Software is about a better method of software production (or something). FOSS = Free and Open Source Source, so there's absolutely nothing sensible you can say about it. It's like saying something sensible about "Intellectual Property", you can't. If we only had one piece of Free Software to choose from we'd still have the freedom to do what we want with it.. that's what Free Software is about. If you want "choice", go use shareware, they've got all the choice you'll ever want.
Wow, compare Solaris and HP-UX - two proprietary operating systems - to Windows - another proprietary operating system and then draw conclusions about Linux. When you are "driven up the wall" about something on a Linux box, YOU CAN FIX IT. You can't do that with proprietary operating systems, STOP USING THEM.
Who said anything about stealing? Check out this patent. Every operating system on the planet does that. It's a required part of loading every executable file format since the early 50s. It's really really easy for someone to violate a patent without even trying. You write code, you make up all your own ideas, but because someone had that idea 5 years before you and hired a lawyer he's gunna sue you.
If you ship software that has code in it that is covered by a patent what does that mean? Can the owner of the patent hit the author up for money? Can they hit the users of the code up for money? Can the author say "you, the user, are responsible for getting licenses for any patents that cover this code" and pass the buck?
It's like that for me too, but it's a woman driving the car. "Ok, just turn left before the round about." "What? Turn left at the round about?" "No, turn left before the round about." "So I have to drive up to the round about?" "Yeah, but turn left before it." "Ok". We then proceed to turn left at the round about. "No, you needed to turn left back there." "You said turn left at the round about." "I said turn left before the round about." "No you didn't." "I did!" "I asked you if we needed to drive up to the round about and you said yes." "I also said we need to turn left BEFORE the round about." "Well how do I get back on that road?" I start looking at the map for a road to get back to the road we were just on so we can get onto the road we were supposed to be on. "Which way do I go?!?" "I'm looking, ok." "Should I turn around?" If she was willing to do a U-turn why did she ask me how to get back on that road? "Ok, fine, do a U-turn." "I can't do a U-turn here." Then why did you just ask if you should turn around?! "Ok, fine, just go back to the round about." "What round about?"
Gotta love the way the Theo fish just goes nuts at the end and starts yelling at everyone. Someone needs to make a blowfish cartoon where other fish get into morally dubious situations and the Theo fish just comes in and tells em they're all idiots and if they don't contribute to his project then this'll be the last release.
Slashdot Mirror
Way to post anonymous and waste everyone's time. Tell ya what, when someone sues you (or the company you work with) for software patent infringement, and you've actually read the patent, you'll understand that they really can and do patent ideas. It would be great if people patented useful algorithms. It would rock if I could type into a patent search engine "dithering algorithm" and look at all of Adobe's patents. If I could even license em, that would be great. But it's not the case. Software patents consist of terms like "method for sending information derived from random number generator to server". The bozos at the patent office don't know what they're doing so they approve the patent and all of a sudden every client/server app on earth is infringing on this guy's patent. Sure, there is "prior art" but going to court and proving this is more expensive than just paying his blood sucking lawyer.
"copyright theft" is not an actual crime, you just made it up or are repeating some bastardization of the law. Here in Australia we don't have criminal copyright infringement, that's some crazy shit the americans made up. On the other hand, you're statement about importing is more debatable. I'll just ask my girlfriend who happens to work in freight and knows all the customs regulations. She says that customs would not be involved because they don't regulate internet traffic. Recently some movie critics were apauled that Ken Park was refused classification. They decided to import it and put on a screening. These are well respected movie critics and it would not do to have them locked up and thrown in jail for importing the movie. So thier lawyers instructed them to send the film over the net (with the permission of the creators of the film) and this would not be considered importing it. They did this and when they announced the public screening of the film the police showed up and took the CD out of the drive and physically prohibited them from playing it.
Because in Australia it is illegal to import games and movies that have been refused a classification by the classification board.
Sigh. There's nothing about religion here. It is simply that the classification board does not recognise that adults play video games. Therefore all ratings on video games are for the benefit of parents to decide what their children should be playing. Nothing rated R is considered acceptable for children.
No-one is interested in an edited version of LSL. We simply will not buy an edited version. Why? Because to make LSL a 15+ game they would have to take out everything that is LSL.
Anck, wrong. You are "importing" the game by buying it from an overseas retailer, this is illegal.
Umm, excuse me, but how in God's name is this hurting the game maker? They are not permitted to sell it to Australia. We can't import it. It's debatable in the general case whether copyright infringement does any damage to the game maker, but in this case it's absolutely impossible to count any copyright infringement of their game made by someone in Australia as a loss. So how does it hurt?
Yes, it sucks that our "classification board" is being used as a "censorship board" and the sooner they recognise that games are an important but of adult life as well as childhood the better, but to claim that it is the public that is causing harm to the maker of this game and not the classification board is rediculous.
The old chronies on the classification board have never played a computer game in their lives so they figure only children play games.
What does that mean exactly? Why use a term that conveys no meaning like that unless you're deliberately trying to mislead people. Call a spade a spade man.
Patent: restricts what others can do with an invention (which can be an idea, cause that's all software is and it's patentable)
Slimey lawyer scum.
One could say that Google has a monopoly on web search technology. With Google launching all these different services, aint they using that monopoly in one market to enter another? Isn't that against anti-trust laws? Isn't that was the Microsoft case was all about?
Thanks for your reply, but you don't know what you are talking about. Microsoft has a number of patents that cover the exact things that they have put into the ECMA standard. They are simply not suing anybody with these patents yet because it is not YET in their interest.
Umm no. Say Microsoft decides to go after Open Office because they're messin' with their market share (and they will). There is no company to sue, so Microsoft goes after the individual developers who have infringed on their patents (and you can be sure that they have). The mere threat of a lawsuit will be enough to bankrupt most the developers, but say one actually goes to court. Microsoft will drag out the case (which will cost the developer a fortune) then they'll win and get a huge award of cash from the developer (which he/she won't be able to pay and will go bankrupt as a result of) and then the court will order that Open Office cannot be distributed. That will be the death of Open Source. Every single developer out there (like me) will stop contributing to Open Source projects because any day you could be driven bankrupt by a lawsuit.
True, and remember, Microsoft is playing the "our language is standardized" game until they have captured the hearts and minds of developers everywhere, then they'll squash all other implementations of their language (dotGNU, mono) with big patent infringement cases.
Especially when you consider that the purpose of a patent is to expose how something works so that inventors don't need to keep it a trade secret.
Hardly cuts to the bone though does it? As I said, you have a great choice of software if all you use is Shareware. Doesn't mean you're very free. If you want to make the case that FOSS is all about choice then talk about the choice to fix your software yourself, or the choice to hire someone else to fix your software, or the choice to modify your software to your personal liking and share that software with others. These are the choices that have given you the choice over which window manager you use. If it were not for these choices (call them developer choices) we wouldn't have the other choices (call them user choices). Choice is about freedom, but you can trade your freedom for choice.. if that's a good deal to you then fine, do it.
Worse is when they see that you're not turning the map sideways/upside down and assume you are not looking then proceed to yell at you or turn the opposite direction to the one you said cause they got confused by you not turning the map upside down.
I wish people would stop saying this. Free Software is about freedom. Open Source Software is about a better method of software production (or something). FOSS = Free and Open Source Source, so there's absolutely nothing sensible you can say about it. It's like saying something sensible about "Intellectual Property", you can't. If we only had one piece of Free Software to choose from we'd still have the freedom to do what we want with it.. that's what Free Software is about. If you want "choice", go use shareware, they've got all the choice you'll ever want.
Wow, compare Solaris and HP-UX - two proprietary operating systems - to Windows - another proprietary operating system and then draw conclusions about Linux. When you are "driven up the wall" about something on a Linux box, YOU CAN FIX IT. You can't do that with proprietary operating systems, STOP USING THEM.
That's cause Darren Reed is an idiot and Theo don't tolerate idiots.
Did you make this up? It's so much like that latest OpenBSD song. Animal Farm for copyright, scary.
Right! But in the case of Free Software the developer is (or may be) poor. So who do these people go after?
Who said anything about stealing? Check out this patent. Every operating system on the planet does that. It's a required part of loading every executable file format since the early 50s. It's really really easy for someone to violate a patent without even trying. You write code, you make up all your own ideas, but because someone had that idea 5 years before you and hired a lawyer he's gunna sue you.
If you ship software that has code in it that is covered by a patent what does that mean? Can the owner of the patent hit the author up for money? Can they hit the users of the code up for money? Can the author say "you, the user, are responsible for getting licenses for any patents that cover this code" and pass the buck?
It's like that for me too, but it's a woman driving the car.
"Ok, just turn left before the round about."
"What? Turn left at the round about?"
"No, turn left before the round about."
"So I have to drive up to the round about?"
"Yeah, but turn left before it."
"Ok". We then proceed to turn left at the round about.
"No, you needed to turn left back there."
"You said turn left at the round about."
"I said turn left before the round about."
"No you didn't."
"I did!"
"I asked you if we needed to drive up to the round about and you said yes."
"I also said we need to turn left BEFORE the round about."
"Well how do I get back on that road?"
I start looking at the map for a road to get back to the road we were just on so we can get onto the road we were supposed to be on.
"Which way do I go?!?"
"I'm looking, ok."
"Should I turn around?"
If she was willing to do a U-turn why did she ask me how to get back on that road?
"Ok, fine, do a U-turn."
"I can't do a U-turn here."
Then why did you just ask if you should turn around?!
"Ok, fine, just go back to the round about."
"What round about?"
Gotta love the way the Theo fish just goes nuts at the end and starts yelling at everyone. Someone needs to make a blowfish cartoon where other fish get into morally dubious situations and the Theo fish just comes in and tells em they're all idiots and if they don't contribute to his project then this'll be the last release.