Agreed -- I meant to write "similar to trademarks" -- my mistake.
My statement of "could be lost" is not the same as a trademark being lost (when the mark is actually is deactivated).
I apologies for the confusing comparison -- what I mean by this is that the patent could become un-enforceable -- yes different than "lost" -- and certainly also debatable:)
(see my comment above with reference to "license or litigate")
I was referring to trademarks not copyright, my mistake, thanks for the clarification...
However with patents I understand that the law allows you to enforce selectively, however my experience (I have several patents, and patents pending in Canada and the US) is that if I do not "license or litigate" the courts will frown on me down the road if I suddenly choose to ambush the infringers.
But then again my lawyer is probably on crack and needs more money - maybe it is *his* idea that I license or litigate...:)
The patent was awarded October 6, 1987... and as far as I know this is the first major attempt to enforce it.
My understanding is that a patent that is not actively defended could be lost (similar in some ways to a copyright) -- the company, at a minimum, should have been offering licenses deals almost 15 years ago already.
This forces companies to be active in defending their rights -- rather than allowing others (competitors) to unknowingly infringe for years and then get ambushed years later with a "convenient and fair license deal".
It is not considered good faith to let a patent lapse and attempt to enforce it years later (consider BT recent attempt at licensing hyperlinks) -- this usually angers the judges and the "infringement" cases are thrown out or "settled" quietly out of the public eye.
Interesting... the way I read it is that the interviewer was speculating "How about just the idea of having an open source browser" and then mentioned Opera as a potential candidate -- not an actual open-source browser.
Which, if this is the correct interpretation, would make Andreessen look like the dolt for his response....
Open source is an exciting and important part of our technology society and will probably shape the future of computing for many decades.
However management of "Open Source" companies have not yet found a way to make a viable business out of the concept.
Unfortunately the statements you made concerning the profitability of Redhat are incorrect.
IBM has been profitable for the last 10 quarters and accumulated profits of 8.43B in the last 12 months -- whereas Redhat has lost money for the last 10 quarters and lost 139M in the last 12 months.
Is it the software's fault? Probably not. Is it management's fault? Possibly.
When the management and directors of "Open Source" companies begin to understand the market they are in and their opportunities for profitability then the headlines may begin to read "Open Source -- back in business."
Slashdot Mirror
Because of the dash. And I run OSX.
Apple may have problems - but they are small compared to many of the vaporware companies of the late 90's.
With that kind of cash they could buy their way into many new businesses.
Agreed -- I meant to write "similar to trademarks" -- my mistake.
:)
My statement of "could be lost" is not the same as a trademark being lost (when the mark is actually is deactivated).
I apologies for the confusing comparison -- what I mean by this is that the patent could become un-enforceable -- yes different than "lost" -- and certainly also debatable
(see my comment above with reference to "license or litigate")
I was referring to trademarks not copyright, my mistake, thanks for the clarification...
:)
However with patents I understand that the law allows you to enforce selectively, however my experience (I have several patents, and patents pending in Canada and the US) is that if I do not "license or litigate" the courts will frown on me down the road if I suddenly choose to ambush the infringers.
But then again my lawyer is probably on crack and needs more money - maybe it is *his* idea that I license or litigate...
The patent was awarded October 6, 1987... and as far as I know this is the first major attempt to enforce it.
My understanding is that a patent that is not actively defended could be lost (similar in some ways to a copyright) -- the company, at a minimum, should have been offering licenses deals almost 15 years ago already.
This forces companies to be active in defending their rights -- rather than allowing others (competitors) to unknowingly infringe for years and then get ambushed years later with a "convenient and fair license deal".
It is not considered good faith to let a patent lapse and attempt to enforce it years later (consider BT recent attempt at licensing hyperlinks) -- this usually angers the judges and the "infringement" cases are thrown out or "settled" quietly out of the public eye.
Interesting... the way I read it is that the interviewer was speculating "How about just the idea of having an open source browser" and then mentioned Opera as a potential candidate -- not an actual open-source browser.
Which, if this is the correct interpretation, would make Andreessen look like the dolt for his response....
$11,495 http://www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/2002/ja nuary/fuel.html
I'm not sure how this compares to equivalent systems....
Open source is an exciting and important part of our technology society and will probably shape the future of computing for many decades. However management of "Open Source" companies have not yet found a way to make a viable business out of the concept. Unfortunately the statements you made concerning the profitability of Redhat are incorrect. IBM has been profitable for the last 10 quarters and accumulated profits of 8.43B in the last 12 months -- whereas Redhat has lost money for the last 10 quarters and lost 139M in the last 12 months. Is it the software's fault? Probably not. Is it management's fault? Possibly. When the management and directors of "Open Source" companies begin to understand the market they are in and their opportunities for profitability then the headlines may begin to read "Open Source -- back in business."