In the early days of Microsoft's 'C' compiler you were forbidden to write and sell word processors or even 'C' compilers because they had something similar already.
Not a right bozo, merely a possibility. You are not constrained from doing anything with your property, program it with anything you like in any way you like. But if you want to sell it to others in their store you have to play by their rules. Get over it. Go play with YOUR property and stop bothering the rest of us that actually live in reality.
Re:You signed away this "right" by picking Apple.
on
Flash Is Not a Right
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I don't really think you guys know what you mean by a "Closed Platform". Flash is just as closed as anything Apple or Microsoft puts out there. The development tools cost more and the capabilities are stifled in comparison to native tools on any system that Flash runs on.
If it takes you that long to determine that it was infringing and you can't find by black box analysis then hey maybe they got away with it. Ok so now I see how it could make it easier. I think documentation would do as much, but who reads documentation these days. As far as ZFS goes, that was in the documentation. If the idea/concept is so abstract that you can't tell by action that your patent is being infringed then you don't really have a patent.
You don't need to reverse engineer anything. Patents are on Function, on the idea not the expression. If it does the exact same thing that your patented one does, it's a violation even if it does in in a slightly different way.
All kidding aside you completely missed the point. You do not have to be trying to make money to be in business. Just ask Kaiser Permanente or Goodwill Industries. Veiled threats can be expressed as opinions just as much as real threats can. See my other post. I probably wouldn't carry through on any threat I put out on this board but then again it is only an opinion that I might do anything in the first place. Semantics and communication have always played a part in this business whether you acknowledge it or not.
Producing something for free as a service has never been a "business". Ever.
Google, Red Hat, and I've been paid a lot of money to produce open source free products. You have to let the scales fall from your eyes. You don't have a lawn, I own it and your rent is late!
This isn't an opinion. It's an open declaration of war on an NGO. If your brain weren't so apparently dependent on Apple's marketing trolls, I wouldn't understand how you could possibly be fine with that.
I'll deal with this part separately. An NGO? whatever. Going into the business of creating software whether free or commercial is going into business. I'm fine with the company I hold stock in protecting their bottom line no matter what the marketing says. Open source is not immune to dealing with the realities of business. Your high horse is a little shabby and his knees are knocking. Please come down before you hurt yourself.
Actually I believe it is you who don't understand the difference between opinion and veiled threat. There is no difference if the threat is expressed as an opinion. Dealing with your competitors FUD is the price of doing business, can't stand the heat get off the firing line.
You don't need source to examine for patents. you only need source code to check for copyright violations. If they haven't done it yet, they will be soon enough. And no that's not what he means.
Dealing with your competitor's FUD is the cost of doing business if you can't take the heat get out of the arena. Quit whining and re-implement without infringing patents.
Slashdot Mirror
FOAD your own anon self you don't get to vote without a name.
Try to publish something that Adobe thinks denigrates Adobe and see how fast your hair catches fire from the backwash of their lawyers jet planes.
In the early days of Microsoft's 'C' compiler you were forbidden to write and sell word processors or even 'C' compilers because they had something similar already.
Not a right bozo, merely a possibility. You are not constrained from doing anything with your property, program it with anything you like in any way you like. But if you want to sell it to others in their store you have to play by their rules. Get over it. Go play with YOUR property and stop bothering the rest of us that actually live in reality.
He's only holier than thou, he's not holier than me!
Mod parent up more !
I don't really think you guys know what you mean by a "Closed Platform". Flash is just as closed as anything Apple or Microsoft puts out there. The development tools cost more and the capabilities are stifled in comparison to native tools on any system that Flash runs on.
Thanks, we just had it stuffed...
There's no other species on earth quite like homo sapien
Eventually there was no other species on earth quite like homo sapien
Fixed that for ya...
If it takes you that long to determine that it was infringing and you can't find by black box analysis then hey maybe they got away with it. Ok so now I see how it could make it easier. I think documentation would do as much, but who reads documentation these days. As far as ZFS goes, that was in the documentation. If the idea/concept is so abstract that you can't tell by action that your patent is being infringed then you don't really have a patent.
I still don't see how it's easier? Are you being obtuse?
Station!
You don't need to reverse engineer anything. Patents are on Function, on the idea not the expression. If it does the exact same thing that your patented one does, it's a violation even if it does in in a slightly different way.
Apple Schmapple Did you read what he said?
All kidding aside you completely missed the point. You do not have to be trying to make money to be in business. Just ask Kaiser Permanente or Goodwill Industries. Veiled threats can be expressed as opinions just as much as real threats can. See my other post. I probably wouldn't carry through on any threat I put out on this board but then again it is only an opinion that I might do anything in the first place. Semantics and communication have always played a part in this business whether you acknowledge it or not.
It is my opinion that if I meet you I will punch you in the nose and laugh in your face.
Producing something for free as a service has never been a "business". Ever.
Google, Red Hat, and I've been paid a lot of money to produce open source free products. You have to let the scales fall from your eyes. You don't have a lawn, I own it and your rent is late!
You say "vendor lock in" like it's a bad thing. From most of us stock holders points of view it's great.
Ok I don't agree with that either please people be civil. Oh never mind it's an AC...
This isn't an opinion. It's an open declaration of war on an NGO. If your brain weren't so apparently dependent on Apple's marketing trolls, I wouldn't understand how you could possibly be fine with that.
I'll deal with this part separately. An NGO? whatever. Going into the business of creating software whether free or commercial is going into business. I'm fine with the company I hold stock in protecting their bottom line no matter what the marketing says. Open source is not immune to dealing with the realities of business. Your high horse is a little shabby and his knees are knocking. Please come down before you hurt yourself.
Actually I believe it is you who don't understand the difference between opinion and veiled threat. There is no difference if the threat is expressed as an opinion. Dealing with your competitors FUD is the price of doing business, can't stand the heat get off the firing line.
I won't be chosen by potential lawsuits
You can only hope...
You don't need source to examine for patents. you only need source code to check for copyright violations. If they haven't done it yet, they will be soon enough. And no that's not what he means.
Whoa dude where did you get those cool rose colored glasses.
Dealing with your competitor's FUD is the cost of doing business if you can't take the heat get out of the arena. Quit whining and re-implement without infringing patents.