Well, at least they were no third world country. Afghanistan was a highly developped country, untill the Taliban came along (and the Russians did their part of destruction as well, but to a minor extend). Regarding the current state of the country, I think the classification of third world country is under the current circumstances correct for Afghanistan.
For Iraq, it is questionable, as development varies a lot over the country, just like with India. The latter country qualifies as third world in a lot of cases. Not by the US, but by themselves to get cost cuts at for example the WIPO. Besides that, they are not bound by all GATT and TRIPs regulations.
With respect to your statement on American politics: I am a European and do not now all the nuts and bolts of the US politics. However, quite some documentaries have been broadcasted about the already very old plan of Donald R. and his pal Wolfowitz. It's about the oil, stupid, not about the looks. And well... "don't think like them" will have played a role as well.
Going back to the topic again from this part: I wonder when Steve Ballmer will visit Iraq and Paul Bremer, in case he hasn't already been there.
Linux perfect for further development.. Iraq also?
on
Linux Comes To Afghanistan
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
IMHO, this is a good start. Not only from a cost point of view it's a good idea to provide third world countries with Linux. The learning effect of tinkering with the (open) source provides a wonderful learning opportunity for the folks out there.
Next question is what is going to happen in Iraq. Will Linux be distributed or have closed source software giants learned from this part of development and are the now lobbying with 'The Authority' to have Windows deployed all over Iraq?
they should be restricted to physical devices that must be built from components (...) not software
And what if I would patent a magnetic disk with magnetic characteristics such that reading the disk would enable a computer to perform a certain process? It's all physical.
Furthermore, what if I get a patent on an electrical circuit for signal processing (capacitors, transistors, resistors: the old stuff) so the sound of my stereo gets enhancen and next, someone comes up and writes a plugin for Winamp doing the same?
In other words: with your proposal, a same circuit as mine would infringe, but software performing the same function not. Not very logical, is it?
True, patent law is being bended beyong this example, which might cause undesired effects. But the abolition of software patents is less obvious (no, I am not going to patent it:-) ) than you might think.
By the way, at the moment electronics became as popular as software at this moment, in the beginning of the previous century, people said the same on electronics patents as you do on software patents. l'Histoire se repete...
If you can't beat them, join them. I've said that before here.
However, check the country you want to start your lawsuit. UK is 300.000 Pounds, rest of Europe is cheaper, in some countries even 80% cheaper.
Start there, win, continue up to more expensive countries
How to collect the money for patent attorneys and lawsuits to get your patent and enforce it? Set up a foundation/ association and collect money from other idealistic software developpers. And I'm sure there are also patent attorneys around who will work for less for this case (sorry, not me, my contract allows me to only work for my own employer)
When you do this seriously, I am sure you can scare the sh?t out of a lot of companies.
Why would you prohibit reverse engineering? Probably because you're too stupid to protect your ideas otherwise. When a piece software takes you years to develop, there's surely something ingenious and original, so copyright will definitely protect you. For the code, for the lay-out etc.
Next, there are patents. I know this is a difficult one (especially at/.), but when you have developped some groundbraking application, in my opinion, you have the right for a patent as a reward. Should it be 20 years? That's another question.
In this way, there's no problem with reverse engineering, as there are no trade secrets anymore.
And what's next? Some rule that I am not allowed to open my computer to look what's inside and check what additional piece of hardware I need? And that this is enforced by putting all hardware in mould (same stuff they use for ICs)?
In my opinion, software (plus processor) is nothing more than a flexible way of setting up technical stuff; what you can do in software is also possible in hardware. Why treat software different and prohibit reverse engineering?
Law is not made by the courts (although their rulings are known as 'case law')
I am no lawmaker, I practice it. However, when at least half of the people agree, you're getting somewhere
Probably, no new laws are needed. Anti-competition legislation might do the trick, since temporal licenses make upgrading necessary, allthough it is not necessary for your bussiness (for which you use the software)
In my opinion, anti-competition law can do the trick here. You just need a judge with senses (no jury, that's going to be a contradiction) and a good attorney (sorry, I only practice patent law:-) ).
In some countries, not even a court case is needed (The Netherlands, with possibility for appeal in the court).
In my opinion, this is a reasonable step; you cannot support all your programmes when you release them in a pace as Microsoft does.
The sad thing, however, it that in the future, you will be forced to migrate, as your license will be temporarilly.
When you are wise, you stick with NT4 as long as possible (very good with Office 97 for an administrative environment) and leapfrog to the version after Server 2003 or perhaps a later version. This is definitely the cheapest option.
It's about time that temporal licences will be prohibited by the courts. IP protection for software is good, whether it's a GPL or M$ license (and in some cases even patents, but with reason and a good system, but that's a little off-topic). However, when it is used to force people to expensive investments time and time again, allthough a company does not need it (e.g. my comment above and my 500kHz AMD K6 works perfectly well for word processing), it's appalling and should be targetted for an investigation. Unfortunately, we all will know how this will end.
My experience is that quite some US companies only file patent application in the US. On the other hand, Japanese and European companies file at home AND in the US.
Guess who's really laughing...
Mirror Image Internet, Inc., since they were wise enough to file almost everywhere, contrary to quite some others... Go to the Espacenet, the European Patent Office search database and search for Mirror Image Internet as applicant.
The fat lady will be singing for quite a while in this case.
There is a good reason to go back to pen and paper. Well, it'll cost you a stamp, but you'll get something in return: in the Netherlands, there's a saying "Wie schrijft, die blijft": When you write, you will be remembered.
Only the paranoid survive - Andy Grove. Apparently, people listened to him.
At least half the spam I get comes from Korean companies in Korea. When will I be freed from that spam? No US or UK law is going to change that, unless all e-mails from those IP addresses are blocked.
So this ends up in the next global legislation mess: we all agree that we need global legislation, but the big fight is whether is will be US, European or one of the SE Asian.
And this mess will only be solved when all governments have the same interests.
The China government is already for quite some years working on censorship of electronic media. I cannot imagine that this is the first time they monitor and 'regulate' SMS traffic. When it is the first time, the Chinese are not as smart as I would have thought them to be.
Furthermore, SMS is nothing more than e-mail, basically (even little less, duh...). Problems will occur when foreign network companies will enter China, for example Vodafone. On the other hand, quite some Western countries are happy to co-operate with the Chinese government to apply censorship. Even from the land of the free.
In Europe, the patents can be issued for the entire union from the central office.
The European Patent Office is an intergovernemental office, set up by the European Patent Convention. All EU member states are a member, but Switzerland and a couple of others as well (most of them will be EU member soon). But please not that the EPO is not bound by the EU.
This is much more expensive than in the US, primarily because everything has to get professional,
Almost correct, you need a professional representative (patent attorney) when you live outside the territory of the EPC. However, I recommend you do it anyway, unless you are absolutely sure you do it right
technical transaltions into three langauges.
You need a translation of the claims in three languages; English, French and German, upon the publication of a granted patent. This takes about five years. When you have not made any money from your patent and you won't make any for the next three years, you'd better drop it, saving you the cost.
When you go national with a granted patent, you need a translation of the full specification in all languages of countries you want to have a patent. That is very expensive, same goes as with the translation of the claims.
However, even though the patents are issued for the entire EU,
They are not, they are only issued for countries you indicate.
they are actually enforced locally in each country.
Correct
Different European countries have different criteria and standards, the same patent may very well be ruled to apply in one country but not in another.
Correct, but the variation is usually not that large. Most important is too look for a fast and competent court, in UK, Germany or Netherlands. *Don't* go to Italy or Belgium, unless you want to launch a 'torpedo' (it's a trick to stall patent lawsuits; partially disarmed, but they may still be effective).
1) Make sure you don't infringe patents, like [please check OP]
These are patent applications, not granted patents. You don't have to pay (yet), only when they will be granted. And quite some stuff is rejected by the European Patent office.
2) When you've found the 100 or so patents your program-to-be infringes, get a deal with all the inventors. (If some of them are slippery, you can probably "invent around" their claim in a couple of months)
In Europe, the right to a patent application is with the applicant, not with the inventor (this only goes for the US). This may be the inventor, but usually is a company. A design around is a good idea, but try to consult your patent attorney.
3) Pay IBM for not starting a lawsuit you can't afford
EUR 50.000 is a lot of money, but with a good business, you can afford. And it is the top of what you need for a lawsuit in Europe. As a bonus, you get a competent neutral judge who is specialised in patent cases (well, in most cases, as a lot of lawsuits are done in UK, Germany and NL).
4) (Minor step) Write your program
ok, I understand
5) Sell it (hoping you won't be victim of a submarine patent)
There are no submarine patents in Europe, everything is published a year and a half after the first filing.
Furthermore, submarine patents are out in US as well, when filed after July 1995 and when the inventor want to file outside of the US as well. Besides that, patent duration in US is 20 years after filing date in the US. Keeping your patent submarine for 20 years leaves you with no patent at all.
6) PROFIT!!! (for your lawyer)
Yes, bring all your money to me. IANAL, I am a patent attorney. My tariff is even higher, but as an MSc, at least I know what I am talking about.
I agree, but not entirely. The problem is the lawsuit culture, indeed. But not suit after suit after suit; the US problem is that patent cases are decided by a laymen jury (well, most of the times, at least in validity cases) and that US suits cost lots of money, up to 100 times the cost of a case in mainland Europe, or even more.
I think I've posted it before, but did you know that when validity of a patent is judgded by a jury, 75% is upheld, whereas this figure is about 67% when it is judged by a judge? And I can also throw in some other variables, for example when a patent of a US company is challenged by a non-US company and the trial is by jury...
Patent can best be judged by a special competent court, like in Germany. It's the most copied patent system in the world (Germany didn't patent it) and for good reason.
Wake up US government!!! (makes no sense, but at least I tried)
Does this mean that we will finally have the divide between high-performance office machines (I'm talking PC here, not SGI and HP9000) and machines for the demanding home user (video editting, gaming and the like) on one hand and the simple processing machine for the man in the street doing a few simple games and some administration and perhaps a little internet browsing?
Or... You plugh in the Lindows tinies as work stations in your kitchen (to access your recipe database) and bedroom, next to your server. When the Wall Mart stuff support Wi-Fi, that is...
That's not to confuse them with MPs in the individual member states' parliaments, who occasionally do have some power.
I do not agree with you. National ministers are provided with a mandate and send to a conference. What is actually discussed and agreed can only be checked and judged afterwards, when everything is said and done.
The way European politics are made is far from transparent. And also keep in mind, that the EU parliament has only things to say on the EC, the economic market part of the EU, not on the other two pilars of foreign policy and criminal/safety stuff.
But well, this might change with the new European constitution. I really do hope everyone of the convention has read Montesqieu.
But with respect to national politics, the national parliaments have quite some power. Perhaps even more than in US; at least in The Netherlands, things have to be really sensitive before an investigation by the parliament is prevented from the view of national security.
Best thing for UK - and Germany, of course - over USA is that they have judges who are actually familiar with patents, patent law and to a certain extend with technology. AFAIK, in the US, a patent suit is being done between a divorce and a robbery, in a jury trial.
Did you know that in a no-jury trial, 67% of the patents claimed invalid is held up, whereas this figure is 75% in a jury trial? So when your patent is being challenged, always ask for a jury trial in US.
The mainland Europe has only a few exceptions where a jury is used (e.g. Belgium, in criminal cases), which cuts costs and will in my opinion in most cases provide a qualitative better judgement. Furthermore, mainland Europe does not know 'discovery', which takes up an enormous amount of money in US cases. For the time being, this will not change, at least not substantially. The same will probably go for cost.
Cheapest location for rather good patent litigation is the Netherlands. It'll take you EUR 50.000 at most (= US$ more and more, however;-) ) instead of US$1.000.000 or more. You only need a dutch patent, but you'll get that for peanuts.
Kazaa also managed to get some favourable rulings from the Dutch court, Dutch court of appeal and some US court (well, the latter is somewhat less relevant to me).
So Kazaa is legal, even though AFAIK the DMCA was also issued to kill this kind of stuff. Well, IANAUSL, so I might be wrong here. But if not, it means that the DMCA missed an important target here. When will you get the next law in the US to stuff the digital hole?
So Mr. Evil, Mr. Powers hasn't even a right to go after you.
I thought I've read this before a few days ago...
here.
Well, nevermind. Funny to see that about seven to eigth years ago, everyone thought that HDDs had come to an end and that storage capacity per square centimeters is increasing even faster than Moore's Law.
Probably, HDDs will win over Flash as new IC processing technologies are getting exponentially expensive and HDD more and more power concious.
I should have studied magnetics instead of IC processing.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the 5.1 sound stuff
For Iraq, it is questionable, as development varies a lot over the country, just like with India. The latter country qualifies as third world in a lot of cases. Not by the US, but by themselves to get cost cuts at for example the WIPO. Besides that, they are not bound by all GATT and TRIPs regulations.
With respect to your statement on American politics: I am a European and do not now all the nuts and bolts of the US politics. However, quite some documentaries have been broadcasted about the already very old plan of Donald R. and his pal Wolfowitz. It's about the oil, stupid, not about the looks. And well... "don't think like them" will have played a role as well.
Going back to the topic again from this part: I wonder when Steve Ballmer will visit Iraq and Paul Bremer, in case he hasn't already been there.
Next question is what is going to happen in Iraq. Will Linux be distributed or have closed source software giants learned from this part of development and are the now lobbying with 'The Authority' to have Windows deployed all over Iraq?
And what if I would patent a magnetic disk with magnetic characteristics such that reading the disk would enable a computer to perform a certain process? It's all physical.
Furthermore, what if I get a patent on an electrical circuit for signal processing (capacitors, transistors, resistors: the old stuff) so the sound of my stereo gets enhancen and next, someone comes up and writes a plugin for Winamp doing the same?
In other words: with your proposal, a same circuit as mine would infringe, but software performing the same function not. Not very logical, is it?
True, patent law is being bended beyong this example, which might cause undesired effects. But the abolition of software patents is less obvious (no, I am not going to patent it :-) ) than you might think.
By the way, at the moment electronics became as popular as software at this moment, in the beginning of the previous century, people said the same on electronics patents as you do on software patents. l'Histoire se repete...
You've deciphered that phrase pretty ok.
However, check the country you want to start your lawsuit. UK is 300.000 Pounds, rest of Europe is cheaper, in some countries even 80% cheaper.
Start there, win, continue up to more expensive countries
How to collect the money for patent attorneys and lawsuits to get your patent and enforce it? Set up a foundation/ association and collect money from other idealistic software developpers. And I'm sure there are also patent attorneys around who will work for less for this case (sorry, not me, my contract allows me to only work for my own employer)
When you do this seriously, I am sure you can scare the sh?t out of a lot of companies.
Next, there are patents. I know this is a difficult one (especially at /.), but when you have developped some groundbraking application, in my opinion, you have the right for a patent as a reward. Should it be 20 years? That's another question.
In this way, there's no problem with reverse engineering, as there are no trade secrets anymore.
And what's next? Some rule that I am not allowed to open my computer to look what's inside and check what additional piece of hardware I need? And that this is enforced by putting all hardware in mould (same stuff they use for ICs)?
In my opinion, software (plus processor) is nothing more than a flexible way of setting up technical stuff; what you can do in software is also possible in hardware. Why treat software different and prohibit reverse engineering?
However...
In my opinion, anti-competition law can do the trick here. You just need a judge with senses (no jury, that's going to be a contradiction) and a good attorney (sorry, I only practice patent law :-) ).
In some countries, not even a court case is needed (The Netherlands, with possibility for appeal in the court).
Why can't they just wait to release a next OS untill the old one is perfect? They might even learn something from that.
The sad thing, however, it that in the future, you will be forced to migrate, as your license will be temporarilly.
When you are wise, you stick with NT4 as long as possible (very good with Office 97 for an administrative environment) and leapfrog to the version after Server 2003 or perhaps a later version. This is definitely the cheapest option.
It's about time that temporal licences will be prohibited by the courts. IP protection for software is good, whether it's a GPL or M$ license (and in some cases even patents, but with reason and a good system, but that's a little off-topic). However, when it is used to force people to expensive investments time and time again, allthough a company does not need it (e.g. my comment above and my 500kHz AMD K6 works perfectly well for word processing), it's appalling and should be targetted for an investigation. Unfortunately, we all will know how this will end.
Guess who's really laughing...
Mirror Image Internet, Inc., since they were wise enough to file almost everywhere, contrary to quite some others... Go to the Espacenet, the European Patent Office search database and search for Mirror Image Internet as applicant.
The fat lady will be singing for quite a while in this case.
Why prevent the growth of algae? With algae, this object fully supports your personal biosphere.
There is a good reason to go back to pen and paper. Well, it'll cost you a stamp, but you'll get something in return: in the Netherlands, there's a saying "Wie schrijft, die blijft": When you write, you will be remembered.
Only the paranoid survive - Andy Grove. Apparently, people listened to him.
So this ends up in the next global legislation mess: we all agree that we need global legislation, but the big fight is whether is will be US, European or one of the SE Asian.
And this mess will only be solved when all governments have the same interests.
Furthermore, SMS is nothing more than e-mail, basically (even little less, duh...). Problems will occur when foreign network companies will enter China, for example Vodafone. On the other hand, quite some Western countries are happy to co-operate with the Chinese government to apply censorship. Even from the land of the free.
But nevertheless, it surely limits your claims.
In Europe, the patents can be issued for the entire union from the central office.
The European Patent Office is an intergovernemental office, set up by the European Patent Convention. All EU member states are a member, but Switzerland and a couple of others as well (most of them will be EU member soon). But please not that the EPO is not bound by the EU.
This is much more expensive than in the US, primarily because everything has to get professional,
Almost correct, you need a professional representative (patent attorney) when you live outside the territory of the EPC.
However, I recommend you do it anyway, unless you are absolutely sure you do it right
technical transaltions into three langauges.
You need a translation of the claims in three languages; English, French and German, upon the publication of a granted patent. This takes about five years. When you have not made any money from your patent and you won't make any for the next three years, you'd better drop it, saving you the cost.
When you go national with a granted patent, you need a translation of the full specification in all languages of countries you want to have a patent. That is very expensive, same goes as with the translation of the claims.
However, even though the patents are issued for the entire EU,
They are not, they are only issued for countries you indicate.
they are actually enforced locally in each country.
Correct
Different European countries have different criteria and standards, the same patent may very well be ruled to apply in one country but not in another.
Correct, but the variation is usually not that large. Most important is too look for a fast and competent court, in UK, Germany or Netherlands. *Don't* go to Italy or Belgium, unless you want to launch a 'torpedo' (it's a trick to stall patent lawsuits; partially disarmed, but they may still be effective).
Sure, you can always apply, but...
Wouldn't that technically be considered prior art in the EU?
Yes, that is correct, so the patent won't be granted by the European Patent Office.
1) Make sure you don't infringe patents, like [please check OP]
These are patent applications, not granted patents. You don't have to pay (yet), only when they will be granted. And quite some stuff is rejected by the European Patent office.
2) When you've found the 100 or so patents your program-to-be infringes, get a deal with all the inventors. (If some of them are slippery, you can probably "invent around" their claim in a couple of months)
In Europe, the right to a patent application is with the applicant, not with the inventor (this only goes for the US). This may be the inventor, but usually is a company. A design around is a good idea, but try to consult your patent attorney.
3) Pay IBM for not starting a lawsuit you can't afford
EUR 50.000 is a lot of money, but with a good business, you can afford. And it is the top of what you need for a lawsuit in Europe. As a bonus, you get a competent neutral judge who is specialised in patent cases (well, in most cases, as a lot of lawsuits are done in UK, Germany and NL).
4) (Minor step) Write your program
ok, I understand
5) Sell it (hoping you won't be victim of a submarine patent)
There are no submarine patents in Europe, everything is published a year and a half after the first filing.
Furthermore, submarine patents are out in US as well, when filed after July 1995 and when the inventor want to file outside of the US as well. Besides that, patent duration in US is 20 years after filing date in the US. Keeping your patent submarine for 20 years leaves you with no patent at all.
6) PROFIT!!! (for your lawyer)
Yes, bring all your money to me. IANAL, I am a patent attorney. My tariff is even higher, but as an MSc, at least I know what I am talking about.
I think I've posted it before, but did you know that when validity of a patent is judgded by a jury, 75% is upheld, whereas this figure is about 67% when it is judged by a judge? And I can also throw in some other variables, for example when a patent of a US company is challenged by a non-US company and the trial is by jury...
Patent can best be judged by a special competent court, like in Germany. It's the most copied patent system in the world (Germany didn't patent it) and for good reason.
Wake up US government!!! (makes no sense, but at least I tried)
Or... You plugh in the Lindows tinies as work stations in your kitchen (to access your recipe database) and bedroom, next to your server. When the Wall Mart stuff support Wi-Fi, that is...
I do not agree with you. National ministers are provided with a mandate and send to a conference. What is actually discussed and agreed can only be checked and judged afterwards, when everything is said and done.
The way European politics are made is far from transparent. And also keep in mind, that the EU parliament has only things to say on the EC, the economic market part of the EU, not on the other two pilars of foreign policy and criminal/safety stuff.
But well, this might change with the new European constitution. I really do hope everyone of the convention has read Montesqieu.
But with respect to national politics, the national parliaments have quite some power. Perhaps even more than in US; at least in The Netherlands, things have to be really sensitive before an investigation by the parliament is prevented from the view of national security.
Best thing for UK - and Germany, of course - over USA is that they have judges who are actually familiar with patents, patent law and to a certain extend with technology. AFAIK, in the US, a patent suit is being done between a divorce and a robbery, in a jury trial.
Did you know that in a no-jury trial, 67% of the patents claimed invalid is held up, whereas this figure is 75% in a jury trial? So when your patent is being challenged, always ask for a jury trial in US.
The mainland Europe has only a few exceptions where a jury is used (e.g. Belgium, in criminal cases), which cuts costs and will in my opinion in most cases provide a qualitative better judgement. Furthermore, mainland Europe does not know 'discovery', which takes up an enormous amount of money in US cases. For the time being, this will not change, at least not substantially. The same will probably go for cost.
Cheapest location for rather good patent litigation is the Netherlands. It'll take you EUR 50.000 at most (= US$ more and more, however ;-) ) instead of US$1.000.000 or more. You only need a dutch patent, but you'll get that for peanuts.
Kazaa also managed to get some favourable rulings from the Dutch court, Dutch court of appeal and some US court (well, the latter is somewhat less relevant to me).
So Kazaa is legal, even though AFAIK the DMCA was also issued to kill this kind of stuff. Well, IANAUSL, so I might be wrong here. But if not, it means that the DMCA missed an important target here. When will you get the next law in the US to stuff the digital hole?
So Mr. Evil, Mr. Powers hasn't even a right to go after you.
Well, nevermind. Funny to see that about seven to eigth years ago, everyone thought that HDDs had come to an end and that storage capacity per square centimeters is increasing even faster than Moore's Law.
Probably, HDDs will win over Flash as new IC processing technologies are getting exponentially expensive and HDD more and more power concious.
I should have studied magnetics instead of IC processing.