There isn't enough detail to tell froim the BBC story, but I suspect this may be the EU trying the exact
same case as the US DOJ decided to split M$ over - if it is, MS should be very worried, as all the
'findings of fact' would be there for the prosecutors to study.
The subject matter of the US proceedings against Microsoft and the allegations the Commission is investigating are
different. The allegations being examined by the Commission are that Microsoft extended its dominance in the PC
operating systems market to the server operating systems market. The thrust of the proceedings launched by the US
Department of Justice revolves around Microsoft protecting its dominance in PC operating systems through measures
aimed at weakening Netscape's Navigator Internet browser and Sun's Java system. A US Court has found that
Microsoft, by virtue of its conduct, has attempted to monopolise the Internet Browser market. At the EU level, the
Commission will continue to examine the cases pending with all due diligence and will take any appropriate steps in due
time.
I think they can copy the conclusion that MS has a monopoly verbatim; how they misused it is different in this case...
If Microsoft fails to satisfy the Commission that its concerns are unfounded, it could face a 10% fine on its
revenues. However, in practice fines have never exceeded 1%.
Apperantly, so many patents apply that there is an attempt for a joint-licensing scheme, according to this press release of the the mpeg-4 industry forum.
Well, you do not assemble simple subroutines, but carefully select very complicated subtroutines, known already to work in other programs for ages.
And yes, you will get many bugs, but almost all bugs would cause the program to crash, and you'd just forget about it. The changes you create a program that would find its way onto the net and do something dangerous are really slim (not to be neglected, though).
You are of course only allowed to do this if the license of the chosen subroutines permits this. Well, Craig Venter has patents on many genes, so he should have no problems...
But i would say we really should start a serious open source movement here, i mean, patents on genes? Look at the license for human genes from TIGR, for crying out loud. This whole science thing started as open source, and it should have stayed that way. What if Newton patented the gravitational constant?
I'm not sure I understand the story. It seems like they try to combine a minimum set of genes to combine and try to make a minimum set that still works. That is hardly spectacular, i would say; I even think it has been done before. But this is not making new life, at least not really different from the genetical engineering we've been doing for decades. Or the selective breeding with plants and animals we've been doing for millenia for that matter.
What would be spectacular is bootstrapping life. Don't take parts of dead bacteria to get things going, but synthesize all the environment (enzymes, RNA, membranes, whatever) that is necessary to make an organism out of your freshly synthesized DNA.
For real artificial life though, i would say you'd have to design everything yourself. The article described only the use of known genes, that code for known proteins. We already understand a lot of the genetics. We know how the genetic code translates to proteins, but we hardly know how proteins function. Yes we have a lot of knowledge about them, but trying to design one from scratch with a specific function in mind is another matter. Alter an existing one and see what happens is the best we can do for now (although the guesses get more educated).
So, design your own genes, combine them to code for a complete organism, make an environment to get it going, sustain itself, and get it to procreate. Then you really have created new life! (I don't think Craig Venter will be around to witness this, though;).
BTW, this is still about life as we know (RNA/DNA/proteins/etc.), probably there are easier ways...
Also, you don't write a programme for DRI or GLX. You write for OpenGL.
True for DRI, not true for GLX. You have to write your windowmanagement code in GLX (or in something else if you don't have GLX). OpenGL is for the graphics in the window.
So you have to no something about your display to use OpenGL.
Slashdot Mirror
From the EU pressrelease:
I think they can copy the conclusion that MS has a monopoly verbatim; how they misused it is different in this case...If Microsoft fails to satisfy the Commission that its concerns are unfounded, it could face a 10% fine on its revenues. However, in practice fines have never exceeded 1%.
Apperantly, so many patents apply that there is an attempt for a joint-licensing scheme, according to this press release of the the mpeg-4 industry forum.
Well, you do not assemble simple subroutines, but carefully select very complicated subtroutines, known already to work in other programs for ages.
And yes, you will get many bugs, but almost all bugs would cause the program to crash, and you'd just forget about it. The changes you create a program that would find its way onto the net and do something dangerous are really slim (not to be neglected, though).
You are of course only allowed to do this if the license of the chosen subroutines permits this. Well, Craig Venter has patents on many genes, so he should have no problems...
But i would say we really should start a serious open source movement here, i mean, patents on genes? Look at the license for human genes from TIGR, for crying out loud. This whole science thing started as open source, and it should have stayed that way. What if Newton patented the gravitational constant?
I'm not sure I understand the story. It seems like they try to combine a minimum set of genes to combine and try to make a minimum set that still works. That is hardly spectacular, i would say; I even think it has been done before. But this is not making new life, at least not really different from the genetical engineering we've been doing for decades. Or the selective breeding with plants and animals we've been doing for millenia for that matter.
What would be spectacular is bootstrapping life. Don't take parts of dead bacteria to get things going, but synthesize all the environment (enzymes, RNA, membranes, whatever) that is necessary to make an organism out of your freshly synthesized DNA.
For real artificial life though, i would say you'd have to design everything yourself. The article described only the use of known genes, that code for known proteins. We already understand a lot of the genetics. We know how the genetic code translates to proteins, but we hardly know how proteins function. Yes we have a lot of knowledge about them, but trying to design one from scratch with a specific function in mind is another matter. Alter an existing one and see what happens is the best we can do for now (although the guesses get more educated).
So, design your own genes, combine them to code for a complete organism, make an environment to get it going, sustain itself, and get it to procreate. Then you really have created new life! (I don't think Craig Venter will be around to witness this, though ;).
BTW, this is still about life as we know (RNA/DNA/proteins/etc.), probably there are easier ways...
True for DRI, not true for GLX. You have to write your windowmanagement code in GLX (or in something else if you don't have GLX). OpenGL is for the graphics in the window.
So you have to no something about your display to use OpenGL.