Because Bush plans to stay there, and the military is already spread thin. And there is no way that any other country will offer troups to Bush. Kerry OTOH might have managed that...
Are you one of those many guys who is now considering moving to liberated Iraq? Did you know that there's democracy, amazing progress and a 15% flat tax for corporations?;-)
Good idea. But make sure to check each of their servers to see if there's really a DDOS. If you get a page, don't forget to refresh to make sure it was not in your cache!
This is not the same, Australia has switched to a patent system that expressly does NOT test for prior art.
Slashdot covered that - and the wheel patent - at the time (approx. 2 years ago).
I'd believe that consequently Australian style patents are more difficult to enforce, since the owner can't argue that the patent offices verified his claims.
Maybe IBM (a US company) does not want European competitors to be able to patent new software ideas. When those European companies try to compete in the US, they will have to play by the US rules.. and face IBM's buttload of patents.
This is an interesting idea. But:
European companies can apply for software patents in the US, so they could compete there, if software patents would be any help.
IBM has been granted software patents in Europe already - to enforce them would probably be possible. Still, defendants could hope to have a chance in court on the merit that software is not supposed to be patentable in the EU (explicitly stated in EP Art. 52), but this last straw will vanish when the EU parlament decides to 'legalize' these illegaly granted software patents retroactively.
Having some patents will not help you to compete against IBM, since you are guaranteed to infringe of hundreds of their patents. Did you know that in 1995, in Europe IBM has applied for - and been granted - a patent for a a method for fullfilling requests of a web browser which effectively describes a dynamically expansible webserver? This is just one of thousands they have
So when IBM employees are signing the petition, I believe that they are honestly seeing that software patents are a threat for the whole software industry.
BTW, I also believe that if Europe will manage to oppose software patents, it will be easier to fight against them in the US.
> Did you know that in most EU countries you can't buy adds on TV?
You probably mean ads, and you probably do not live in the same EU I live in.
> Did you know that the political parites can't accept companies' contributions?
You mean they should not, but they do. Anyway, I think companies in the US aren't legally allowed to contribute neither, but read John Grisham's The Brethren if you want to learn how they can contribute anyway (through PACs or something).
I think the condescending tone is uncalled for, and I say that as a non-'USie'. Problems like corruption affect us all, in the whole world, and if you look at Arlene McCarthies (UK) pro-software patent stance - against the voices of over 150.000 developers - I fear that not all of our EU polititians are committed to the common good.
The only thing which is still in danger is the fact that innovative methods of whatever might be patented...which I don't mind, as long as the lenght of the patent is reasonable (one or two years should be sufficient in the world of software).
Why do you think the EU Parlament would limit the duration a time is valid especially for software patents? The law does not discriminate between normal patents and software patents - it's just that patents will eventually be granted for software.
So there is a lot to fear for independent and open source developers. And there'd be a lot to celebrate for patent attorneys and corporations like IBM with thousands of software patents.
> Do *NOT* make the same mistake that H323 and SIP has
> done and make a protocol that can handle NAT.
If you want to use H323 with NAT, I assume all you have to do is install a H323 Gatekeeper on a server with a real IP and a private IP (e.g. the network gateway).
> make it able to survive a simple port forwarding so I can 'call' through my $100 cheap-o-matic SOHO-firewall
box.
Take a look at OpenH323.org, they've got a netmeeting compatible application, that also supports the speex codec (so this comment is even on topic!;-).
It works pretty good (I've tried the windows version), but be aware that H323 needs open UDP ports.
Assuming that more and more music will be sold online, aren't sales bound to drop, as cost savings are passed on to the consumer? Selling music online frees the labels of all these inventory costs, producing cds, etc.
So with these revolutionary changes in distribution methods, it would be more meaningful to look at profits as an indicator how the industry fares.
> [or] b) A statement that a license will be made available without compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination.
This is RAND: "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" licensing(IIRC), perhaps (if your interpretation is actually correct) PLUS the benefit that you know WHICH patent rights you might violate by following that standard.
If SOAP was an IEEE standard, and patent encumbered, that would not help me much as an Open Source developer und user - I'd prefer standards where I can be sure that I won't have to pay royalties.
Well, I bought an mp3 player with monochrome display for approx. $300, and this GamePark thingy is cheaper AND offers more functionality. So I really wouldn't compare it to a GBA...
While semantically this is a GForce 4, technically the real GForce 4 (non-MX) is based on the NV25 core (dual vertex shaders and improved pixel shader).
The GForce 4 MX used by Apple usese the NV17 core (one vertex shader and no pixel shader). This might still be a nice chipset, but it is not anywhere near XBox or real GForce 4 performance.
If I am not mistaken (obIANAL), to claim prior art you not only have to demonstrate that you utilizedthe claimed technique, but also that it was published / common knowledge at that time.
Well, that's not quite the case. My copy of Visual C++ states:
"REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENTS. Microsoft grants you a non-exclusive royalty-free right to use and modify the source code version of those portions of the SOFTWARE which are identified in the documentation as the Sample Code("SAMPLE CODE") and the Microsoft Foundation Classes ("MFC"). You may not distribute the SAMPLE CODE or MFC, or any modified version of the SAMPLE CODE or MFC, in the source code form."
=> you may do with the sample code what you wish, but you are not allowed to distribute the source code. Sounds reasonable to me (from MICROS~1's perspective)
Unfortunately, it is. Flamebait as it might be, very few people are actually *using* Netscape/Mozilla anymore. That means an equal few are using its components.
I don't think that the count of people using the broser has anything to do with the count of people using parts of the source. And why the heck do you think that the small count of actual mozilla browser users means the end of the relicensing process? That just doesn't make any sense.
The relicensing is very important for people who might use portions of the excellent mozilla code base in their own programs.
Slashdot Mirror
-
http://www.jsasoc.com/docs/Sep1101.pdf
and
-
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/jseScargle.
p df
for an independent and critical analysis of the original data of the Global Consciousness Project.You've read GetYourWarOn, didn't you?
What do you wear in a civil war, anyway? [scroll down to the last comic]
>so how does Bush winning make it more likely?
Because Bush plans to stay there, and the military is already spread thin. And there is no way that any other country will offer troups to Bush. Kerry OTOH might have managed that...
Are you one of those many guys who is now considering moving to liberated Iraq? Did you know that there's democracy, amazing progress and a 15% flat tax for corporations? ;-)
Good idea. But make sure to check each of their servers to see if there's really a DDOS. If you get a page, don't forget to refresh to make sure it was not in your cache!
This is not the same, Australia has switched to a patent system that expressly does NOT test for prior art.
Slashdot covered that - and the wheel patent - at the time (approx. 2 years ago).
I'd believe that consequently Australian style patents are more difficult to enforce, since the owner can't argue that the patent offices verified his claims.
Since when did terrorists travel under their *real* names?
NOW I understand! That is the trick! The terrorists will be the only ones choosing names that are NOT on the list!
This is an interesting idea. But:
So when IBM employees are signing the petition, I believe that they are honestly seeing that software patents are a threat for the whole software industry.
BTW, I also believe that if Europe will manage to oppose software patents, it will be easier to fight against them in the US.
> Did you know that in most EU countries you can't buy adds on TV?
You probably mean ads, and you probably do not live in the same EU I live in.
> Did you know that the political parites can't accept companies' contributions?
You mean they should not, but they do. Anyway, I think companies in the US aren't legally allowed to contribute neither, but read John Grisham's The Brethren if you want to learn how they can contribute anyway (through PACs or something).
I think the condescending tone is uncalled for, and I say that as a non-'USie'. Problems like corruption affect us all, in the whole world, and if you look at Arlene McCarthies (UK) pro-software patent stance - against the voices of over 150.000 developers - I fear that not all of our EU polititians are committed to the common good.
The only thing which is still in danger is the fact that innovative methods of whatever might be patented...which I don't mind, as long as the lenght of the patent is reasonable (one or two years should be sufficient in the world of software).
Why do you think the EU Parlament would limit the duration a time is valid especially for software patents? The law does not discriminate between normal patents and software patents - it's just that patents will eventually be granted for software.
So there is a lot to fear for independent and open source developers. And there'd be a lot to celebrate for patent attorneys and corporations like IBM with thousands of software patents.
> Do *NOT* make the same mistake that H323 and SIP has
> done and make a protocol that can handle NAT.
If you want to use H323 with NAT, I assume all you have to do is install a H323 Gatekeeper on a server with a real IP and a private IP (e.g. the network gateway).
> make it able to survive a simple port forwarding so I can 'call' through my $100 cheap-o-matic SOHO-firewall box.
OK, well, that might actually be difficult...
Take a look at OpenH323.org, they've got a netmeeting compatible application, that also supports the speex codec (so this comment is even on topic! ;-).
It works pretty good (I've tried the windows version), but be aware that H323 needs open UDP ports.
How do you protect sensitive data?
Do you trust the current available algorithms enough to store your own data encrypted with them, or do you prefer to keep personal data 'offline'?
Assuming that more and more music will be sold online, aren't sales bound to drop, as cost savings are passed on to the consumer? Selling music online frees the labels of all these inventory costs, producing cds, etc.
So with these revolutionary changes in distribution methods, it would be more meaningful to look at profits as an indicator how the industry fares.
Or even better:
Buggy Bugging by British Bobbies Backfires ?
Where are my mod points??? This is hilarious! ;-)
> [or] b) A statement that a license will be made available without compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination.
This is RAND: "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" licensing(IIRC), perhaps (if your interpretation is actually correct) PLUS the benefit that you know WHICH patent rights you might violate by following that standard.
If SOAP was an IEEE standard, and patent encumbered, that would not help me much as an Open Source developer und user - I'd prefer standards where I can be sure that I won't have to pay royalties.
> Plenty of buzzword power with XML. Just wrap it in HTTP.
Then it would be XML-RPC over HTTP, which is a simple and clean standard. Might as well avoid reinventing the wheel...
> then signed and encrypted email will be the norm
Yeah, but then they could not read your mail!
Yeah, I had similar problems with their website. At that time I decided to buy pgp 7.0.3 in a cardboard box in a store (luckily I found one).
Well, I bought an mp3 player with monochrome display for approx. $300, and this GamePark thingy is cheaper AND offers more functionality. So I really wouldn't compare it to a GBA...
While semantically this is a GForce 4, technically the real GForce 4 (non-MX) is based on the NV25 core (dual vertex shaders and improved pixel shader).
The GForce 4 MX used by Apple usese the NV17 core (one vertex shader and no pixel shader). This might still be a nice chipset, but it is not anywhere near XBox or real GForce 4 performance.
If I am not mistaken (obIANAL), to claim prior art you not only have to demonstrate that you utilizedthe claimed technique, but also that it was published / common knowledge at that time.
Well, that's not quite the case. My copy of Visual C++ states:
"REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENTS. Microsoft grants you a non-exclusive royalty-free right to use and modify the source code version of those portions of the SOFTWARE which are identified in the documentation as the Sample Code("SAMPLE CODE") and the Microsoft Foundation Classes ("MFC"). You may not distribute the SAMPLE CODE or MFC, or any modified version of the SAMPLE CODE or MFC, in the source code form."
=> you may do with the sample code what you wish, but you are not allowed to distribute the source code. Sounds reasonable to me (from MICROS~1's perspective)
Unfortunately, it is. Flamebait as it might be, very few people are actually *using* Netscape/Mozilla anymore. That means an equal few are using its components.
I don't think that the count of people using the broser has anything to do with the count of people using parts of the source. And why the heck do you think that the small count of actual mozilla browser users means the end of the relicensing process? That just doesn't make any sense.
The relicensing is very important for people who might use portions of the excellent mozilla code base in their own programs.