Then you'd better be worried about Israel, because word is they've been doing genetic marker biowarfare research for some time now.
Zionists are very big on the race issue.
In general, while nanotech could easily be used to create genetic marker based nanoweapons (as a Transhuman, I'm interested in those myself), it could also easily be used to defend against such weapons. Although there would be the issue of an arms race much like computer malware and computer security.
While the weapons could be very destructive to a given target, dissemination and distribution of the weapon to sufficient targets to have a major impact before a defense is made would be the issue - the same as most current bioweapons. Like CBR weapons, most of these weapons would be better used as point target weapons - hitting some specific target rather than trying to be a WMD.
What irritates me is that it probably isn't going to be feasible to produce a weapon that only kills priests, lawyers, cops and politicians - i.e., a "philosophy bomb".
Uhm, sorry, nanotech does not deal with intra-atomic forces - or necessarily even with atomic-level positioning, for the most part. It deals with molecular-level positioning and manipulation - orders of magnitude bigger stuff.
Atomic bonding belongs to the field of femtotech, if I'm not mistaken. Which is barely a gleam in someone's eye, at this point, AFAIK.
Unfortunately for Bush, we Transhumans are likely to be the terminator soldiers - and we don't like Bush. Or whoever happens to be running the country when the tech makes it to reality.
Besides, they've got "terminator robots" now.
They're called Marines.
They're just dumber and die easier than the ones in the movies.
Just to comment on one point, it's pretty much established - Drexler pointed it out in his seminal nanotech work, "Engines of Creation" - that it will NOT be possible to produce "infinitely strong structures infinitely small."
It will be possible to produce materials that are stronger than at present, but there is a physical limit. (IANAP - I Am Not A Physicist - or ME - Materials Engineer)
Drexler's first work covers the possibilities of nanotech very well, although do note that he warns that he describes some applications in contexts that might in fact be made obsolete by nanotech.
"Most desktop users don't have a second computer to ssh in and kill the locked-up X on the first."
Uhm, who needs ssh? Switch to a virtual terminal and kill the X process.
Trivial (assuming the end user knows about virtual terminals and ls and kill -9 - and those ARE things a new user should learn even if 99% of their time is spent in X - just like a new Windows user should know about the Recovery Console.)
BTW, I saw "Stealth" last night. Check out the Seattle ubergeek's secretary in the last half hour. Does anybody think Bill has a secretary that looks like that? She had legs that could span Puget Sound.
Now, if I ever get my AI working, I definitely would have a secretary that looks like that.
Being a long time comics reader and supervillain myself (well, wannabe, anyway), I believe in Linux!
Kim Polese used this at her talk announcing SpikeSource last year. I had just downloaded it a few days before myself, so when I listened to the MP3 of her talk and heard this come on, I was like, "Oh, cool, Kim!"
I count Kim as a "gorgeous fembot" for this coolness.
Sadly, Linux has not yet improved my love life.
But the orbiting brain laser research is going well on Mandrake 10.1 - to be upgraded to 2006 when it comes out.
I'm not versed enough in patent law and cross-licensing to comment on whether it would work or not.
Bruce would seem to be correct that such companies would need to see it in their interest - over and above publishing as prior art - to do this.
And you would seem to be correct in that many companies might see it as a defense against Microsoft, who is the 800-lb gorilla in all this.
I would suggest emailing Eben Moglen and see what he thinks. He'd be the one most likely to be able to give you a decent legal and practical analysis of your idea. If he thinks it's good, they might try to incorporate it into their project for persuading companies to do it.
Like the Patent Commons Project, while your idea might not help that much, it wouldn't hurt as far as I can see.
At least Bruce didn't say you were "spitting into the wind!"
Sorry, Bruce, that's backsliding because of the criticism you're taking for your off-the-cuff and poorly thought out public comments.
On the one hand, you say you don't support the pool "at this time" because it's not "effective". Well, that's obvious, isn't it? There isn't anything of significance IN the pool yet. And it hasn't been tested in court.
On the other hand, you imply you'll support it when it IS effective. If everybody thinks it's not worth it, which is your opinion, how is it ever going to be get big enough to be effective?
Your bottom-line argument appears to be that people will be "diverted from solving the problem". But you have made no suggestions for "solving the problem" except to argue for removal of patents altogether.
Which I happen to agree with completely, because I don't believe in intellectual property of any kind.
But in this country at this time, it simply is NOT going to happen. Period. That simple. The OSS movement is FAR too tiny to make Congress dump patents in general (although it just MIGHT be able to limit the most excessive abuses of software specific patents - that remains to be seen, given Microsoft's and the software industry's influence in the government.) Therefore, your suggestions amount to no suggestions.
In any event, it's irrelevant, because your opinion that it will divert people from changing patent law is both an assumption on your part with no evidence whatsoever to support it and entirely wrong because the EFF and others have already said it won't divert them from other measures.
They ARE trying to change patent law and reverse destructive patents. So exactly WHO do you think will be "diverted"? People whose impact on the issue will be nil in any event?/. posters?
If you'd said publicly that you didn't think the Patent Commons Project would be effective against Microsoft, AND left it at that, you wouldn't have been criticized about this by me or anyone else, because it would have been obvious you were correct. Microsoft is going to do what they want regardless - they beat an antitrust suit, they're not going to be worried about a patent suit against OSS invalidating some patent they have. They can bleed OSS dry with lawsuits until the cows come home.
But suggesting that the commons has no value against lesser lame outfits like SCO is premature. Eben specifically stated the purpose of this project and the other elements is to make sure another SCO doesn't occur. He may be disingenuous to suggest it will be effective against Microsoft (whom he pointedly referred to in his talk), but he's right about it being useful.
Adding on the gratuitous comments about "spitting into the wind" is what got you in trouble. You came across as being antagonistic to serious OSS efforts to deal with the problem proposed by well-known OSS advocates like Eben.
I'm sympathetic, because I speak strongly on issues as well, as everyone at/. can testify.
But you're wrong on the value of the Commons Project. While it may not help against Microsoft, it can't hurt - like chicken soup.
However, in this country at this time, that isn't going to happen. So why not use a patent commons to help defend OSS? It may not stop Microsoft but it can't hurt.
At what point did I suggest any of that stuff in your last paragraphs?
I said Perens was out of line for criticizing a proposal with an obvious line of criticism, for not having any better ideas, for ignoring the potential value of the program against lesser opponents than Microsoft, and for not being willing to admit that while it might not be a panacea, it can't hurt to do it.
Perens made excessive comments about "spitting into the wind" and other nonsense. He ignored the positive elements of the program, and the other aspects of the overall program. Why, then, should I give him the benefit of the doubt about his motivations? If he had pro things to say about any elements of the proposals, he should have said so.
Now, if you can prove the media misrepresented his comments, I'll reconsider the position.
Since when does nobody know? It should be obvious to anyone that a Patent Common Project isn't going to stop Microsoft from suing anybody they like - and probably winning, where prior art isn't obvious.
The point is it won't hurt - like chicken soup. Eben Moglen specifically said it was targeted at making sure another SCO didn't happen. While he may be disingenuous to suggest it will impact Microsoft, it may well assist in dealing with smaller lame outfits like SCO who might want to jump on the "sue OSS" bandwagon.
So what's the point of Perens criticism? Just to keep his name in the OSS press?
Talk to Eben Moglen - he laid it out at LinuxWorld.
No great details are available. Why should there be? The program is simple: collect patents, lobby Congress, and try to reverse patents at the USPTO via the courts as the EFF has done.
I brought my ideas to the table - dump intellectual property altogether, but since that isn't going to happen, the patent commons is just fine.
And the point is not that Perens is criticizing the program, it's that the criticism is lame and irrelevant and limited to the Commons Project and doesn't say anything we don't already know and doesn't indicate any alternatives and doesn't offer any evidence that it can't be helpful to do it. While I doubt it will help against Microsoft, as does Perens, it can't hurt - like chicken soup.
His motivation seems to be, as you put it, to be a blowhard. That's what's irritating people.
when it's available in my neighborhood and at a price point equal to or less than the $29.95 I'm paying now for 3Mbps DSL (and not getting 3Mbps, but that's another story.)
I like the idea, but last I heard Internet over public powerline was less than a proven concept, let alone a product (not counting the home powerline systems). Particularly at 200Mbps.
If the ad companies can get to the point where they ONLY offer me ads for: 1) Movies I REALLY want to see. 2) Books I REALLY want to read. 3) Comics I REALLY want. 4) Computer hardware I not only WANT, but I can AFFORD. 5) Food I REALLY want to eat.
etc., etc.
THEN that will be really nice.
In other words, NO MORE FUCKING SPAM FOR CRAP I DO *NOT* WANT!
What the ad industry needs to do is realize that there is NO SUCH THING AS SELLING! You cannot convince me to buy something you have just because you've let me know you have it. Maybe you can convince the.00001 percent of people who click on your crappy spam, but it doesn't work with me.
I am the one who INITIATES my purchasing decisions. Most of those decisions come from being informed through articles that a product exists and can do certain things that I want done or to be able to do. Almost NONE of my purchasing decisions comes from advertising - and absolutely none comes from spam. (Print)ads may be able to alert me that a product exists, but I don't buy it until I've seen a review somewhere or a positive comment by someone I know. At least not stuff that costs over $5.
So collecting all this "personal" info about me isn't going to do you squat until you really CAN determine what it is I want to do and how much I can spend to do it - and that in comparison with everything ELSE I want to do and how much disposable income I have.
And that ain't happening any time soon, no matter how much data mining and privacy invasion you do.
The ONLY way you could do this is if you set up a Web site where *I* can post what I want, how much I have to spend on it, and then reverse market this information to the companies that have these products at those price points.
This is what the Internet was SUPPOSED to be doing by now - and to some degree it does: when a customer does a Google search for a product, and then self-selects the company he wants to buy from.
In other words, deliver your company's profitability totally into the hands of the consumer.
And since you're primates, I don't think you have the nerve to do that. I think you want to try to FORCE your customers to buy your stuff. Which is why you spam, and use invasive advertising.
Standard primate response. And totally useless to achieving your goal, which is typical primate behavior. Humans will ALWAYS make the wrong decision and take the wrong path to achieving their goals.
OSDL and the other OSS organizations intend to lobby to change patent law. And they intend to actively reverse patents that threaten OSS.
So what's your point?
Eben Moglen laid out a program at LinuxWorld this past week. Perens has laid into ONE aspect of the program - the Patent Commons Project - and ignored the rest - presumably just to start a flame war.
I agree that ALL so-called "intellectual property" should have absolutely NO legal protection. But in the real world, this isn't going to happen. So OSS needs to try to defend itself any way it can.
If I produced a "killer" app - one that could put Microsoft out of business - I'd patent the algorithm and copyright the expressions of that algorithm. I'd make it all closed source until Microsoft was out of business. THEN I'd open source it. Why OSS it early and let Microsoft grab it and use their "legal" and monopoly-built financial clout to defeat it?
In martial arts, you do what is necessary to win - no matter how "dirty" the technigue. The only art I can think of that suggests doing less than that for a spiritual purpose is aikido. And even they don't suggest you give up a technigue to hamper yourself from winning.
I've often said that Lawrence Lessig is fighting with both hands tied behind his back because he supports the notion of intellectual property. And I still believe that. And I believe that supporting patents and copyright while advocating OSS is the same error.
But I don't believe that OSS should IGNORE patents while they're being actively used against it.
I'm not interested in distinguishing whether Bill Gates or George Bush is "the Great Satan".
An asshole is an asshole, it's that simple.
There are fanatics in everything - including Windows and Linux and OSS and interior design and poodles.
So what?
There are also idiots who like to post pompous bullshit on/. Especially when they miss the point of the discussion, as your last line does.
Perens was stating that the "wrong people" are people contributing patents to OSS who already support OSS. He would prefer Microsoft to do this. He knows Microsoft won't. His conclusion that the Patent Commons Project is worthless does not follow from his premise, but his premise is correct - and completely irrelevant to your post.
Don't build your life around trying to convince everybody to love everybody else. Ain't gonna happen.
And Perens has no ideas of his own to bring to the table, so he should fuck off.
I personally doubt that just having a patent commons is going to be all that helpful once Microsoft starts suing OSS people (as they undoubtedly will once they see they have no choice left if they want to survive as a company), but it can't hurt to have one to back up the other efforts Eben Moglen outlined at LinuxWorld.
At the least, it could be used to help keep out the riff-raff - the lame smaller companies who jump on the "sue OSS" bandwagon. Eben specifically stated this project was intended to prevent SCO from happening again. And SCO certainly qualifies as a "lame smaller company."
While some of his remarks may be partially correct - namely, that it's not terribly useful to have a patent portfolio built from people who already support OSS - his primary mission here is simply to denigrate some useful work.
Where are his solutions to the problem? I see lots of criticism and no ideas from him.
Eben Moglen, at LinuxWorld this past week, outlined a program involving not merely the Patent Commons Project, but attempts to change patent laws and to actually reverse patents that are of particular threat to OSS.
Perens concentrates only on the Patent Commons Project, and ignores the rest. This proves his only motive is to start a flame war.
Nothing like handing Microsoft some talking points, Bruce. Way to go.
I'd say it'd more likely the cops call for backup, riddle the screen with bullets, THEN demand that it open.
Then when Internal Affairs wants to know who busted the computer, they throw one of their own to the wolves and claim it was "just one bad apple in the barrel."
Slashdot Mirror
Then you'd better be worried about Israel, because word is they've been doing genetic marker biowarfare research for some time now.
Zionists are very big on the race issue.
In general, while nanotech could easily be used to create genetic marker based nanoweapons (as a Transhuman, I'm interested in those myself), it could also easily be used to defend against such weapons. Although there would be the issue of an arms race much like computer malware and computer security.
While the weapons could be very destructive to a given target, dissemination and distribution of the weapon to sufficient targets to have a major impact before a defense is made would be the issue - the same as most current bioweapons. Like CBR weapons, most of these weapons would be better used as point target weapons - hitting some specific target rather than trying to be a WMD.
What irritates me is that it probably isn't going to be feasible to produce a weapon that only kills priests, lawyers, cops and politicians - i.e., a "philosophy bomb".
Uhm, sorry, nanotech does not deal with intra-atomic forces - or necessarily even with atomic-level positioning, for the most part. It deals with molecular-level positioning and manipulation - orders of magnitude bigger stuff.
Atomic bonding belongs to the field of femtotech, if I'm not mistaken. Which is barely a gleam in someone's eye, at this point, AFAIK.
Unfortunately for Bush, we Transhumans are likely to be the terminator soldiers - and we don't like Bush. Or whoever happens to be running the country when the tech makes it to reality.
Besides, they've got "terminator robots" now.
They're called Marines.
They're just dumber and die easier than the ones in the movies.
Just to comment on one point, it's pretty much established - Drexler pointed it out in his seminal nanotech work, "Engines of Creation" - that it will NOT be possible to produce "infinitely strong structures infinitely small."
It will be possible to produce materials that are stronger than at present, but there is a physical limit. (IANAP - I Am Not A Physicist - or ME - Materials Engineer)
Drexler's first work covers the possibilities of nanotech very well, although do note that he warns that he describes some applications in contexts that might in fact be made obsolete by nanotech.
"Most desktop users don't have a second computer to ssh in and kill the locked-up X on the first."
Uhm, who needs ssh? Switch to a virtual terminal and kill the X process.
Trivial (assuming the end user knows about virtual terminals and ls and kill -9 - and those ARE things a new user should learn even if 99% of their time is spent in X - just like a new Windows user should know about the Recovery Console.)
If Task Manager will decide to let you on that given day...
Or not take an hour to do it.
Killing a process and restarting X is trivial on Linux - MUCH more so than on Windows.
The bottom line: Windows is STILL not a multi-user or even seriously multi-tasking OS compared to Linux. Windows can't find its ass with both hands.
"any criticism of it is done purely out of evil intent, right?"
/., yeah, it is.
On
Uhm, Bill Gates?
Naaahhh...
BTW, I saw "Stealth" last night. Check out the Seattle ubergeek's secretary in the last half hour. Does anybody think Bill has a secretary that looks like that? She had legs that could span Puget Sound.
Now, if I ever get my AI working, I definitely would have a secretary that looks like that.
"So it's August. Take a breather. "
Yup.
Bush is.
Again.
It's September I'm worried about.
Especially since the Net rumor is all military leaves have been canceled for September through December.
Being a long time comics reader and supervillain myself (well, wannabe, anyway), I believe in Linux!
Kim Polese used this at her talk announcing SpikeSource last year. I had just downloaded it a few days before myself, so when I listened to the MP3 of her talk and heard this come on, I was like, "Oh, cool, Kim!"
I count Kim as a "gorgeous fembot" for this coolness.
Sadly, Linux has not yet improved my love life.
But the orbiting brain laser research is going well on Mandrake 10.1 - to be upgraded to 2006 when it comes out.
Interesting idea.
I'm not versed enough in patent law and cross-licensing to comment on whether it would work or not.
Bruce would seem to be correct that such companies would need to see it in their interest - over and above publishing as prior art - to do this.
And you would seem to be correct in that many companies might see it as a defense against Microsoft, who is the 800-lb gorilla in all this.
I would suggest emailing Eben Moglen and see what he thinks. He'd be the one most likely to be able to give you a decent legal and practical analysis of your idea. If he thinks it's good, they might try to incorporate it into their project for persuading companies to do it.
Like the Patent Commons Project, while your idea might not help that much, it wouldn't hurt as far as I can see.
At least Bruce didn't say you were "spitting into the wind!"
Sorry, Bruce, that's backsliding because of the criticism you're taking for your off-the-cuff and poorly thought out public comments.
On the one hand, you say you don't support the pool "at this time" because it's not "effective". Well, that's obvious, isn't it? There isn't anything of significance IN the pool yet. And it hasn't been tested in court.
On the other hand, you imply you'll support it when it IS effective. If everybody thinks it's not worth it, which is your opinion, how is it ever going to be get big enough to be effective?
Your bottom-line argument appears to be that people will be "diverted from solving the problem". But you have made no suggestions for "solving the problem" except to argue for removal of patents altogether.
Which I happen to agree with completely, because I don't believe in intellectual property of any kind.
But in this country at this time, it simply is NOT going to happen. Period. That simple. The OSS movement is FAR too tiny to make Congress dump patents in general (although it just MIGHT be able to limit the most excessive abuses of software specific patents - that remains to be seen, given Microsoft's and the software industry's influence in the government.) Therefore, your suggestions amount to no suggestions.
In any event, it's irrelevant, because your opinion that it will divert people from changing patent law is both an assumption on your part with no evidence whatsoever to support it and entirely wrong because the EFF and others have already said it won't divert them from other measures.
They ARE trying to change patent law and reverse destructive patents. So exactly WHO do you think will be "diverted"? People whose impact on the issue will be nil in any event?
If you'd said publicly that you didn't think the Patent Commons Project would be effective against Microsoft, AND left it at that, you wouldn't have been criticized about this by me or anyone else, because it would have been obvious you were correct. Microsoft is going to do what they want regardless - they beat an antitrust suit, they're not going to be worried about a patent suit against OSS invalidating some patent they have. They can bleed OSS dry with lawsuits until the cows come home.
But suggesting that the commons has no value against lesser lame outfits like SCO is premature. Eben specifically stated the purpose of this project and the other elements is to make sure another SCO doesn't occur. He may be disingenuous to suggest it will be effective against Microsoft (whom he pointedly referred to in his talk), but he's right about it being useful.
Adding on the gratuitous comments about "spitting into the wind" is what got you in trouble. You came across as being antagonistic to serious OSS efforts to deal with the problem proposed by well-known OSS advocates like Eben.
I'm sympathetic, because I speak strongly on issues as well, as everyone at
But you're wrong on the value of the Commons Project. While it may not help against Microsoft, it can't hurt - like chicken soup.
Right - argue for dumping patents altogether.
Which I happen to agree with, if you'd read MFP.
However, in this country at this time, that isn't going to happen. So why not use a patent commons to help defend OSS? It may not stop Microsoft but it can't hurt.
Perens has no answer to that.
Your logic is the really poor one.
At what point did I suggest any of that stuff in your last paragraphs?
I said Perens was out of line for criticizing a proposal with an obvious line of criticism, for not having any better ideas, for ignoring the potential value of the program against lesser opponents than Microsoft, and for not being willing to admit that while it might not be a panacea, it can't hurt to do it.
Perens made excessive comments about "spitting into the wind" and other nonsense. He ignored the positive elements of the program, and the other aspects of the overall program. Why, then, should I give him the benefit of the doubt about his motivations? If he had pro things to say about any elements of the proposals, he should have said so.
Now, if you can prove the media misrepresented his comments, I'll reconsider the position.
Since when does nobody know? It should be obvious to anyone that a Patent Common Project isn't going to stop Microsoft from suing anybody they like - and probably winning, where prior art isn't obvious.
The point is it won't hurt - like chicken soup. Eben Moglen specifically said it was targeted at making sure another SCO didn't happen. While he may be disingenuous to suggest it will impact Microsoft, it may well assist in dealing with smaller lame outfits like SCO who might want to jump on the "sue OSS" bandwagon.
So what's the point of Perens criticism? Just to keep his name in the OSS press?
Talk to Eben Moglen - he laid it out at LinuxWorld.
No great details are available. Why should there be? The program is simple: collect patents, lobby Congress, and try to reverse patents at the USPTO via the courts as the EFF has done.
I brought my ideas to the table - dump intellectual property altogether, but since that isn't going to happen, the patent commons is just fine.
And the point is not that Perens is criticizing the program, it's that the criticism is lame and irrelevant and limited to the Commons Project and doesn't say anything we don't already know and doesn't indicate any alternatives and doesn't offer any evidence that it can't be helpful to do it. While I doubt it will help against Microsoft, as does Perens, it can't hurt - like chicken soup.
His motivation seems to be, as you put it, to be a blowhard. That's what's irritating people.
when it's available in my neighborhood and at a price point equal to or less than the $29.95 I'm paying now for 3Mbps DSL (and not getting 3Mbps, but that's another story.)
I like the idea, but last I heard Internet over public powerline was less than a proven concept, let alone a product (not counting the home powerline systems). Particularly at 200Mbps.
If the ad companies can get to the point where they ONLY offer me ads for:
1) Movies I REALLY want to see.
2) Books I REALLY want to read.
3) Comics I REALLY want.
4) Computer hardware I not only WANT, but I can AFFORD.
5) Food I REALLY want to eat.
etc., etc.
THEN that will be really nice.
In other words, NO MORE FUCKING SPAM FOR CRAP I DO *NOT* WANT!
What the ad industry needs to do is realize that there is NO SUCH THING AS SELLING! You cannot convince me to buy something you have just because you've let me know you have it. Maybe you can convince the
I am the one who INITIATES my purchasing decisions. Most of those decisions come from being informed through articles that a product exists and can do certain things that I want done or to be able to do. Almost NONE of my purchasing decisions comes from advertising - and absolutely none comes from spam. (Print)ads may be able to alert me that a product exists, but I don't buy it until I've seen a review somewhere or a positive comment by someone I know. At least not stuff that costs over $5.
So collecting all this "personal" info about me isn't going to do you squat until you really CAN determine what it is I want to do and how much I can spend to do it - and that in comparison with everything ELSE I want to do and how much disposable income I have.
And that ain't happening any time soon, no matter how much data mining and privacy invasion you do.
The ONLY way you could do this is if you set up a Web site where *I* can post what I want, how much I have to spend on it, and then reverse market this information to the companies that have these products at those price points.
This is what the Internet was SUPPOSED to be doing by now - and to some degree it does: when a customer does a Google search for a product, and then self-selects the company he wants to buy from.
In other words, deliver your company's profitability totally into the hands of the consumer.
And since you're primates, I don't think you have the nerve to do that. I think you want to try to FORCE your customers to buy your stuff. Which is why you spam, and use invasive advertising.
Standard primate response. And totally useless to achieving your goal, which is typical primate behavior. Humans will ALWAYS make the wrong decision and take the wrong path to achieving their goals.
OSDL and the other OSS organizations intend to lobby to change patent law. And they intend to actively reverse patents that threaten OSS.
So what's your point?
Eben Moglen laid out a program at LinuxWorld this past week. Perens has laid into ONE aspect of the program - the Patent Commons Project - and ignored the rest - presumably just to start a flame war.
I agree that ALL so-called "intellectual property" should have absolutely NO legal protection. But in the real world, this isn't going to happen. So OSS needs to try to defend itself any way it can.
If I produced a "killer" app - one that could put Microsoft out of business - I'd patent the algorithm and copyright the expressions of that algorithm. I'd make it all closed source until Microsoft was out of business. THEN I'd open source it. Why OSS it early and let Microsoft grab it and use their "legal" and monopoly-built financial clout to defeat it?
In martial arts, you do what is necessary to win - no matter how "dirty" the technigue. The only art I can think of that suggests doing less than that for a spiritual purpose is aikido. And even they don't suggest you give up a technigue to hamper yourself from winning.
I've often said that Lawrence Lessig is fighting with both hands tied behind his back because he supports the notion of intellectual property. And I still believe that. And I believe that supporting patents and copyright while advocating OSS is the same error.
But I don't believe that OSS should IGNORE patents while they're being actively used against it.
I'm not interested in distinguishing whether Bill Gates or George Bush is "the Great Satan".
An asshole is an asshole, it's that simple.
There are fanatics in everything - including Windows and Linux and OSS and interior design and poodles.
So what?
There are also idiots who like to post pompous bullshit on
Perens was stating that the "wrong people" are people contributing patents to OSS who already support OSS. He would prefer Microsoft to do this. He knows Microsoft won't. His conclusion that the Patent Commons Project is worthless does not follow from his premise, but his premise is correct - and completely irrelevant to your post.
Don't build your life around trying to convince everybody to love everybody else. Ain't gonna happen.
Exactly.
And Perens has no ideas of his own to bring to the table, so he should fuck off.
I personally doubt that just having a patent commons is going to be all that helpful once Microsoft starts suing OSS people (as they undoubtedly will once they see they have no choice left if they want to survive as a company), but it can't hurt to have one to back up the other efforts Eben Moglen outlined at LinuxWorld.
At the least, it could be used to help keep out the riff-raff - the lame smaller companies who jump on the "sue OSS" bandwagon. Eben specifically stated this project was intended to prevent SCO from happening again. And SCO certainly qualifies as a "lame smaller company."
I suggest you wander over to Groklaw and get a clue about "legal standing".
Yes, if you do not have a patent or any other basis for suing somebody, your case will be kicked out of court in a heartbeat.
Not only that, you may be sued by other parties or even held in contempt of court for bringing a "frivolous lawsuit".
The idiot suing the OSS people because it's devaluing his work is in this situation now - his case is being ignored because he has no legal standing.
You're a moron.
Linux has only been capable of functioning on the desktop for the last two years or so.
It DOES take time to get to a usable state. Did you expect Linux to be full-blown from the brow of Zeus?
No, you're just a paid Windows troll masquerading as a Macnut.
Fuck off, moron. Go back to Bill and tell him you lose.
I agree.
Perens is simply keeping his name in the press.
While some of his remarks may be partially correct - namely, that it's not terribly useful to have a patent portfolio built from people who already support OSS - his primary mission here is simply to denigrate some useful work.
Where are his solutions to the problem? I see lots of criticism and no ideas from him.
Eben Moglen, at LinuxWorld this past week, outlined a program involving not merely the Patent Commons Project, but attempts to change patent laws and to actually reverse patents that are of particular threat to OSS.
Perens concentrates only on the Patent Commons Project, and ignores the rest. This proves his only motive is to start a flame war.
Nothing like handing Microsoft some talking points, Bruce. Way to go.
I'd say it'd more likely the cops call for backup, riddle the screen with bullets, THEN demand that it open.
Then when Internal Affairs wants to know who busted the computer, they throw one of their own to the wolves and claim it was "just one bad apple in the barrel."