Simply say "No" to any closed source driver dependent products. Message the hardware community that if they want the open source community's business they must be, well, open source. If ATI supports Linux with open code, then buy ATI. The ONLY weapon we have in this war is our checkbook.
Re:For all the hatred OSS has towards MS product..
on
Gnumeric Turns 5
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
well, um, M$ imitated 1-2-3 et al, then created file structures that locked everyone else's intellectual property (the contents of the spreadsheet in this case) into their own impenetrable file system theat ensures that you have to pay their toll just to share your work with someone else. One of the best features of Gnumeric, which I use often, is that the files it creates have a published scheme.
Patents are how-to's. If you follow the teachings and it doesnt result in the claimed invention the patent is invalid.
Rich companies and savvy inventors know this and will "correct" their patents over time. This is intellectually dishonest but effective since it is all about making it to the patent office first (most do not document inventions well enough to prove true date of invention that can hold up to $1000 an hour cross examinations). So, until the patents issue, which takes years, the patents can be massaged into teaching something that can be built.
I think the more correct translation Jesus' words at Matt 26:41 is "The spirit, of course, is eager, but the fleash is weak." Which, again, makes the point again.
After all algebra is simply a structured approach to manipulate the form of information from one that is not so useful into one that is useful. And it does it with letters to rules of syntax. Hmmm....think of all those high schools that would need a license from me...
People have been translating languages and sytax for thousands of years. Coding an existing process is not patentable, since he method is not novel nor is it non-obvious. Moreover, the patent must *teach* something that is not obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, which in this case would be translators. Since the language rules are well known, the process to go from one to another is also well known and therefore obvious (not novel).
But, alas, these matters are decided in the courts, where rulings are bought and paid for. The patent office issues patents to the rich and powerful without question, and individual inventors get swamped with inane, money-wasting "office actions" that run poorer inventors out of money.
the more insidious Government's intentions. Whenever someting has "Security", "Peace" or "Freedom" in it you can reliably predict they are about the opposite, from an ordinary citizen's point of view.
Frederic Bastiat detailed quite clearly what "legal plunder" is in his classic treatise "The Law". It applies to every government I've every tested it against. And, unless I misread those stories, the FBI lied, cheated, and cracked their way to "justice". Nice. Try substituting American names for the Russion ones, "Russia" for "America" and "KGB" for "FBI" and see if you still feel the same way.
This, to me, is simply Microsoft's way to terrorize potential Linux adopters in what must be one of technology's great ironies.
At one time, people used to look at Microsoft as relief from IBM's hegemony, and IBM suirvived for a time on the mantra 'no one gets fired for buying IBM.' Risk-averse business managers will not deploy Linux until this resolves favorably for Linux, all the while chanting 'nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft.'
ESR, Linus, BSD, FSF, UC Berkeley et al., should all push for a directed verdict based upon the 1993 court case and perhaps countersue based on their own indivual and collective rights. The Microsoft should be named based upon reasonable suspicion that they misappropriated technologies, especially relating to, but not limited to, computer internetworking. The suit should press to have all Microsoft products open-sourced as derivitive works.
In this case, allowing Microsoft unearned marketshare at the expense of Linux, based upon knowingly false arguments, is indeed justice denied. Take away what they covet most from this case -- time to market their oppressive OS's while unfairly and maliciously hobbling Linux.
Copyright laws were meant to allow someone to recover the cost of producing and circulating original works. It was never contemplated that copyright should be used to support inefficient economies (why don't we still employ scribes and sue printing press owners?) If the internet is cheaper, it should be used, but costs are lower and so prices should be lower. If the RIAA did this (lowered prices in proportion to costs) this would be a total non-issue and no P2P networks would have ever sprung up. Instead it wants to extort obscene amounts of money that has nothing to do with covering its [reasonable] underlying costs to produce and distribute. Now it simply resorting to terrorism. How many times do I have to by the White Album? I've got five store-bought formats and they'd still use the courts to bankrupt me if I downloaded an MP3 of "Rocky Racoon". 'Presumption of Guilt' is not exactly what the American Constitional framers had in mind.
Patents, on the other hand, must teach the reader something novel and unobvious so that the new knowledge can be leveraged in new ways. In exchange for the public disclosure, the Goverment protects the indivual's sole right to use that knowledge in the application disclosed in the teaching.
What is being done now s that "intellectual property" is being used to prevent others from benefiting and expanding on knowledge and from fair use of information that has been published. This is quite opposite common sense and justifiable protection by law, IMHO
Metricom is alive and well, known now as Ricochet.
You are mistaken if you think that you need a tower every 300 feet. The problem with WiFi is that it is a LAN technology, not a WAN technology.
It is foolish to confuse the wireless trend and its relevance with misapplied technologies like WiFi. As long as the frauds don't create too much of a bubble, high-data-rate wireless connectivity can succeed.
Analogies to the dot.com bubble seem to be loosely applicable. Most dot.com's were out-and-out frauds. Corporate wash-outs with some past success, university researchers with a get-rich-quick scheme based on work initially funded through public and private endowments to the university system, committee chairs leveraging their influence for personal gain, and other non-sustainable plans. Big budgets, fat salaries, celebrity boards, all designed to create toll-roads that would tax internet traffic into time indefinite.
There are some similar atrocities being committed in the wireless space. But as a career start-up guy and inventor I can say that there are several important and legitimate endeavors out there. The sin in wireless is with those groups trying to hijack standards (a la Microsoft) to cause all traffic to incur their "tax". I believe this is at the root of the "wireless bubble" and why many VC's prefer "intellectual property plays" -- plays that create tax-like revenue -- to "hardware plays" tangible products whose true value is obvious.
This gives rise to groups that dream up ideas and then outsource hardware development without knowing anything about hardware themselves. The recipe: Take a washed-up "Team BigThink" from Cisco or Microsoft, an unscrupulous marketing type, PowerPoint, a key universitry researcher (Dr Geek), and a key standards committee chair and you've got a $50M start-up that will go absolutely nowhere.
Look at Navini or BeamReach or Terabeam. Who in their right mind will pay $500 for a wireless data modem for their $400 PDA that essentially ties you to your house? Plus subscription fees? And these three companies alone account for $150M in VC money. Any first-year business student can predict their failure with certianty. And how about Vivato with their cubicle-wall-sized proprietary phased array antenna for 802.11? Is that worth $25M in VC money? Look at the founders and boards and it becomes obvious why they got the big money.
Hopefully there will be a company or three that will create proper end-user value before the greedy fakes destroy this promising business too.
If it doesn't already, the Open Source community should actively support/sponsor a formidable patent organization with two objectives. One, to aggressively prosecute patents, and two, to write opinions against patents that charge royalties. Note that patents *are* public disclosures and charging for their use is at the option of the patent owner. On a more grassroots level, open-sourcers should keep printed copies of all code they write and have them signed, dated and witnessed. Publish in magazines and in mail-lists. If something gets patented, this documentation can be used to expose obviousness. In my experience patent-holders are rarely first to invent. They just beat everyone else to the patent office. University and other government-funded program participants should regularly publically disclose their work and undermine patentability from within. M$ and others are beating Open Source at their own game by publishing via patent offices. Fight back using their own weapons. This way they can't fight Free Software without fighting themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
decoding this post has GOT to violate DMCA
Yes, we at MediaCell, Inc, have. Years before beamreach. See US Patent 6,377,782. Try not to be so arrogant.
Simply say "No" to any closed source driver dependent products. Message the hardware community that if they want the open source community's business they must be, well, open source. If ATI supports Linux with open code, then buy ATI. The ONLY weapon we have in this war is our checkbook.
well, um, M$ imitated 1-2-3 et al, then created file structures that locked everyone else's intellectual property (the contents of the spreadsheet in this case) into their own impenetrable file system theat ensures that you have to pay their toll just to share your work with someone else. One of the best features of Gnumeric, which I use often, is that the files it creates have a published scheme.
the PAL of 802.11a
Patents are how-to's. If you follow the teachings and it doesnt result in the claimed invention the patent is invalid. Rich companies and savvy inventors know this and will "correct" their patents over time. This is intellectually dishonest but effective since it is all about making it to the patent office first (most do not document inventions well enough to prove true date of invention that can hold up to $1000 an hour cross examinations). So, until the patents issue, which takes years, the patents can be massaged into teaching something that can be built. I think the more correct translation Jesus' words at Matt 26:41 is "The spirit, of course, is eager, but the fleash is weak." Which, again, makes the point again.
After all algebra is simply a structured approach to manipulate the form of information from one that is not so useful into one that is useful. And it does it with letters to rules of syntax. Hmmm....think of all those high schools that would need a license from me... People have been translating languages and sytax for thousands of years. Coding an existing process is not patentable, since he method is not novel nor is it non-obvious. Moreover, the patent must *teach* something that is not obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, which in this case would be translators. Since the language rules are well known, the process to go from one to another is also well known and therefore obvious (not novel). But, alas, these matters are decided in the courts, where rulings are bought and paid for. The patent office issues patents to the rich and powerful without question, and individual inventors get swamped with inane, money-wasting "office actions" that run poorer inventors out of money.
perfect. maybe now the crackers will leave WLANs alone and go straight to the source.
why do school kids get their first bit of dope for free?
clearly, nationalizing microsoft is the best outcome possible. they deserve it and we do to. it's time to stop being held hostage.
the more insidious Government's intentions. Whenever someting has "Security", "Peace" or "Freedom" in it you can reliably predict they are about the opposite, from an ordinary citizen's point of view.
Frederic Bastiat detailed quite clearly what "legal plunder" is in his classic treatise "The Law". It applies to every government I've every tested it against. And, unless I misread those stories, the FBI lied, cheated, and cracked their way to "justice". Nice. Try substituting American names for the Russion ones, "Russia" for "America" and "KGB" for "FBI" and see if you still feel the same way.
k, flamebait maybe, but the fbi did it, not me. I was simply paraphrasing the situation
Lying, cheating, stealing, hacking...it's what makes America great and the world safe for democracy. How do you spell "persecution"? DMCA, baby, DMCA
This, to me, is simply Microsoft's way to terrorize potential Linux adopters in what must be one of technology's great ironies. At one time, people used to look at Microsoft as relief from IBM's hegemony, and IBM suirvived for a time on the mantra 'no one gets fired for buying IBM.' Risk-averse business managers will not deploy Linux until this resolves favorably for Linux, all the while chanting 'nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft.' ESR, Linus, BSD, FSF, UC Berkeley et al., should all push for a directed verdict based upon the 1993 court case and perhaps countersue based on their own indivual and collective rights. The Microsoft should be named based upon reasonable suspicion that they misappropriated technologies, especially relating to, but not limited to, computer internetworking. The suit should press to have all Microsoft products open-sourced as derivitive works. In this case, allowing Microsoft unearned marketshare at the expense of Linux, based upon knowingly false arguments, is indeed justice denied. Take away what they covet most from this case -- time to market their oppressive OS's while unfairly and maliciously hobbling Linux.
It's *never* about technology, but *always* about money and control of the world.
I reported rampant software piracy to our CEO and board member and got fired within hours. This happened in January. Now I sense that I'm blacklisted.
these guys may be able to help you
Copyright laws were meant to allow someone to recover the cost of producing and circulating original works. It was never contemplated that copyright should be used to support inefficient economies (why don't we still employ scribes and sue printing press owners?) If the internet is cheaper, it should be used, but costs are lower and so prices should be lower. If the RIAA did this (lowered prices in proportion to costs) this would be a total non-issue and no P2P networks would have ever sprung up. Instead it wants to extort obscene amounts of money that has nothing to do with covering its [reasonable] underlying costs to produce and distribute. Now it simply resorting to terrorism. How many times do I have to by the White Album? I've got five store-bought formats and they'd still use the courts to bankrupt me if I downloaded an MP3 of "Rocky Racoon". 'Presumption of Guilt' is not exactly what the American Constitional framers had in mind. Patents, on the other hand, must teach the reader something novel and unobvious so that the new knowledge can be leveraged in new ways. In exchange for the public disclosure, the Goverment protects the indivual's sole right to use that knowledge in the application disclosed in the teaching. What is being done now s that "intellectual property" is being used to prevent others from benefiting and expanding on knowledge and from fair use of information that has been published. This is quite opposite common sense and justifiable protection by law, IMHO
Metricom is alive and well, known now as Ricochet. You are mistaken if you think that you need a tower every 300 feet. The problem with WiFi is that it is a LAN technology, not a WAN technology. It is foolish to confuse the wireless trend and its relevance with misapplied technologies like WiFi. As long as the frauds don't create too much of a bubble, high-data-rate wireless connectivity can succeed.
Analogies to the dot.com bubble seem to be loosely applicable. Most dot.com's were out-and-out frauds. Corporate wash-outs with some past success, university researchers with a get-rich-quick scheme based on work initially funded through public and private endowments to the university system, committee chairs leveraging their influence for personal gain, and other non-sustainable plans. Big budgets, fat salaries, celebrity boards, all designed to create toll-roads that would tax internet traffic into time indefinite. There are some similar atrocities being committed in the wireless space. But as a career start-up guy and inventor I can say that there are several important and legitimate endeavors out there. The sin in wireless is with those groups trying to hijack standards (a la Microsoft) to cause all traffic to incur their "tax". I believe this is at the root of the "wireless bubble" and why many VC's prefer "intellectual property plays" -- plays that create tax-like revenue -- to "hardware plays" tangible products whose true value is obvious. This gives rise to groups that dream up ideas and then outsource hardware development without knowing anything about hardware themselves. The recipe: Take a washed-up "Team BigThink" from Cisco or Microsoft, an unscrupulous marketing type, PowerPoint, a key universitry researcher (Dr Geek), and a key standards committee chair and you've got a $50M start-up that will go absolutely nowhere. Look at Navini or BeamReach or Terabeam. Who in their right mind will pay $500 for a wireless data modem for their $400 PDA that essentially ties you to your house? Plus subscription fees? And these three companies alone account for $150M in VC money. Any first-year business student can predict their failure with certianty. And how about Vivato with their cubicle-wall-sized proprietary phased array antenna for 802.11? Is that worth $25M in VC money? Look at the founders and boards and it becomes obvious why they got the big money. Hopefully there will be a company or three that will create proper end-user value before the greedy fakes destroy this promising business too.
If it doesn't already, the Open Source community should actively support/sponsor a formidable patent organization with two objectives. One, to aggressively prosecute patents, and two, to write opinions against patents that charge royalties. Note that patents *are* public disclosures and charging for their use is at the option of the patent owner. On a more grassroots level, open-sourcers should keep printed copies of all code they write and have them signed, dated and witnessed. Publish in magazines and in mail-lists. If something gets patented, this documentation can be used to expose obviousness. In my experience patent-holders are rarely first to invent. They just beat everyone else to the patent office. University and other government-funded program participants should regularly publically disclose their work and undermine patentability from within. M$ and others are beating Open Source at their own game by publishing via patent offices. Fight back using their own weapons. This way they can't fight Free Software without fighting themselves.