Why does the fact that he is being payed by a company (esp. Google) mean that Ben Goodger (let alone Firefox) has become corrupt?
Are you insinuating that Goodger has become a Badger or a Good^Hgler?...I'll stop now...
(IMO introducing some non-free software into Firefox was a BAD decision but a free-software developer been payed by a company is very common. The wonderful thing about free software is that it is (very) commercially viable, but there is also always a free market.)
Trust me on this. I've spoken to these guys. The UK Labour MEPs (who *wrote* and *proposed* this directive) are the biggest bullshitters in the world.
They are just saying what you want to hear. Try phoning them up and saying "I'm worried that this will make software patentable", and they'll say "it won't and we are totally against any patenting of software"; then phone them and say "I am worried that software isn't patentable" and they'll say "It most defintely is, we want to make sure that this is even clearer so we wrote this directive to make software and algorithms patentable".
Arlene McCarthy has actually argued that she was responsible for stopping the directive that *she* proposed from going through parliament. It's funny because she lies so much that she gets confused and contradicts herself between paragraph in her letters.
Alternatively, when your Nomad dies, buy one of the ever-increasing number of Ogg Vorbis or multiple-format (including Ogg Vorbis) portable players. Many of the better players now support a range of formats; my personal favourite (if I had money to buy one at all or actually listened to music ever) would be the Neuros: plays about every format under the sun, the firmware is free software and regularly updated, USB 2.0, up to 160GB of disk space, records to FLAC, PCM (wave) or MP3, recieves and *broadcasts* FM radio, &c
Note that, AFAIK, no portable player can do Vorbis enocding (as it is very CPU intensive)--but it is being considered for the Neuros. You wouldn't generally want to encode in a lossy format on a portable player anyway.
As I've made clear elsewhere, I should have clarified that I wasn't using "time and effort" in a general sense but specifically to refer to the sort of time and effort that the inventors of the patent system proposed that system to reward.
I did not intend to make them sound innocent; some of them (especially my UK government who are no doubt under pressure from President Bush) put forward this proposal in the first place and are worse than the commission.
What I was pointing out is that this directive is unable to get support from a majority of the member states' governments ATM.
Also, WRT the Dutch, the Dutch minister was forced by his own country to withdraw his vote (which was in favour of the directive) after he lied to his own country's parliament and government about the purpose of and support for the directive. Even though he is in favour, his party, government and parliament are against the directive.
I'll clarify that. It takes a lot of money to get such an invention into a working state; it is fiddly to get it going. This is why patents were invented. Wheras an algorithm just requires thinking (which may take a long time) until you discover an appropriate one (and an algorithm could even be discovered by a computer).
Yes, actually I can say that, because I live in a country with freedom of speech (not the USA), and, yes, I would be legally correct in saying that because I live in a jurisdiction were software patents are illegal (i.e: not the USA). Also, take a look at what the founding fathers of the USA said about this and read that thing called the US constitution; unfortunately, for you, they seem to agree with me too.
In this case,of course, we are talking about a directive concerning a European institution, the EPO which, I believe, does not require all governments to ratify any directive.
You are right that this proposal does not require all governments to ratify it--in fact, most governments (and nearly all of parliament) are against the proposal (which is why it hasn't gone through yet).
However, you are wrong in saying this directive is just about the EPO: this directive would not only legalise the EPOs current unlawful activity; it would also require member states to pass laws to effectively criminalise their software-using citizens (assuming they violate these software patents which they will).
It'll happen of the Council says it will happen.
You seem to be making a distinction between the council and the member states' governments here; however, the council is actually made up of the member states' governments' minsters, so they are one and the same.
The Labour MEPs' position...is reflected in the
amendments we tabled and voted for in the Parliament's report
That's total and utter bullshit: the exact opposite to the truth.
They did not table the amendments (which I think were mostly tabled by UK Green and SNP MEPs) but they (specifically UK Labour MEP, Arlene McCarthy) did table the proposed directive they claim they called to be amended.
No Labour MEPs voted for it to be amended.
The UK Labour MEPs consistently used threats and underhand tatics to try and stop those amnedments being passed by other MEPs.
The UK MEPs originally wrote and proposed this directive.
Check the record on the European Parliament WWW site.
Thomson might be able to sue MP3 encoders/decoders but they certainly couldn't be prosecuted for theft.
However, I agree that you should try and get laws changed before breaking them (and only break them after informing interested parties (e.g.: Thomson) that you have broken them).
It did not take the time and effort that a real physical invention (e.g.: a washing machine) requires, and that the inventors of the patent system (who thankfully (or maybe not so) didn't get a patent on their idea...oh wait...) envisaged being required for a patent to be granted.
Someone could invent this from their armchair and it is just a mathematical formula.
Also, note that it is in the interests of the manfacturers of portable players to only support Ogg Vorbis (not MP3) as they don't have to pay the patent holders lots of $$$.
You could also, use a non-lossy encoding like PCM that is supported by your portable players.
Slashdot Mirror
Well if the WWW (and land of conspiracy theorist nutters) says that Google are definitely safe and a good corp.
Are you insinuating that Goodger has become a Badger or a Good^Hgler?...I'll stop now...
(IMO introducing some non-free software into Firefox was a BAD decision but a free-software developer been payed by a company is very common. The wonderful thing about free software is that it is (very) commercially viable, but there is also always a free market.)
No mention from Google on this yet.
Firefox has always (since 0.1) had a Google Toolbar extension--not that find you need it as its built-in search functionality is so good.
They are just saying what you want to hear. Try phoning them up and saying "I'm worried that this will make software patentable", and they'll say "it won't and we are totally against any patenting of software"; then phone them and say "I am worried that software isn't patentable" and they'll say "It most defintely is, we want to make sure that this is even clearer so we wrote this directive to make software and algorithms patentable".
Arlene McCarthy has actually argued that she was responsible for stopping the directive that *she* proposed from going through parliament. It's funny because she lies so much that she gets confused and contradicts herself between paragraph in her letters.
Alternatively, when your Nomad dies, buy one of the ever-increasing number of Ogg Vorbis or multiple-format (including Ogg Vorbis) portable players. Many of the better players now support a range of formats; my personal favourite (if I had money to buy one at all or actually listened to music ever) would be the Neuros: plays about every format under the sun, the firmware is free software and regularly updated, USB 2.0, up to 160GB of disk space, records to FLAC, PCM (wave) or MP3, recieves and *broadcasts* FM radio, &c
Note that, AFAIK, no portable player can do Vorbis enocding (as it is very CPU intensive)--but it is being considered for the Neuros. You wouldn't generally want to encode in a lossy format on a portable player anyway.
I've never seen it as I never watch TV (like a *real* geek ;-) ) but from what I've heard you may be right.
a legal alternative==Vorbis OR Real?
As I've made clear elsewhere, I should have clarified that I wasn't using "time and effort" in a general sense but specifically to refer to the sort of time and effort that the inventors of the patent system proposed that system to reward.
Broadly I agree, but I interpreted that as being the total revenue of the company (i.e.: Real) not just their revenue from that piece of software.
What I was pointing out is that this directive is unable to get support from a majority of the member states' governments ATM.
Also, WRT the Dutch, the Dutch minister was forced by his own country to withdraw his vote (which was in favour of the directive) after he lied to his own country's parliament and government about the purpose of and support for the directive. Even though he is in favour, his party, government and parliament are against the directive.
Use the power of Google or see if you already have one in your OS distribution.
You knew what I meant.
I'll clarify that. It takes a lot of money to get such an invention into a working state; it is fiddly to get it going. This is why patents were invented. Wheras an algorithm just requires thinking (which may take a long time) until you discover an appropriate one (and an algorithm could even be discovered by a computer).
The point is they still aren't inventions. They are discoveries that could even be made by AI.
Uhh? (1) Winamp (2) Audacity
Actually, it's called civil disobedience.
Yes, actually I can say that, because I live in a country with freedom of speech (not the USA), and, yes, I would be legally correct in saying that because I live in a jurisdiction were software patents are illegal (i.e: not the USA). Also, take a look at what the founding fathers of the USA said about this and read that thing called the US constitution; unfortunately, for you, they seem to agree with me too.
However, you are wrong in saying this directive is just about the EPO: this directive would not only legalise the EPOs current unlawful activity; it would also require member states to pass laws to effectively criminalise their software-using citizens (assuming they violate these software patents which they will).
You seem to be making a distinction between the council and the member states' governments here; however, the council is actually made up of the member states' governments' minsters, so they are one and the same.They did not table the amendments (which I think were mostly tabled by UK Green and SNP MEPs) but they (specifically UK Labour MEP, Arlene McCarthy) did table the proposed directive they claim they called to be amended.
No Labour MEPs voted for it to be amended.
The UK Labour MEPs consistently used threats and underhand tatics to try and stop those amnedments being passed by other MEPs.
The UK MEPs originally wrote and proposed this directive.
Check the record on the European Parliament WWW site.
Thomson might be able to sue MP3 encoders/decoders but they certainly couldn't be prosecuted for theft.
However, I agree that you should try and get laws changed before breaking them (and only break them after informing interested parties (e.g.: Thomson) that you have broken them).
Someone could invent this from their armchair and it is just a mathematical formula.
Good point. If LAME et al get threatened by Thomson they can just restrict distribution to the free (i.e.: non-US) world.
You could also, use a non-lossy encoding like PCM that is supported by your portable players.