But anyways, never underestimate how much more comfortable the "switcher" will feel if (s)he keeps a win partition available.
I think that is very important. When I first installed Linux about five years ago, I never would have done so when I couldn't have kept Windows on a partition (the version of Linux I had at that time didn't support all of my hardware, anyway). First, I continued using mainly Windows, and the two times when I was most glad about having Linux on the computer were when Win98 crashed irrecoverably and couldn't read the hard disk any more - Linux still could, and I could save my data on the Windows partition. With the time, Linux shifted from a 'recovery tool' for Windows to the OS I used most, and for my new desktop computer, I exclusively use Linux, but I still have Windows on a notebook because sometimes I have to use software that isn't available for Linux.
I think many people are much more comfortable with switching gradually - with dual boot or more than one computer -, and there are many people are interested in using Linux, but can't do without Windows for some reason. Therefore, good support for installing Linux besides Windows (resizing Windows partitions etc.) is crucial, and I think some distributions (e.g. SuSE) are quite good at that.
In Germany - and probably also some other countries - consumers cannot waive their right to compensation for losses by agreeing to a EULA, whether the product in question is free or not. Therefore, some questioned whether the GPL is valid there, but the doubts mostly concern the exclusion of liability, hardly other parts of the GPL. In practice, it does seem to make a difference whether a program is sold or available for free - if it is free, the standards for what is considered negligence are lower, but if the damage comes from something that was done on purpose, the author can be held responsible for all the damage. What the verdict would be in a concrete case could depend on many factors, but probably an author of spyware could be held responsible even if it is given away for free and the EULA excludes liability.
Either that or like one poster suggested, we just need better tools for keeping track and managing the flow of updates... Strangely enough, MS's XP update does a really good job at this (despite their slow release process).
Indeed, I think MS's XP update is relatively good, in particular when it comes to get private users who do not really care about patches to install them.
Such easy installation of security patches is available for Linux, as well. For instance, SuSE's YOU (Yast Online Update) works about the same way, and I find it even easier to customize than XP update. By default, a red button in the taskbar shows that there are new security updates for installed software (which can be downloaded and installed with the root password and a few clicks), if it's green everything is up to date; YOU can also be set to install security patches automatically.
Never let principles stand in the way of accomplishing the mission. If the missions calls for Java, render unto Sun what is Sun's and carry on
Yes, of course, not everyone has to become a saint of the church of emacs by not using any proprietary software. But while it depends on the tasks whether it makes sense to follow Stallmann's principles completely, I think they should be taken seriously in any case. Often, it makes sense to compromise, but one should always be aware of the risks of proprietary software (lock-in, dependence on a company with its own interests that are different from the ones of the users of the software).
And how long has Java been around, compared to.NET? If you compare their respective growth rates, taking into account the inertia due to the pre-existing entrenched Java market, and the fact that it's Microsoft who's taking it on, I think you'll find that Java is a virtual dead duck.
It's not surprising that.NET, which is newer, has a bigger growth rate. But it many cases,.NET probably replaces old VB or MFC applications. It's not representative, at all, but I know companies that move from Windows-only to Java implementations for their systems, which probably has to do with the success of Linux. The demand for platform-independent solutions is rather increasing than decreasing, and then Java is one of the options, and it is probably the one that is preferred by many in the corporate world. Yes, Java isn't taking over everything, but I think it's far from dying.
I think with things like Sharepoint, this is similar to the situation with hardware support - it's not that MS Office is inherently better suited for collaborative systems and content management, but because it is used more widely, there are more such systems developped for it (e.g. Openshare). But I think it is already beginning to change, a smaller company I know that offers content management and intranet system has switched from Windows to platform-independent Java. When OpenOffice.org and StarOffice are more widely used, there will probably be collaborative systems that interact with them - probably this is even easier to do than with MS Office because of the use of open standards and the availability of the source.
I suppose for the typical average average user the thousands of applications that are already on the installation DVD of distributions like SuSE are usually enough, and installing *them* is extremely easy - just select them in Yast, and Yast cares about all the dependencies. Windows doesn't offer that, and that's probably the most important thing for most average users.
Of course, I've also downloaded and installed Linux applications, but generally, my experience wasn't as bad as the things you describe, at all. In many cases, it is, indeed just one click (and often with Windows, it is more complicated than just one click, too). What I found really difficult with Linux was trying to install a DVD player with which I can watch encrypted DVDs - but that's not due to a problem on Linux's part, but because many who provide such programs are afraid of offering it in an integrated way for legal reasons.
Installing and uninstalling apps:
I think the main difference is that with Linux distributions like e.g. SuSE much of what you need, even applications most people don't need, are already on the installation DVD. I find installing and uninstalling applications with Yast much easier than looking for an application on the Internet, downloading and installing it - which is necessary with Windows. Yast (and corresponding programs of other distributions) also makes sure all dependencies are alright. If you still install an application that isn't on the distro DVD, there can be occasional problems with dependencies - just like with Windows DLLs etc..
Standard UI across apps:
Windows Media Player, MS Word and Outlook Express - to take three typical Windows applications - don't strike me as particularly consistent as to their UI. KDE apps follow common guidelines more or less consistently, as do GNOME apps, and on the whole the degree of UI consistency seems relatively similar on typical MS Windows and Linux systems.
Printing:
Printing as such is just as easy with CUPS as on Windows, I don't see a difference here. I find installing printers on my SuSE linux easier than on Windows. Windows usually needs a CD from the printer manufacturer, while Yast doesn't (as long as it recognizes the printer, which it mostly does in my experience).
It is crucial what people are used to. For instance, I find both KDE and Windows good and easy to use, but I find OS X quite difficult and strange, but that does hardly mean OS X is bad, I'm just not used to it as much as to KDE and Windows. Of course, with the time this difference matters less when you get accustomed to a new desktop system, but that takes some time. I doubt whether it would be possible that Linux desktop systems are so much better than MS Windows that people find it better right away.
Not everyone in the European Parliament got there mainly thanks to support by big companies. They don't need millions of euro's to campaign in half a continent. These people's supporters come from their own backyards, in a matter of speaking. Belgian MEPs care about the Belgian companies, not about Microsoft. 60% of ICT workers in Belgium work in an SME.
I think that is very important. Of course, there are some people who are directly linked to a corporation that is interested in software patents. For instance, Joachim Würmeling is from an area in Bavaria, which is an important location of Siemens, and he also represents their pro-patent position. In his case, conversations and manifestations are probably futile. But most members of the European parliament are either not linked to any corporate interests or they do act as lobbyists for businesses, but do not have to do with companies that want software patents (after all, most companies wouldn't profit from software patents).
That there was no referendum on EU membership in the UK is one thing, I think there should have been one.
But it is not true that there is no one you can talk to as far as the EU is concerned. Contact a MEP (member of the European parliament) from your area. By the way, the chance that there is someone you actually voted for in your area (if you took part in the elections) is much bigger than with your UK MP because the elections are proportional, they do not follow the (in my view outdated) model of "winner takes all" Britain still has for the national elections.
As far as software patents are concerned, Britain would probably have introduced them long ago if it wasn't in the EU. The role of British representatives in the EU often is to defend the interest of US corporation, last year in areas like safety standards, and also as far as software patents are concerned, people from the UK played an important role (e.g. Arlene McCarthy). The EU membership of the UK creates a certain counterweight to the big influence of the US - not everywhere in the EU is the US influence as big as in the UK.
The proper way to protest software patents, and the reckless issuing of patents in general is to start applying for them left and write.
The problem is that patent applications are quite expensive. Some nonsense patent applications have been files to protest the system (e.g. one by attac), but I don't think enough money is around for starting applying for them left and right. OK, if Microsoft decided they are against software patents they could certainly do so...
No, the protests can make a big difference. I don't trust the European Comission, but the European parliament does in fact care, it decided against software patents, and it is important that it doesn't give in. Before the decision in the European Parliament I thought the main danger was that many members would not really look at it. Only the green parties and the radical left were clearly against software patents, and that would be a relatively small minority. Manifestations, letters to members of the parliament, conversations with them probably played an important role - and the majority in the European Parliament then voted for amendments that prevent software patents. That was a big victory, and it is important to go on and not to give in.
Certainly, the rich and well-organised lobbies, such as BSA, are influential. But it would be wrong to think that all members of the parliament are bought by them. If nothing is done, they may follow these influential organisations, but if good arguments are presented, many of them can be convinced.
Democracy in the EU is far from perfect, but it is not doomed or inexistent, either.
If I was developing things, I would want to be sure that I had the rights to it, that some jerk couldn't just go about willy-nilly with it.
Yes, copyright gives you the right do decide what you develop. So, that's OK.
In contrast, software patents would give you rights to restrict what others can develop and - if you're not a big company, that's the more likely case -, it gives others rights to restrict what you can develop.
I have seen many examples of software patents that demonstrate why software patents are a bad and dangerous thing.
In some cases, the harm they do may be limited or even insignificant. But is there really a case that demonstrates that software patents are a good thing?
In the US and Japan, there are software patents - so, can you say this or that research could not have been financed without software patents? In the area of pharmaceuticals such arguments can be made, but even in the US and Japan software research and development doesn't work in a way that patents play an important role as a source of income - they mainly do as a reason for endless legal battles.
There are studies that show the detrimental effects of software patents, and there are many bad examples. But unfortunately, proponents of software patents only use allegations of a general kind, but I have never seen concrete facts, studies or cases from them.
Preventing the adoption of software patents in the EU is important. But it is also an important case to see how democratic the EU is and how big the influence of rich, well-organized lobbies are. The European Parliament already decided against software patents. If the lobbyists have their way, it would be a big loss for IT, but also for European democracy as a whole.
That one very big company (Microsoft) pays another big company (Sun) 1.6bil$, an amount that does not really matter for the very big company, should be an argument for patents protect the "little guy"?
A really little guy could hardly pay all what is needed for applying for patents. If we extend the notion of "little guy" further, he might in some rare cases succeed against a big company, but only if he does not produce anything (in the style of Eolas), as soon as the "little guy" produces anything, the big company uses its large patent portfolio.
the legislation is _merely_ codifying case law practice into statutory to law to reduce the level of confusion
There are still laws in European countries, according to which software is not patentable (on the EU level and in the member states, with some differences). It is true that lots of software patents have been accepted by the European patent office in Munich because the patent office often didn't follow the laws. Generally, these patents are not enforceable.
What do you suggest - when some people don't abide by the law, the laws should be changed to match their behaviour?
When you documents about the Vicom case, you see that they always used arguments about technical effects with things beyond the normal interaction in computers. Far from being an argument for software being patentable, everyone in that case seemed to agree that software is not patentable, but they looked for ways to circumvent that. The decision itself is questionable, and while the EPO granted the patent, it is doubtful whether it could be enforced. Certainly, there are many signs of moving away from the strict non-patentability of software, although the laws are still there. If the malpractice of the European Patent Office is taken as a reason for changing the laws, we should ask who makes the laws - officials who don't respect them or elected representatives.
If I invent a new compression algorithm that is patentable, sure I want to _have the choice_ to either (a) patent it and make money from the patent, (b) dedicate it to the public domain for all to use.
Yes, when you invent an algorithm "that is patentable"... But algorithms are excluded from patentability in Europe, so you cannot invent algorithms that are patentable here. Sure, you might like to have to have a monopoly for 20 years to profit from it, but the law doesn't allow it in this case. Therefore, others can use similar algorithms and perhaps improve the method without having to fear patent disputes with you.
Most sites just changed their homepage, but still had a link to the working site.
So, they force people to see the message - after all, if software patents are adopted and enforces, many of these projects would have to close altogether, not just for a day -, but it's still possible to access the website.
I say patenting software is OK, as long as the patent law only allows you to patent certain things in your software that will stay unique to it, so that it doesn't become a case of 'I can't use this function in my competing program because (x) patented it'
That's exactly what copyright does. No one would pay for software patent applications of they only guaranteed exclusive rights on that specific program, which copyright does, anyway, without the need of registering.
It might be worth considering if you suggested this in place of copyright for software. The advantage (in the sense of "less restrictions") would be that it would expire more quickly than copyright. But it would be more difficult for smaller companies - patent applications are relatively expensive. In particular, the GPL could hardly be used in that way.
But that's another discussion, anyway. The reason why some want to introduce software patents is exactly that they want restrictions and monopolies, which are - in contrast to the ones due to copyright - non-unique and non-specific.
Then - and I know this is taxing your head - imagine further still a bigger company with more resources goes, "oh! That's how they do it!" and then start doing it themselves in massive quantities for lower selling price. Smaller, inventing business goes OUT of business.
This situation is rather untypical, I suppose in most cases it would be the large company who has the patents and it would use patent threats to drive out of business a smaller company who has found more efficient ways of production and can therefore sell at a lower price.
But even if it is the big company that produces more efficiently and can therefore sell at a lower price - why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? I'm not absolutely convinced of all aspects of capitalism, but market economy certainly has its merits. What you seem to suggest is the introduction of patents in areas where they aren't applicable today to protect of inefficient companies - just a hint, smaller companies are not generally less efficient, as your post seems to suggest. (I'm not talking about dumping prices used specifically to drive competitors out of business, there are other measures against that, which have nothing to do with patent laws).
Secondly, these losers aren't against patenting the obvious, they're against patents per se.
Look at www.ffii.org. Neither are they only against patenting the obvious nor are they are they against patents per se, they are against software patents. While many are critical about the consequences of patents in other areas, few suggest abolishing all kinds of patents. There are many arguments against patents on software and business models, both theoretical ones (algorithms are, like scientific theories and works of art something different from technical inventions) and practical economic ones (software patents stifle competition and innovation).
I suggest they stop patent protection of all European companies and make freely available all intellectual property of:
a) European pharmaceutical companies
b) European car companies
c) European software companies (SAP, etc.)
Here in Basle, where the headquarters of Novartis are, they certainly wouldn't be happy about that. It's a bit radical, but it might be a good move. As a response, US and Japanese patents in Europe would also be invalidated. There would be cheaper products more competition and fewer patent disputes. On the whole, the European economy would probably profit more, because it seems the largest patent portfolios are in the hands of US and Japanese companies.
But such radical steps aren't necessary, it would be enough if the US and Japan abolished patents for software and such general things as business models and both they and the EU prevented trivial patents in areas where patenting makes sense in principle.
For the long run it saves the IT world so people can still make money with the stuff they create.
As far as I know, no one can make money with software they create who couldn't do so without software patents.
Instead, with software patents, many people cannot make money with stuff they create (nor create and distribute free software) in cases where they can without software patents.
Of course, those few who can still make money in areas that are covered by patents can make even more money because there is no competition.
Monopolies are hardly what saves the IT business. Some giant IT corporations with large patent portfolios (e.g. IBM, Microsoft) can profit from software patents, but on the whole the IT business loses. Who profits most are patent lawyers - when IT companies have to spend money on patent disputes, which they could otherwise use for research and development.
I think it is an open question whether Windows is a valid trademark in English. Certainly, there were windowing operating systems before MS Windows, but they were not called Windows. The question is how far apart a windowing operating system is from windows themselves (in the computing sense) semantically. I personally think it is close and therefore Windows is not a valid trademark, but it is a difficult legal question.
It is, however, significant that the verdicts against Lindows were in non-English-speaking countries. At least in the countries I know, Windows is exclusively used as a trademark. I have not met the English word 'window' being used for windows in the generic computing sense. People always seem to use the translations ("Fenster", "okno",...). That is not the case with many computing terms, e.g. German-speaking programmers often use the word 'pointer', even though there is a translation ('Zeiger'), and for things like 'stack' translations are hardly used. Even in languages where 'file' is not usually used in its English form, it can be used, and it is perceived as generic. In contrast, 'window(s)' in its English form hardly has generic uses. So, if you take these non-English-speaking countries in Europe (I don't know about other parts of the world, probably there are some non-English-speaking countries where 'window' is used generically) alone, "window(s)" is not a generic term, and then the verdicts against Lindows are understandable.
But I still find it a bit strange that a company from a country where window(s) probably is a generic term can be banned in other countries from using a name that sounds similar.
Basically, it seems that such brand name issues are decided country by country - then, I find it understandable not to accept Lindows -, but I doubt whether such a narrow perspective is appropriate.
Ummm, have you tried Disposable Email Addresses? They can do most of what you're talking about, including many-many addresses and changing your replies back into the original address.
Maybe I have overlooked something in the grandparent post, but I think disposable e-mail addresses like the ones with Emailias can not only do most, but all of what is described there, and the number of aliases is not limited.
I have got used to the practice that giving people an e-mail address of mine or writing e-mails to people I don't know entails this little extra-step of creating an alias first. It's done in a few seconds, and I find it much better than always having to consider whether people, websites or organizations are trustworthy enough to receive my e-mail address. Even if it's legitimate mail, I like being able to see where people got an e-mail address of mine from, that would not be possible if I always used the same address instead of the aliases.
Slashdot Mirror
But anyways, never underestimate how much more comfortable the "switcher" will feel if (s)he keeps a win partition available.
I think that is very important. When I first installed Linux about five years ago, I never would have done so when I couldn't have kept Windows on a partition (the version of Linux I had at that time didn't support all of my hardware, anyway). First, I continued using mainly Windows, and the two times when I was most glad about having Linux on the computer were when Win98 crashed irrecoverably and couldn't read the hard disk any more - Linux still could, and I could save my data on the Windows partition. With the time, Linux shifted from a 'recovery tool' for Windows to the OS I used most, and for my new desktop computer, I exclusively use Linux, but I still have Windows on a notebook because sometimes I have to use software that isn't available for Linux.
I think many people are much more comfortable with switching gradually - with dual boot or more than one computer -, and there are many people are interested in using Linux, but can't do without Windows for some reason. Therefore, good support for installing Linux besides Windows (resizing Windows partitions etc.) is crucial, and I think some distributions (e.g. SuSE) are quite good at that.
In Germany - and probably also some other countries - consumers cannot waive their right to compensation for losses by agreeing to a EULA, whether the product in question is free or not. Therefore, some questioned whether the GPL is valid there, but the doubts mostly concern the exclusion of liability, hardly other parts of the GPL. In practice, it does seem to make a difference whether a program is sold or available for free - if it is free, the standards for what is considered negligence are lower, but if the damage comes from something that was done on purpose, the author can be held responsible for all the damage. What the verdict would be in a concrete case could depend on many factors, but probably an author of spyware could be held responsible even if it is given away for free and the EULA excludes liability.
Either that or like one poster suggested, we just need better tools for keeping track and managing the flow of updates... Strangely enough, MS's XP update does a really good job at this (despite their slow release process).
Indeed, I think MS's XP update is relatively good, in particular when it comes to get private users who do not really care about patches to install them.
Such easy installation of security patches is available for Linux, as well. For instance, SuSE's YOU (Yast Online Update) works about the same way, and I find it even easier to customize than XP update. By default, a red button in the taskbar shows that there are new security updates for installed software (which can be downloaded and installed with the root password and a few clicks), if it's green everything is up to date; YOU can also be set to install security patches automatically.
Never let principles stand in the way of accomplishing the mission. If the missions calls for Java, render unto Sun what is Sun's and carry on
Yes, of course, not everyone has to become a saint of the church of emacs by not using any proprietary software. But while it depends on the tasks whether it makes sense to follow Stallmann's principles completely, I think they should be taken seriously in any case. Often, it makes sense to compromise, but one should always be aware of the risks of proprietary software (lock-in, dependence on a company with its own interests that are different from the ones of the users of the software).
And how long has Java been around, compared to .NET? If you compare their respective growth rates, taking into account the inertia due to the pre-existing entrenched Java market, and the fact that it's Microsoft who's taking it on, I think you'll find that Java is a virtual dead duck.
.NET, which is newer, has a bigger growth rate. But it many cases, .NET probably replaces old VB or MFC applications. It's not representative, at all, but I know companies that move from Windows-only to Java implementations for their systems, which probably has to do with the success of Linux. The demand for platform-independent solutions is rather increasing than decreasing, and then Java is one of the options, and it is probably the one that is preferred by many in the corporate world. Yes, Java isn't taking over everything, but I think it's far from dying.
It's not surprising that
I think with things like Sharepoint, this is similar to the situation with hardware support - it's not that MS Office is inherently better suited for collaborative systems and content management, but because it is used more widely, there are more such systems developped for it (e.g. Openshare). But I think it is already beginning to change, a smaller company I know that offers content management and intranet system has switched from Windows to platform-independent Java. When OpenOffice.org and StarOffice are more widely used, there will probably be collaborative systems that interact with them - probably this is even easier to do than with MS Office because of the use of open standards and the availability of the source.
I suppose for the typical average average user the thousands of applications that are already on the installation DVD of distributions like SuSE are usually enough, and installing *them* is extremely easy - just select them in Yast, and Yast cares about all the dependencies. Windows doesn't offer that, and that's probably the most important thing for most average users.
Of course, I've also downloaded and installed Linux applications, but generally, my experience wasn't as bad as the things you describe, at all. In many cases, it is, indeed just one click (and often with Windows, it is more complicated than just one click, too). What I found really difficult with Linux was trying to install a DVD player with which I can watch encrypted DVDs - but that's not due to a problem on Linux's part, but because many who provide such programs are afraid of offering it in an integrated way for legal reasons.
Installing and uninstalling apps:
I think the main difference is that with Linux distributions like e.g. SuSE much of what you need, even applications most people don't need, are already on the installation DVD. I find installing and uninstalling applications with Yast much easier than looking for an application on the Internet, downloading and installing it - which is necessary with Windows. Yast (and corresponding programs of other distributions) also makes sure all dependencies are alright. If you still install an application that isn't on the distro DVD, there can be occasional problems with dependencies - just like with Windows DLLs etc..
Standard UI across apps:
Windows Media Player, MS Word and Outlook Express - to take three typical Windows applications - don't strike me as particularly consistent as to their UI. KDE apps follow common guidelines more or less consistently, as do GNOME apps, and on the whole the degree of UI consistency seems relatively similar on typical MS Windows and Linux systems.
Printing:
Printing as such is just as easy with CUPS as on Windows, I don't see a difference here. I find installing printers on my SuSE linux easier than on Windows. Windows usually needs a CD from the printer manufacturer, while Yast doesn't (as long as it recognizes the printer, which it mostly does in my experience).
It is crucial what people are used to. For instance, I find both KDE and Windows good and easy to use, but I find OS X quite difficult and strange, but that does hardly mean OS X is bad, I'm just not used to it as much as to KDE and Windows. Of course, with the time this difference matters less when you get accustomed to a new desktop system, but that takes some time. I doubt whether it would be possible that Linux desktop systems are so much better than MS Windows that people find it better right away.
Not everyone in the European Parliament got there mainly thanks to support by big companies. They don't need millions of euro's to campaign in half a continent. These people's supporters come from their own backyards, in a matter of speaking. Belgian MEPs care about the Belgian companies, not about Microsoft. 60% of ICT workers in Belgium work in an SME.
I think that is very important. Of course, there are some people who are directly linked to a corporation that is interested in software patents. For instance, Joachim Würmeling is from an area in Bavaria, which is an important location of Siemens, and he also represents their pro-patent position. In his case, conversations and manifestations are probably futile. But most members of the European parliament are either not linked to any corporate interests or they do act as lobbyists for businesses, but do not have to do with companies that want software patents (after all, most companies wouldn't profit from software patents).
That there was no referendum on EU membership in the UK is one thing, I think there should have been one.
But it is not true that there is no one you can talk to as far as the EU is concerned. Contact a MEP (member of the European parliament) from your area. By the way, the chance that there is someone you actually voted for in your area (if you took part in the elections) is much bigger than with your UK MP because the elections are proportional, they do not follow the (in my view outdated) model of "winner takes all" Britain still has for the national elections.
As far as software patents are concerned, Britain would probably have introduced them long ago if it wasn't in the EU. The role of British representatives in the EU often is to defend the interest of US corporation, last year in areas like safety standards, and also as far as software patents are concerned, people from the UK played an important role (e.g. Arlene McCarthy). The EU membership of the UK creates a certain counterweight to the big influence of the US - not everywhere in the EU is the US influence as big as in the UK.
The proper way to protest software patents, and the reckless issuing of patents in general is to start applying for them left and write.
The problem is that patent applications are quite expensive. Some nonsense patent applications have been files to protest the system (e.g. one by attac), but I don't think enough money is around for starting applying for them left and right. OK, if Microsoft decided they are against software patents they could certainly do so...
No, the protests can make a big difference. I don't trust the European Comission, but the European parliament does in fact care, it decided against software patents, and it is important that it doesn't give in. Before the decision in the European Parliament I thought the main danger was that many members would not really look at it. Only the green parties and the radical left were clearly against software patents, and that would be a relatively small minority. Manifestations, letters to members of the parliament, conversations with them probably played an important role - and the majority in the European Parliament then voted for amendments that prevent software patents. That was a big victory, and it is important to go on and not to give in.
Certainly, the rich and well-organised lobbies, such as BSA, are influential. But it would be wrong to think that all members of the parliament are bought by them. If nothing is done, they may follow these influential organisations, but if good arguments are presented, many of them can be convinced.
Democracy in the EU is far from perfect, but it is not doomed or inexistent, either.
If I was developing things, I would want to be sure that I had the rights to it, that some jerk couldn't just go about willy-nilly with it.
Yes, copyright gives you the right do decide what you develop. So, that's OK.
In contrast, software patents would give you rights to restrict what others can develop and - if you're not a big company, that's the more likely case -, it gives others rights to restrict what you can develop.
I have seen many examples of software patents that demonstrate why software patents are a bad and dangerous thing.
In some cases, the harm they do may be limited or even insignificant. But is there really a case that demonstrates that software patents are a good thing?
In the US and Japan, there are software patents - so, can you say this or that research could not have been financed without software patents? In the area of pharmaceuticals such arguments can be made, but even in the US and Japan software research and development doesn't work in a way that patents play an important role as a source of income - they mainly do as a reason for endless legal battles.
There are studies that show the detrimental effects of software patents, and there are many bad examples. But unfortunately, proponents of software patents only use allegations of a general kind, but I have never seen concrete facts, studies or cases from them.
Preventing the adoption of software patents in the EU is important. But it is also an important case to see how democratic the EU is and how big the influence of rich, well-organized lobbies are. The European Parliament already decided against software patents. If the lobbyists have their way, it would be a big loss for IT, but also for European democracy as a whole.
That one very big company (Microsoft) pays another big company (Sun) 1.6bil$, an amount that does not really matter for the very big company, should be an argument for patents protect the "little guy"?
A really little guy could hardly pay all what is needed for applying for patents. If we extend the notion of "little guy" further, he might in some rare cases succeed against a big company, but only if he does not produce anything (in the style of Eolas), as soon as the "little guy" produces anything, the big company uses its large patent portfolio.
the legislation is _merely_ codifying case law practice into statutory to law to reduce the level of confusion
There are still laws in European countries, according to which software is not patentable (on the EU level and in the member states, with some differences). It is true that lots of software patents have been accepted by the European patent office in Munich because the patent office often didn't follow the laws. Generally, these patents are not enforceable.
What do you suggest - when some people don't abide by the law, the laws should be changed to match their behaviour?
When you documents about the Vicom case, you see that they always used arguments about technical effects with things beyond the normal interaction in computers. Far from being an argument for software being patentable, everyone in that case seemed to agree that software is not patentable, but they looked for ways to circumvent that. The decision itself is questionable, and while the EPO granted the patent, it is doubtful whether it could be enforced. Certainly, there are many signs of moving away from the strict non-patentability of software, although the laws are still there. If the malpractice of the European Patent Office is taken as a reason for changing the laws, we should ask who makes the laws - officials who don't respect them or elected representatives.
If I invent a new compression algorithm that is patentable, sure I want to _have the choice_ to either (a) patent it and make money from the patent, (b) dedicate it to the public domain for all to use.
Yes, when you invent an algorithm "that is patentable"... But algorithms are excluded from patentability in Europe, so you cannot invent algorithms that are patentable here. Sure, you might like to have to have a monopoly for 20 years to profit from it, but the law doesn't allow it in this case. Therefore, others can use similar algorithms and perhaps improve the method without having to fear patent disputes with you.
Most sites just changed their homepage, but still had a link to the working site.
So, they force people to see the message - after all, if software patents are adopted and enforces, many of these projects would have to close altogether, not just for a day -, but it's still possible to access the website.
I say patenting software is OK, as long as the patent law only allows you to patent certain things in your software that will stay unique to it, so that it doesn't become a case of 'I can't use this function in my competing program because (x) patented it'
That's exactly what copyright does. No one would pay for software patent applications of they only guaranteed exclusive rights on that specific program, which copyright does, anyway, without the need of registering.
It might be worth considering if you suggested this in place of copyright for software. The advantage (in the sense of "less restrictions") would be that it would expire more quickly than copyright. But it would be more difficult for smaller companies - patent applications are relatively expensive. In particular, the GPL could hardly be used in that way.
But that's another discussion, anyway. The reason why some want to introduce software patents is exactly that they want restrictions and monopolies, which are - in contrast to the ones due to copyright - non-unique and non-specific.
Then - and I know this is taxing your head - imagine further still a bigger company with more resources goes, "oh! That's how they do it!" and then start doing it themselves in massive quantities for lower selling price. Smaller, inventing business goes OUT of business.
This situation is rather untypical, I suppose in most cases it would be the large company who has the patents and it would use patent threats to drive out of business a smaller company who has found more efficient ways of production and can therefore sell at a lower price.
But even if it is the big company that produces more efficiently and can therefore sell at a lower price - why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? I'm not absolutely convinced of all aspects of capitalism, but market economy certainly has its merits. What you seem to suggest is the introduction of patents in areas where they aren't applicable today to protect of inefficient companies - just a hint, smaller companies are not generally less efficient, as your post seems to suggest. (I'm not talking about dumping prices used specifically to drive competitors out of business, there are other measures against that, which have nothing to do with patent laws).
Secondly, these losers aren't against patenting the obvious, they're against patents per se.
Look at www.ffii.org. Neither are they only against patenting the obvious nor are they are they against patents per se, they are against software patents. While many are critical about the consequences of patents in other areas, few suggest abolishing all kinds of patents. There are many arguments against patents on software and business models, both theoretical ones (algorithms are, like scientific theories and works of art something different from technical inventions) and practical economic ones (software patents stifle competition and innovation).
I suggest they stop patent protection of all European companies and make freely available all intellectual property of: a) European pharmaceutical companies b) European car companies c) European software companies (SAP, etc.)
Here in Basle, where the headquarters of Novartis are, they certainly wouldn't be happy about that. It's a bit radical, but it might be a good move. As a response, US and Japanese patents in Europe would also be invalidated. There would be cheaper products more competition and fewer patent disputes. On the whole, the European economy would probably profit more, because it seems the largest patent portfolios are in the hands of US and Japanese companies.
But such radical steps aren't necessary, it would be enough if the US and Japan abolished patents for software and such general things as business models and both they and the EU prevented trivial patents in areas where patenting makes sense in principle.
For the long run it saves the IT world so people can still make money with the stuff they create.
As far as I know, no one can make money with software they create who couldn't do so without software patents.
Instead, with software patents, many people cannot make money with stuff they create (nor create and distribute free software) in cases where they can without software patents.
Of course, those few who can still make money in areas that are covered by patents can make even more money because there is no competition.
Monopolies are hardly what saves the IT business. Some giant IT corporations with large patent portfolios (e.g. IBM, Microsoft) can profit from software patents, but on the whole the IT business loses. Who profits most are patent lawyers - when IT companies have to spend money on patent disputes, which they could otherwise use for research and development.
I think it is an open question whether Windows is a valid trademark in English. Certainly, there were windowing operating systems before MS Windows, but they were not called Windows. The question is how far apart a windowing operating system is from windows themselves (in the computing sense) semantically. I personally think it is close and therefore Windows is not a valid trademark, but it is a difficult legal question.
...). That is not the case with many computing terms, e.g. German-speaking programmers often use the word 'pointer', even though there is a translation ('Zeiger'), and for things like 'stack' translations are hardly used. Even in languages where 'file' is not usually used in its English form, it can be used, and it is perceived as generic. In contrast, 'window(s)' in its English form hardly has generic uses. So, if you take these non-English-speaking countries in Europe (I don't know about other parts of the world, probably there are some non-English-speaking countries where 'window' is used generically) alone, "window(s)" is not a generic term, and then the verdicts against Lindows are understandable.
It is, however, significant that the verdicts against Lindows were in non-English-speaking countries. At least in the countries I know, Windows is exclusively used as a trademark. I have not met the English word 'window' being used for windows in the generic computing sense. People always seem to use the translations ("Fenster", "okno",
But I still find it a bit strange that a company from a country where window(s) probably is a generic term can be banned in other countries from using a name that sounds similar.
Basically, it seems that such brand name issues are decided country by country - then, I find it understandable not to accept Lindows -, but I doubt whether such a narrow perspective is appropriate.
Ummm, have you tried Disposable Email Addresses? They can do most of what you're talking about, including many-many addresses and changing your replies back into the original address.
Maybe I have overlooked something in the grandparent post, but I think disposable e-mail addresses like the ones with Emailias can not only do most, but all of what is described there, and the number of aliases is not limited.
I have got used to the practice that giving people an e-mail address of mine or writing e-mails to people I don't know entails this little extra-step of creating an alias first. It's done in a few seconds, and I find it much better than always having to consider whether people, websites or organizations are trustworthy enough to receive my e-mail address. Even if it's legitimate mail, I like being able to see where people got an e-mail address of mine from, that would not be possible if I always used the same address instead of the aliases.