Hear hear! I love the WPS! It's been so long since I used OS/2 that I'd forgotten about dragging colors and fonts from the palettes and such, until I went and checked out eComStation a few moments ago. I remembered that WPS rocked, but I'd forgottem some of the coolness. BTW, I liked the old settings notebooks better than the later tabbed dialogs. I especially liked notebooks with both horizonatal and vertical tabs (when appropriate). And my favorite UI feature missing in other systems: the Conditional Cascade Menu!
LOL! (OS/2 1.x was around when MS just had the awful Windows 2.0. OS/2 and Windows NT have common heritage; OS/2 2.x and Windows NT are roughly comparable (though NT had earlier/better SMP support).)
I loved OS/2 back in its day! I first grew to hate Microsoft as I watched them try to kill it with "Chicago" vaporware and FUD. I wonder how the 850M MS just paid IBM over it compares to the damage MS really did.
I vote against the that horse's butt every time I get the chance. Unfortunately, people most everywhere tend to vote on name recognition rather than the issues.
I consider Moron Hatch to be a major sellout to the media. (Speaking of sell-out, some people call him foreign Orin because he's always high on the list of people accepting contributions from foreign interests.) This guy used to be "for the artist." (He has a CD of his own. I doubt it's a big seller.) However, he's now squarely in the pocket of the recording industry. "Take from the public, give to the media giants (and pass some to me)" is clearly his attitude.
As to the comments about the LDS church loving him... the church doesn't vote. Nor does the church endorse candidates or parties (though they do make statements on particular *issues* from time to time). I can assure you that I want Mr. Hatch out, as do a significant number of my friends, familiy, and coworkers. Yet, the shmuck keeps getting reelected by ignorant masses who don't pay attention to what he's actually doing in Washington.
When he does come up for reelection again, I intend to take a more active role against his campaign.
(Incidently, when he was running originally ages ago, I'm told he said the previous guy had been in there too long, had lost touch with Utah, etc. He's now been in much longer than his predecessor. What a two-faced slimeball!) (Silly me... is there a politician that isn't a two-faced slimeball?! But Hatch seems to be among the worst.)
The part about the patents in the memo (item 4) could not refer to the issued patents ESR suspects them to be.
The memo talks of provisional patents and converting them to full applications. Provisional patent applications "die" in one year from filing date, so these are applications filed no earlier than Oct 2002 and converted to real applications no earlier than Oct 2003 (because they aren't done as of the date on the memo). Average pendency for software patents is 2-3 years. The patents thus will most likely not be issued until 2006 (if ever). The applications are generally published 18 months after filing, though. (They must be published unless they intend to file them only in the USA.) So, one might expect to see the applications published in Apr/May 2005.
Any IPX patents SCO could own would be subject to prior art from Novell. This means that SCO might be able to patent a new development that relates to IPX but not existing IPX stuff. Too, SCO could not practice their new IPX related invention without permission from Novell (assuming Novell owns patents on IPX in general, which is very likely).
However, it may be that Novell is already practicing the "invention" that SCO intends to patent, in which case, they could try to stop Novell or get money from them. How SCO could have "invented" something that Novell is the one practicing is a mystery, but such mysteries don't seem to be a problem for the patent office.
They are acknowledging the prior art. Indeed, the second page of their application shows the Gnome virtual desktop pager and another that may be KDE. They are aware of the prior art and think they've invented something beyond it.
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
...
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
However, it has this available geographic restriction.
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
It seems to me that a reasonable relaxation in the GPL would be to permit GPL code to link with non-GPL code that qualifies as "free," including old-style BSD (and new XFree86) as well as new Apache. It will be interesting to see if Version 3 changes anything here. (It's a delicate balance between encouraging all software to be free as free as GPL software and encouraging use of existing quality free/open software.)
Of course, a future version of the GPL may or may not apply to your favorite software. Quite a bit of GPL software omits the "or any later version" provision. This includes the Linux kernel itself, if I remember right. Of course, once people see the new version, they may be willing to add "or Version 3" (provided that all relevant copyright holders can be tracked down).
It's not true of general purpose computers, but it is true of a digital audio recording and playing program incorporated therein.
A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals,
whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use
I'll have to review Diamond v. RIAA to see how this was interpreted by the court.
I did in fact read them. The most relevant term is 'digital audio recording device' (which I specifically mention in my post).
A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use
which in turn refers to "digital audio copied recording"
A "digital audio copied recording" is a reproduction in a digital recording format of a digital musical recording, whether that reproduction is made directly from another digital musical recording or indirectly from a transmission.
I see nothing particularly interesting or restrictive about these definitions.
Now, there are certainly restrictions on manufacture and distribution of digital audio recording devices...
1002. Incorporation of copying controls
(a) Prohibition on Importation, Manufacture, and Distribution. -- No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any digital audio recording device or digital audio interface device that does not conform to --
(1) the Serial Copy Management System;
(2) a system that has the same functional characteristics as the Serial Copy Management System and requires that copyright and generation status information be accurately sent, received, and acted upon between devices using the system's method of serial copying regulation and devices using the Serial Copy Management System; or
(3) any other system certified by the Secretary of Commerce as prohibiting unauthorized serial copying.
But it is the responsibility of the importer/manufacturer/distributor, not the end user. There is no restriction in section 1008 that the actual digital audio recording device used comply with section 1002.
I like your price scale; though I'd agree to pay.99 even for good lossy. As to paying 8-9 for a CD and getting more tracks, that's true with some of the music I like (and I thus buy the CDs) but certainly not for "one hit wonders"; it is for these that pay-per-track is attractive. If my local music store could burn me a CD with my selections (no DRM of course), I'd happily pay a buck a song.
Those same recording media fees are charged here in the USA, too (on blank cassettes and "Music" CD-Rs). This was made law at the same time as suits against consumers for making copies were prohibited!
I keep wondering how they are suing noncommerical infringers considering that the law says they can't sue them.
Title 17, Chapter 10 "1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
I guess it must be that this section protects the act of making the recording but not distributing it. Thus, it would be legal to use the "digital audio recording device" embodied in your computer and favorite digital music software to make a copy of music available via P2P but not to let others get your music files.
The recent Verizon decision says ISPs have no responsibility under the DMCA safe harbor to monitor or control access related to P2P activity, anyway.
Thus, your ISP should have told microsoft to pound sand rather than suspending your account. Even if you had been distributing the MS source rather than Linux.
See the court's deicion (the relevant text begins on bottom half of page 7 and especially on page 10.
Actually, Novell's license agreements with UNIX licensees probably would prevent Novell from releasing the source to the public domain or even the GPL or BSD-type licenses. I haven't reviewed the agreements in detail and I'm no lawyer, but to give away what your clients paid good money for seems to damage the clients.
Still, the licenses are non-exclusive; so perhaps Novell or its other successors in interest would be free to re-price the source code all the way down to free without the previous licensees having any say.
The most likely reason for citing just one prior art reference is so that the others can be held in reserve for subsequent court battles.
I'm not a lawyer blah blah blah, but I'm pretty sure that the courts will give great deferrence to the patent office's determination once they've evaluated the prior art reference. Thus, that reference would be somewhat tainted by having the PTO make a decision on it.
(For absolutely no valid reason, the courts presume that the PTO does its job. A patent holder only needs the usual preponderance of the evidence to show infringement, but the accused infringer needs clear and convincing evidence to invalidate a patent claim. This imbalance is based on the presumption that patents are valid, which is in turn based on the presumption that the USPTO can or does actually make a thorough examination, which it does not (and can not with the resources available per patent).
If there really were a promise that this would not be done, the legal doctrine of estoppel should kick in to prevent them from doing it. (Of course, IANL and all that (but I am an occasional speeder:)
That's exactly why it could be trademarked. A trademark must not be "merely descriptive" of a product or service. For example, Apple is a fine trademark for a computer.
However, I've never heard of Computer Associates' Sniffer brand, but I've long seen the term packet-sniffer used to describe network monitor programs generically. I do indeed consider it a "computer-term" and a generic one at that. Apparently the USPTO doesn't, which is not in the least bit surprising to me.
IBM will trot out a few thousand patents that you infringe upon, game over.
Actually, SCO's lack of sales works to their favor in a counter-infringement situation.
Let's say IBM infringes one SCO patent that affects $100 Billion of IBM sales. SCO might be awarded 1% ($1 Billion). Now suppose SCO infringes 100 of IBM's patents, affecting SCO's entire say $100 Million of sales. Even if IBM took all $100 Million from SCO, SCO still wins by $900 Million.
The only ones that are able to pay big damages are the ones making big money.
(I'm referring to *actual* damages, though. In some cases, there are also *punitive* damages. If infringement can be shown to be "willfull," the infringer may be subject to treble damages.)
I think you are refering to IBM's Developer Connection, which was a bit like MSDN. This was fee-based but may have been free if you met certain criteria. It seems like they also had a developer partner program, though I can't remember for sure. However, there were certainly compilers and development kits just anyone could buy and use (no application to fill out, just buy the box). Exmamples: IBM's own excellent C-Set/2 (C/C++ compiler) (later Visual Age C++); Watcom's excellent C/C++ compiler; Borland's C++ for OS/2; Two (yes two!) distributions of gcc (gcc2 and emx). There were also two "Turboish" Pascal compilers and three "Visual" Rexx packages (somewhat Visual Basic like but using the Rexx language). Still, I do agree that IBM could have been more friendly to developers, and IBM certainly did enough things wrong with the marketing.
The real question with a law like this is with enforcement. Both of these laws require residents to sue the spammers. This would be fine if one knew whom to sue. But how many illegal spammers (those ignoring the do-not-spam list) would put actual identification information in the emails or use legitimate accounts that would allow for tracing? Sure, the "nice" spammers might voluntarily honor the do-not-spam list. Haha. (At least with telephone spam, the cost per call is significant, discouraging calling those that don't want to be bothered.)
Slashdot Mirror
Hear hear! I love the WPS!
It's been so long since I used OS/2 that I'd forgotten about dragging colors and fonts from the palettes and such, until I went and checked out eComStation a few moments ago. I remembered that WPS rocked, but I'd forgottem some of the coolness.
BTW, I liked the old settings notebooks better than the later tabbed dialogs. I especially liked notebooks with both horizonatal and vertical tabs (when appropriate).
And my favorite UI feature missing in other systems: the Conditional Cascade Menu!
If you sell it, you must support it.
Supporting an operating system can be very expensive. Consider all the device drivers and such.
LOL!
(OS/2 1.x was around when MS just had the awful Windows 2.0. OS/2 and Windows NT have common heritage; OS/2 2.x and Windows NT are roughly comparable (though NT had earlier/better SMP support).)
Don't the ATMs still run OS/2 1.x? Or have they been upgraded ages ago?
I loved OS/2 back in its day! I first grew to hate Microsoft as I watched them try to kill it with "Chicago" vaporware and FUD.
I wonder how the 850M MS just paid IBM over it compares to the damage MS really did.
I consider Moron Hatch to be a major sellout to the media. (Speaking of sell-out, some people call him foreign Orin because he's always high on the list of people accepting contributions from foreign interests.) This guy used to be "for the artist." (He has a CD of his own. I doubt it's a big seller.) However, he's now squarely in the pocket of the recording industry. "Take from the public, give to the media giants (and pass some to me)" is clearly his attitude.
As to the comments about the LDS church loving him... the church doesn't vote. Nor does the church endorse candidates or parties (though they do make statements on particular *issues* from time to time). I can assure you that I want Mr. Hatch out, as do a significant number of my friends, familiy, and coworkers. Yet, the shmuck keeps getting reelected by ignorant masses who don't pay attention to what he's actually doing in Washington. When he does come up for reelection again, I intend to take a more active role against his campaign. (Incidently, when he was running originally ages ago, I'm told he said the previous guy had been in there too long, had lost touch with Utah, etc. He's now been in much longer than his predecessor. What a two-faced slimeball!) (Silly me... is there a politician that isn't a two-faced slimeball?! But Hatch seems to be among the worst.)
The memo talks of provisional patents and converting them to full applications. Provisional patent applications "die" in one year from filing date, so these are applications filed no earlier than Oct 2002 and converted to real applications no earlier than Oct 2003 (because they aren't done as of the date on the memo). Average pendency for software patents is 2-3 years. The patents thus will most likely not be issued until 2006 (if ever). The applications are generally published 18 months after filing, though. (They must be published unless they intend to file them only in the USA.) So, one might expect to see the applications published in Apr/May 2005.
Any IPX patents SCO could own would be subject to prior art from Novell. This means that SCO might be able to patent a new development that relates to IPX but not existing IPX stuff. Too, SCO could not practice their new IPX related invention without permission from Novell (assuming Novell owns patents on IPX in general, which is very likely).
However, it may be that Novell is already practicing the "invention" that SCO intends to patent, in which case, they could try to stop Novell or get money from them. How SCO could have "invented" something that Novell is the one practicing is a mystery, but such mysteries don't seem to be a problem for the patent office.
Well, many of them have enjoyed articles and work by P. J. Plauger over the years. Does that make them Plaugerists?
They are acknowledging the prior art. Indeed, the second page of their application shows the Gnome virtual desktop pager and another that may be KDE. They are aware of the prior art and think they've invented something beyond it.
It seems to me that a reasonable relaxation in the GPL would be to permit GPL code to link with non-GPL code that qualifies as "free," including old-style BSD (and new XFree86) as well as new Apache. It will be interesting to see if Version 3 changes anything here. (It's a delicate balance between encouraging all software to be free as free as GPL software and encouraging use of existing quality free/open software.)
Of course, a future version of the GPL may or may not apply to your favorite software. Quite a bit of GPL software omits the "or any later version" provision. This includes the Linux kernel itself, if I remember right.
Of course, once people see the new version, they may be willing to add "or Version 3" (provided that all relevant copyright holders can be tracked down).
And people wonder why slashdot posters never read the article before posting. We try; we want to; but we kill the poor article host.
(I'm no lawyer, but I play one on slashdot.)
Now, there are certainly restrictions on manufacture and distribution of digital audio recording devices...
But it is the responsibility of the importer/manufacturer/distributor, not the end user. There is no restriction in section 1008 that the actual digital audio recording device used comply with section 1002.Is there something I've missed?
(I'm no lawyer, but I play one on slashdot.)
I like your price scale; though I'd agree to pay .99 even for good lossy.
As to paying 8-9 for a CD and getting more tracks, that's true with some of the music I like (and I thus buy the CDs) but certainly not for "one hit wonders"; it is for these that pay-per-track is attractive.
If my local music store could burn me a CD with my selections (no DRM of course), I'd happily pay a buck a song.
Those same recording media fees are charged here in the USA, too (on blank cassettes and "Music" CD-Rs). This was made law at the same time as suits against consumers for making copies were prohibited!
I keep wondering how they are suing noncommerical infringers considering that the law says they can't sue them.
Title 17, Chapter 10 "1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
I guess it must be that this section protects the act of making the recording but not distributing it. Thus, it would be legal to use the "digital audio recording device" embodied in your computer and favorite digital music software to make a copy of music available via P2P but not to let others get your music files.
(I'm no lawyer, but I play one on slashdot.)
The recent Verizon decision says ISPs have no responsibility under the DMCA safe harbor to monitor or control access related to P2P activity, anyway.
Thus, your ISP should have told microsoft to pound sand rather than suspending your account. Even if you had been distributing the MS source rather than Linux.
See the court's deicion (the relevant text begins on bottom half of page 7 and especially on page 10.
Actually, Novell's license agreements with UNIX licensees probably would prevent Novell from releasing the source to the public domain or even the GPL or BSD-type licenses. I haven't reviewed the agreements in detail and I'm no lawyer, but to give away what your clients paid good money for seems to damage the clients. Still, the licenses are non-exclusive; so perhaps Novell or its other successors in interest would be free to re-price the source code all the way down to free without the previous licensees having any say.
The most likely reason for citing just one prior art reference is so that the others can be held in reserve for subsequent court battles.
I'm not a lawyer blah blah blah, but I'm pretty sure that the courts will give great deferrence to the patent office's determination once they've evaluated the prior art reference. Thus, that reference would be somewhat tainted by having the PTO make a decision on it.
(For absolutely no valid reason, the courts presume that the PTO does its job. A patent holder only needs the usual preponderance of the evidence to show infringement, but the accused infringer needs clear and convincing evidence to invalidate a patent claim. This imbalance is based on the presumption that patents are valid, which is in turn based on the presumption that the USPTO can or does actually make a thorough examination, which it does not (and can not with the resources available per patent).
If there really were a promise that this would not be done, the legal doctrine of estoppel should kick in to prevent them from doing it. (Of course, IANL and all that (but I am an occasional speeder:)
"it is not even a computer-term!"
That's exactly why it could be trademarked. A trademark must not be "merely descriptive" of a product or service. For example, Apple is a fine trademark for a computer.
However, I've never heard of Computer Associates' Sniffer brand, but I've long seen the term packet-sniffer used to describe network monitor programs generically. I do indeed consider it a "computer-term" and a generic one at that. Apparently the USPTO doesn't, which is not in the least bit surprising to me.
IBM will trot out a few thousand patents that you infringe upon, game over.
Actually, SCO's lack of sales works to their favor in a counter-infringement situation.
Let's say IBM infringes one SCO patent that affects $100 Billion of IBM sales. SCO might be awarded 1% ($1 Billion). Now suppose SCO infringes 100 of IBM's patents, affecting SCO's entire say $100 Million of sales. Even if IBM took all $100 Million from SCO, SCO still wins by $900 Million.
The only ones that are able to pay big damages are the ones making big money.
(I'm referring to *actual* damages, though. In some cases, there are also *punitive* damages. If infringement can be shown to be "willfull," the infringer may be subject to treble damages.)
I think you are refering to IBM's Developer Connection, which was a bit like MSDN. This was fee-based but may have been free if you met certain criteria. It seems like they also had a developer partner program, though I can't remember for sure.
However, there were certainly compilers and development kits just anyone could buy and use (no application to fill out, just buy the box).
Exmamples: IBM's own excellent C-Set/2 (C/C++ compiler) (later Visual Age C++); Watcom's excellent C/C++ compiler; Borland's C++ for OS/2; Two (yes two!) distributions of gcc (gcc2 and emx). There were also two "Turboish" Pascal compilers and three "Visual" Rexx packages (somewhat Visual Basic like but using the Rexx language).
Still, I do agree that IBM could have been more friendly to developers, and IBM certainly did enough things wrong with the marketing.
The real question with a law like this is with enforcement. Both of these laws require residents to sue the spammers. This would be fine if one knew whom to sue. But how many illegal spammers (those ignoring the do-not-spam list) would put actual identification information in the emails or use legitimate accounts that would allow for tracing?
Sure, the "nice" spammers might voluntarily honor the do-not-spam list. Haha.
(At least with telephone spam, the cost per call is significant, discouraging calling those that don't want to be bothered.)