While this sort of legislation really makes high impact there are only few persons who care about this field and follow the legislation. Your chance to get involved, become a freeourdocuments nerd and make a difference! All you need is a wiki and collect all the stuff.
If you are interested in the matter UK based statewatch is a good information source to understand what is going on.
Interesting for me is that Microsoft creates an alliance of competitors by virtually going against the rest of the market. Every succesful business model gets less successful Microsoft competition. I wonder why they don't compete with Amazon and eBay.
Microsoft seems to be very desperate. So Second Life is the next member of the anti-Microsoft alliance camp. All these companies are bent to kill Microsoft. They are like super-activitists and not driven by rational business choice, they really do want to kill Microsoft and that is going to happen.
What surprises me is that A. Gembe went to the US. After all it is constitutionally impossible to get deported to third nations for a crime. So why didn't he stay at home? I would not suspect to get a fair trial in the States because the criminal enforcement system is broken.
Ximian had a toolkit nazi culture. And that is what happened when they put their fingers on Suse Linux. So as a matter of principle I understand people who refuse to use unethical software.
I just quote the Ubuntu Launchpad: "Sorry, but the answer to this one is "no". Intrepid will ship with 1.9.1 Mono has a little bit of a reputation when it comes to slightly... unready... releases. We apply a HUGE number of patches to our Mono packages to make them usable. Our main focus with Ubuntu is to have the best user experience possible, and since Mono is used mainly as a framework for desktop apps (F-Spot and Tomboy are installed by default), we think it's more important to ship a stable, reliable platform for those apps than to update to a new Mono release without having time to test it."
True, but Google does not do everything. Microsoft has cash, so they buy markets which generate no profit. XBox made massive losses but still did not win. Internet Exporer, massive investments no profit, no dependency anymore.
Microsoft tries to attack all established markets and while it is true that me-too is beneficial for consumers, they build alliances of commercial opponents by entering new markets.
Microsoft has a problem, they make too many enemies. It is like Hitler's war against the Soviets. Think of any product of Microsoft which does not make new enemies. Silverlight? A flash me-too. Google? Microsoft has live search. The Xbox is against everyone else in the market.
Microsoft's business is going to implode because they make too many enemies. They push too aggressive and try to invade too many islands which bind resources. Their ideological rejection of open source and standards made them lose the internet.
Microsoft does unfortunately not inspire the developers anymore. In lobbying Microsoft is as evil as it can be, Microsoft thinks they can outspent any government and of course try. Financially Microsoft can but they cannot beat a community.
Come on. The United States is still the largest democracy.
But the point is that net neutrality is indeed an American issue. It was not the first time that an issue was raised and turned down by the lobby but net neutrality is very proactive. It is like an open source preference and Microsoft starts to lobby against it and then you complain that you don't get it. It gets stronger as the lobby fights against it.
Net neutrality is the dominant pratice worldwide. Do we need to codify it?...no But could be fun to keep the Telco lobby busy.
technological neutrality is key to the promotion of interoperability and essential to a more flexible and transparent digital switchover policy for the consideration of the public interest,
Europeans don't have a real net neutrality debate but it sounds good, so politicians adopt it.
Exactly. The risk associated with defensive patents is proliferation. Your competitor gets bankrupt, they have some assets as patents. A troll buys them. Problem. (*)
Most patents are passive, they don't get licensed at all and deterr competitors or force them into cross-licensing. Cross-licensing compares to the group of nuclear powers. You have mutual assured destruction, so no one, under the premise of beeing rational can enforce it. With atom bombs you get the nuke peace. With cross-licensing you get the patent peace.
But don't make the equation without the terrorist or the patent troll.
That is funny, sure economists don't have to agree with each other.
But honestly take the literature about patent law from the left to the right and you will find no advocacy for the patent system despite some patent economics modeling which assumes that the system works without examination of that matter.
If you view the patent system as an incentive system, an intervention in the market, a kind of Game for market players you have to provide economic evidence that the market with a patent system is "better" than without. You won't find such a normative theory. There is an old study of Machlup but it still represents the state of the art, despite that they didn't have soft and business methods patents back then.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like they talk about other negative news which don't mean a thing to overshadow the real bad news.
In the EU the problem is the same. It is a mess to link EU documents, so the best thing you can do is to mirror them.
The European access to documents directive is undergoing a recast procedure. Further an Italian MEP just released a draft report for the annual report on document access. All members of the LIBE Committee can make a difference.
While this sort of legislation really makes high impact there are only few persons who care about this field and follow the legislation. Your chance to get involved, become a freeourdocuments nerd and make a difference! All you need is a wiki and collect all the stuff.
If you are interested in the matter UK based statewatch is a good information source to understand what is going on.
Interesting for me is that Microsoft creates an alliance of competitors by virtually going against the rest of the market. Every succesful business model gets less successful Microsoft competition. I wonder why they don't compete with Amazon and eBay.
Microsoft seems to be very desperate. So Second Life is the next member of the anti-Microsoft alliance camp. All these companies are bent to kill Microsoft. They are like super-activitists and not driven by rational business choice, they really do want to kill Microsoft and that is going to happen.
Sorry, so it is possible at all that a German citizens gets extradicted to the US? I am shocked!
Sorry, here.
Here is the constitution (offical translation)
What surprises me is that A. Gembe went to the US. After all it is constitutionally impossible to get deported to third nations for a crime. So why didn't he stay at home? I would not suspect to get a fair trial in the States because the criminal enforcement system is broken.
Ximian had a toolkit nazi culture. And that is what happened when they put their fingers on Suse Linux. So as a matter of principle I understand people who refuse to use unethical software.
I just quote the Ubuntu Launchpad:
"Sorry, but the answer to this one is "no". Intrepid will ship with 1.9.1 Mono has a little bit of a reputation when it comes to slightly... unready... releases. We apply a HUGE number of patches to our Mono packages to make them usable. Our main focus with Ubuntu is to have the best user experience possible, and since Mono is used mainly as a framework for desktop apps (F-Spot and Tomboy are installed by default), we think it's more important to ship a stable, reliable platform for those apps than to update to a new Mono release without having time to test it."
No idea. It is just what they do, what ever the reason.
True, but Google does not do everything. Microsoft has cash, so they buy markets which generate no profit. XBox made massive losses but still did not win. Internet Exporer, massive investments no profit, no dependency anymore.
Microsoft tries to attack all established markets and while it is true that me-too is beneficial for consumers, they build alliances of commercial opponents by entering new markets.
So let's make that happen?
OpenOffice3 is really cool. I use RC3.
Critical mass of the internet tools.
Autocad is really no everyday use for normal desktop users. Exchange is a server application. Quickbooks is not even the market leader.
So what is missing is a mature video editor and the Adobe suite.
All these problems can be solved with money.
Yes, so it is time that governments insist on the conditions offered and codify "open standards". Read this letter to the EU from 2004.
But patent offices do not research that by default. And patenting has little in common with writing a research paper.
And Rex Jaeschke works for Microsoft, right?
Microsoft has a problem, they make too many enemies. It is like Hitler's war against the Soviets. Think of any product of Microsoft which does not make new enemies. Silverlight? A flash me-too. Google? Microsoft has live search. The Xbox is against everyone else in the market.
Microsoft's business is going to implode because they make too many enemies. They push too aggressive and try to invade too many islands which bind resources. Their ideological rejection of open source and standards made them lose the internet.
Microsoft does unfortunately not inspire the developers anymore. In lobbying Microsoft is as evil as it can be, Microsoft thinks they can outspent any government and of course try. Financially Microsoft can but they cannot beat a community.
Yes, and IBM decided to leave SC34 in protest, so no wonder just microsoft was represented. Anyway SC34 is stacked.
As of Microsoft it would be wise to support ODF and ignore all the FUD.
Not controlled by a company? Exactly, and that is going to happen. No single company will control ODF.
another important issue is: De facto prior art means "prior patent"...
What is right is that European Parliament members are making fuzz that an anti Lisbon treaty campaign was financed by the US...
But the Lisbon treaty is just horrible...
Come on. The United States is still the largest democracy.
But the point is that net neutrality is indeed an American issue. It was not the first time that an issue was raised and turned down by the lobby but net neutrality is very proactive. It is like an open source preference and Microsoft starts to lobby against it and then you complain that you don't get it. It gets stronger as the lobby fights against it.
Net neutrality is the dominant pratice worldwide. Do we need to codify it? ...no But could be fun to keep the Telco lobby busy.
The Europeans explicitly endorsed the net neutrality this month in the forward looking Toia report.
Europeans don't have a real net neutrality debate but it sounds good, so politicians adopt it.
Exactly. The risk associated with defensive patents is proliferation. Your competitor gets bankrupt, they have some assets as patents. A troll buys them. Problem. (*)
Most patents are passive, they don't get licensed at all and deterr competitors or force them into cross-licensing. Cross-licensing compares to the group of nuclear powers. You have mutual assured destruction, so no one, under the premise of beeing rational can enforce it. With atom bombs you get the nuke peace. With cross-licensing you get the patent peace.
But don't make the equation without the terrorist or the patent troll.
(*) also consider a SCO scenario.
That is funny, sure economists don't have to agree with each other.
But honestly take the literature about patent law from the left to the right and you will find no advocacy for the patent system despite some patent economics modeling which assumes that the system works without examination of that matter.
If you view the patent system as an incentive system, an intervention in the market, a kind of Game for market players you have to provide economic evidence that the market with a patent system is "better" than without. You won't find such a normative theory. There is an old study of Machlup but it still represents the state of the art, despite that they didn't have soft and business methods patents back then.
These bad patents are not mistakes but sure there is middle ground for patent reform. If certain markets are used to patenting, fine.