"""Alan Cox: The same has happened with IP version 6. You notice that everyone is saying IP version 6 is this, is that, and there's all this research software up there. No one at Cisco is releasing big IPv6 routers. Not because there's no market demand, but because they want 20 years to have elapsed from the publication of the standard before the product comes out -- because they know that there will be hundreds of people who've had guesses at where the standard would go and filed patents around it. And it's easier to let things lapse for 20 years than fight the system."""
(More info would be good - any other prominent techs saying this?)
In a speech around 2004, I remember Alan Cox said that the reason IPv6 wasn't advancing was that big software players were afraid to adopt it before it turns 20 in case there are submarine patents / patent ambush.
Anyone got links to confirm / disprove this theory?
Oracle's patent moves probably didn't help, but Apple's normally not a company to be afraid of software patents - they have a big enough portfolio of their own.
(Phone patents are another beast - they're held by companies that Apple often doesn't have as long a history of dealing with and they don't yet have patent non-aggression pacts)
In Germany, wallet thieves often take the valuables and throw the wallet (with ID card and whatever else) in the nearest post box and it gets returned to its owner.
Nonsense. He stood firm on many important topics, and then compromised on a single topic because he thought it was for the greater good. If you're going to criticise him for that record, then you won't be happy with anyone.
I don't know if he was right to give in on Obamacare, but I can't think of any other US politician I'd trust as much.
Problem is, reviewing wrongly-granted patents takes years - 5
years for the 1-click patent and it wasn't even invalidated, just narrowed.
In other fields, this isn't a huge problem. In pharma, or the automobile industry, a threat is met with a legal team and a counter-suit. For software, when it's small businesses or even individuals that get threatened, they don't have the time and resources to play the game. It's the old joke about the manager phoning his lawyer "Some company wants me to pay them $5K for a liccnece, do I have to pay that?" "Give me $40k and I'll review it". (That number is the cost estimate that Dan Ravicher gave for giving a client a certificate of non-infringement.)
This patent mightn't change much, but it's the weight of the hundreds of patents that's spoiling the AV field.
Microsoft is a member of MPEG-LA, but they pay more royalties than they make from the organisation, so they're probably eager to make their own AV thicket.
It depends. In the EU, ISPs are protected by "mere conduit" status which says they're not responsible for everything that flows through their wires. I have a vague recollection that there is similar in the USA's DMCA. So ISPs aren't engaged in any infringing activity, so this part of ACTA doesn't apply to them.
First line of page 8. The general worry would be that patent holders would gain the power to, by sending a letter, turn ISPs or other parts of the distribution chain from innocent bystanders into entities that are "knowingly" taking part in the infringement. But, this text doesn't look too worrying - anyone agree/disagree?
Each Party shall provide that in civil judicial proceedings, its judicial authorities
shall have the authority to order the infringer who knowingly or with reasonable
grounds to know, engaged in infringing activity of intellectual property rights, to pay
the right holder damages adequate to compensate for the injury the right holder has
suffered as a result of the infringement.
Also good news is that the whole part ("Section 2") might explicitly exclude patents altogether, if the USA's footnote is approved: (end of page 6)
{US: For the purpose of this Agreement, Parties agree that patents do not fall within the scope of this Section.}
For software patents, the key thing to check is if ISPs will have liability for not removing stuff that a patent holder claims violates his patents. If that's still there, then we'll get DMCA take-down notices for software patents. More on the problem here:
Ok, agreed....on that subject, does it ever happen that a country other than the USA (Kyoto protocol) negotiates and signs a treaty and then national elected body refuses to ratify it?
> when I read "drop out" it suggests that they've pulled out completely
Same here. Other example: when a runner drops out of a race. They don't stand around thinking and then suddenly start sprinting to catch up because they've decided the race is actually pretty cool:-)
> Smaller countries know when they are being taken to the cleaners.
Yeh, but the only institutions that complain are ones with no power.
The European Parliament, the European Privacy Commission, and the Mexican Senate aren't in charge of the ACTA negotiations for their countries. They can stomp off and their citizens can feel proud that the elected officials are looking after their interests, but ACTA goes ahead. Funny, huh?
I didn't understand how society let TRIPS go ahead in 1994. I guessed it was snuck in while citizens weren't looking at the global level, and it would thus never happen again. Now my generation is letting it happen, and we're watching it unfold, and it's unfolding...
I've seen people claiming that ACTA will require countries to allow software patenting, but that's not correct at all. On the contrary, the latest leaked draft (25 August) explicitly says that there will be no substantive requirements on scope:
ARTICLE 1.3: RELATION TO STANDARDS CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY AND SCOPE
OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
1. This Agreement shall be without prejudice to provisions governing the
availability, acquisition, scope, and maintenance of intellectual
property rights contained in a Party's law.
2. This Agreement does not create any obligation on a Party to apply
measures where a right in intellectual property is not protected under
the laws and regulations of that Party.
Phone patent litigation has become a core revenue stream for the big patent holders, and complaining to he ITC has become standard - it's free (or cheap) and the government does all the work. The media also does loads of free work by writing articles about how X's product imports might be blocked, even though that's never happened...
The OpenOffice.org code-base that LibreOffice is derived from is licensed under the LGPLv3 - which gives us all a strong explicit patent license, and a good copyright license, so no. Clearly for new code we would want a plus ["or any later version"] license, so we are considering recommending a LGPLv3+ / MPL combination for entirely new code.
Depends. The patent holder can lose either by the judge invalidating the patent, or by the judge saying that the accused's usage doesn't violate the patent. The latter obviously leaves the patent intact.
If the judge invalidates the patent, the patent holder can still go back to the USPTO and ask to change the wording and for a new patent with a different/narrower scope to be granted. (I'm not 100% sure, but I think this is a Reissued patent.)
For example (although it's not the same situation), the Bilski patent owners, having had their patent rejected by the USPTO, the BPAI, the CAFC, and the Supreme Court, are still persuing their patent! These things don't die:-/
I bet a lot of patent trolls don't have much money in the bank.
Acacia does a lot of troll suits under other names: IP Innovations, Acacia Technologies, or Acacia Media Technologies, among others.
I wonder if this is a way to protect Acacia from having the pay the losses. Maybe when they lose, they just tear up the piece of paper on which that legal entity existed....and make two more.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's an interview where he says it:
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t576610-alan-cox-on-software-patents.html
"""Alan Cox: The same has happened with IP version 6. You notice that everyone
is saying IP version 6 is this, is that, and there's all this research
software up there. No one at Cisco is releasing big IPv6 routers.
Not because there's no market demand, but because they want 20
years to have elapsed from the publication of the standard before
the product comes out -- because they know that there will be
hundreds of people who've had guesses at where the standard
would go and filed patents around it. And it's easier to let things
lapse for 20 years than fight the system."""
(More info would be good - any other prominent techs saying this?)
In a speech around 2004, I remember Alan Cox said that the reason IPv6 wasn't advancing was that big software players were afraid to adopt it before it turns 20 in case there are submarine patents / patent ambush.
Anyone got links to confirm / disprove this theory?
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_ambush
Oracle's patent moves probably didn't help, but Apple's normally not a company to be afraid of software patents - they have a big enough portfolio of their own.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents
(Phone patents are another beast - they're held by companies that Apple often doesn't have as long a history of dealing with and they don't yet have patent non-aggression pacts)
In Germany, wallet thieves often take the valuables and throw the wallet (with ID card and whatever else) in the nearest post box and it gets returned to its owner.
Saves the victim a load of hassle at least.
Nonsense. He stood firm on many important topics, and then compromised on a single topic because he thought it was for the greater good. If you're going to criticise him for that record, then you won't be happy with anyone.
I don't know if he was right to give in on Obamacare, but I can't think of any other US politician I'd trust as much.
> He caved in a big way on health care
Here's his explanation:
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/qa/dennis-kucinich-health-care-bill-032210
I think Dennis Kucinich is someone that can be trusted to look after the people instead of pandering to business.
Problem is, reviewing wrongly-granted patents takes years - 5 years for the 1-click patent and it wasn't even invalidated, just narrowed.
In other fields, this isn't a huge problem. In pharma, or the automobile industry, a threat is met with a legal team and a counter-suit. For software, when it's small businesses or even individuals that get threatened, they don't have the time and resources to play the game. It's the old joke about the manager phoning his lawyer "Some company wants me to pay them $5K for a liccnece, do I have to pay that?" "Give me $40k and I'll review it". (That number is the cost estimate that Dan Ravicher gave for giving a client a certificate of non-infringement.)
This gets much less attention than it deserves:
http://www.fsf.org/working-together/whos-using-free-software
Testimonies from Cern, NYSE, the EU, Wikipedia, and the US Department of Defense, plus another page of testimonies from individuals:
http://www.fsf.org/working-together/profiles/meet-the-free-software-community
This patent mightn't change much, but it's the weight of the hundreds of patents that's spoiling the AV field.
Microsoft is a member of MPEG-LA, but they pay more royalties than they make from the organisation, so they're probably eager to make their own AV thicket.
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Microsoft
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG_LA
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Audio-video_patents
Regarding the unfolding mess, here's what info I've gathered:
And if someone wants to get an article started on this new lawsuit, go ahead:
Motorola_v._Apple_(2010,_USA)
It depends. In the EU, ISPs are protected by "mere conduit" status which says they're not responsible for everything that flows through their wires. I have a vague recollection that there is similar in the USA's DMCA. So ISPs aren't engaged in any infringing activity, so this part of ACTA doesn't apply to them.
First line of page 8. The general worry would be that patent holders would gain the power to, by sending a letter, turn ISPs or other parts of the distribution chain from innocent bystanders into entities that are "knowingly" taking part in the infringement. But, this text doesn't look too worrying - anyone agree/disagree?
Also good news is that the whole part ("Section 2") might explicitly exclude patents altogether, if the USA's footnote is approved: (end of page 6)
What other parts need scrutiny?
For software patents, the key thing to check is if ISPs will have liability for not removing stuff that a patent holder claims violates his patents. If that's still there, then we'll get DMCA take-down notices for software patents. More on the problem here:
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA_and_software_patents
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement_overview
Ok, agreed. ...on that subject, does it ever happen that a country other than the USA (Kyoto protocol) negotiates and signs a treaty and then national elected body refuses to ratify it?
> when I read "drop out" it suggests that they've pulled out completely
Same here. Other example: when a runner drops out of a race. They don't stand around thinking and then suddenly start sprinting to catch up because they've decided the race is actually pretty cool :-)
> Smaller countries know when they are being taken to the cleaners.
Yeh, but the only institutions that complain are ones with no power.
The European Parliament, the European Privacy Commission, and the Mexican Senate aren't in charge of the ACTA negotiations for their countries. They can stomp off and their citizens can feel proud that the elected officials are looking after their interests, but ACTA goes ahead. Funny, huh?
I didn't understand how society let TRIPS go ahead in 1994. I guessed it was snuck in while citizens weren't looking at the global level, and it would thus never happen again. Now my generation is letting it happen, and we're watching it unfold, and it's unfolding...
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement_overview
Here's the problems caused for software patents:
I've seen people claiming that ACTA will require countries to allow software patenting, but that's not correct at all. On the contrary, the latest leaked draft (25 August) explicitly says that there will be no substantive requirements on scope:
I've been making a list of the better articles and the most important lawsuits:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Phone_patent_litigation
Thanks! I've updated the wiki.
I've also started a page about Motorola:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Motorola
Phone patent litigation has become a core revenue stream for the big patent holders, and complaining to he ITC has become standard - it's free (or cheap) and the government does all the work. The media also does loads of free work by writing articles about how X's product imports might be blocked, even though that's never happened...
The End Software Patents campaign also submitted a brief, a little more specific:
http://news.swpat.org/2010/09/esp-to-uspto/
Quoting Michael Meeks from (paywalled for 10 days) http://lwn.net/Articles/407339/
Depends. The patent holder can lose either by the judge invalidating the patent, or by the judge saying that the accused's usage doesn't violate the patent. The latter obviously leaves the patent intact.
If the judge invalidates the patent, the patent holder can still go back to the USPTO and ask to change the wording and for a new patent with a different/narrower scope to be granted. (I'm not 100% sure, but I think this is a Reissued patent.)
For example (although it's not the same situation), the Bilski patent owners, having had their patent rejected by the USPTO, the BPAI, the CAFC, and the Supreme Court, are still persuing their patent! These things don't die :-/
I bet a lot of patent trolls don't have much money in the bank.
Acacia does a lot of troll suits under other names: IP Innovations, Acacia Technologies, or Acacia Media Technologies, among others.
I wonder if this is a way to protect Acacia from having the pay the losses. Maybe when they lose, they just tear up the piece of paper on which that legal entity existed. ...and make two more.