If no one can modify it, that means it's unlikely that anyone will bother looking at the source code. There's no community verifying or improving the privacy of this software. There has to be free alternatives.
I often look at Amazon reviews when deciding what books to get for language learning, but 80-90% of comments aren't credible. I still find it useful, but you have to know the limits of what you're looking at.
Filing a complaint at the US ITC is now part of the standard arsenal for software patent lawyers. Actual bans are very rare, a Qualcomm phone ban is the only one I remember, and the ITC has also said explicitly that bans are only possible at the request of product developers, not trolls.
That said, in terms of stock prices, market confidence etc. filing a complaint at the ITC is probably a win in itself in this legal system that encourages competitors to shoot each other rather than out-do each other.
The costs being passed on is bad enough, but it's also worrying to note that these deals include an implied admission by the signees that they need MS's permission for the distribution of their products.
That means MS can cancel their business at any time, and it implies that no one else can develop for that platform without MS's permission.
To slashdotters, this may be "duh" science, but it's really important to have this on paper when we talk to judges and legislators. Otherwise, we're left explaining the problems and hoping that the legislator will agree that our logic is "obviously" correct.
Bessen also co-authored Patent Failure with Michael Meurer and a previous study An Empirical Look at Software Patents, along with Robert Hunt.
> what if someone wants to keep their software from being compatible with someone else's software for security or profit reasons?
If you want your servers to only talk to *your* software, then the hi-tech answer is: passwords.
"Security by obscurity" is the term for your proposed abuse of incompatibility:-)
(If you want to block compatibility for profit reasons, you either use passwords, or you're asking for a legalised monopoly and the answer is sorry, but just no.)
This is a real problem - much bigger than the usual story we hear about some big corporation maybe having to pay some amount of money.
Software, to be useful, *has to* be compatible with other software - exactly compatible for data formats, and a degree of similarity is needed in terms of interface and behaviour.
This is the real problem, and it can't be fixed by "reform" or higher standards (which are much talked about but never come).
> the Supreme Court isn't designed to make changes to law.
The Supreme Court has an obligation to make a ruling. If the law is incomplete or unclear (as is the case for software patents), their decision has the same effect as what a legislature can do.
This is a fourth rebranding of the proposed Patent Reform Act. Deckchairs get rearranged but there is little substance to all this and none of the driving forces have computer users in mind.
Some procedures get changed to make X more efficient and to improve quality sometimes for Y.
None of this solves the software patents problem in the USA. The software patents problem *isn't* caused by some bad apple applications slipping through the procedures. The problem is that software has to conform to standards (interfaces and data formats), and these are being covered by thickets of patents.
If there's 900 patents on something (i.e. mpeg), then weeding out the worst 10% changes nothing.
We need abolition, and we need Congress's support in this. The current Supreme Court has shown itself to be reluctant regarding substantial changes to law, and even if we won there, if we have no support in Congress then our victory would be wiped out by a legislative change.
Yes, do work on this proposal. Work to get software clearly excluded - you have to keep trying if you want to have a chance. But don't get overexcited. This is unlikely to be a big turning point - that is, of course, unless you get active and make it happen.
Click on the epicentre cities to see where they are, dispersed along the length of the country.
Nuclear = "Progress"? Bonkers.
My favourite failed "trust technology!" argument was after the Fukushima quake when Sarkozy tried to reassure the French people by saying that France's nuclear power stations were the most advanced in the world. That's probably correct, and it would be a good point to make after a nuclear accident in a developing country, but this is Japan he was talking about.
Making them 3 years would solve many many problems.
But, the TRIPS agreement says patents have to last 20 years.
However, the TRIPS agreement doesn't say that software has to be patentable. So countries could declare that software isn't patentable, and then create some new legal thingy called "petents", and say that petents last 3 years and that software innovations can be petented.
This would be hard work because some countries (USA for example) push the idea that TRIPS requires software patents.
Really, shortening the duration would be as much work, and there's always the risk that the monopolists will find some other nasty clause to stick in to make 3-year petents really harmful.
Let's just go for abolition. It will take time, but it's the only practical solution.
We have a problem with thickets of patents, like the 900+ patents in the MPEG LA portfolio. Weeding out a few here and there will not help.
In the 90s, there were problems with single patents (public key crypto, LZW, etc.), but corporations nowadays don't gamble their monopolies on single patents. They use thickets.
The USA have been trying peer-to-patent, but there's no visible change in the patent problem there. What we need, for software, is abolition.
(But the two wouldn't be equivalent anyway - when you work for a company, you do what they want, but receiving an award doesn't require you to do the company's bidding.)
> that RMS went and booked the other speaking engagements shows that he truly has no political sensitivities
By booking engagements in Israel, he showed that he looks past sectarian boundaries and sees people, each of which deserves freedom in their use of computers.
There's nothing in the free *software* philosophy about what conditions can be put on plane tickets. There's a hint in the name - it's about software, not planes.
His lousy options were to cancel the Israel gigs, or cancel the Israel and the Palestinian gigs. He went for the former, and apologised.
This isn't news at all. This part of his work must be pretty frustrating for him.
Some organisations pay him for the talks he gives. He also won some awards in the 90s which came with chunky cash prizes which he said he would invest.
His bills probably aren't too big anyway. He asks his hosts to pay his travel and accommodation (usually staying with someone in their house rather than in a hotel). He has no kids, which saves him a lot of money.
Only 380? That's a pity. An old friend that lives 380,000,006 light years away is always inviting me over but there's no way I'd find his place without a map.
It's probably not that far as-the-crow-flies, but light takes a longer, curvy path.
Take some free software, add non-free software, keep the source code for the latter to yourself, and do some advertising emphasising the free software base.
The quote I gave from TFM seems to say pretty clearly that this is their model. What's your point?
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the entire licence file of the software they tell you to install to protect your privacy:
If no one can modify it, that means it's unlikely that anyone will bother looking at the source code. There's no community verifying or improving the privacy of this software. There has to be free alternatives.
Download and upzip: http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/addons/247581/trackerblock-2.0.1-fx.xpi
Remember when amazon.ca displayed real names instead of logins for a day in 2004 due to a glitch?
The articles about it have a bad habit of disappearing, so I archived them here:
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/amazon-reviews-are-fake.html
I often look at Amazon reviews when deciding what books to get for language learning, but 80-90% of comments aren't credible. I still find it useful, but you have to know the limits of what you're looking at.
Filing a complaint at the US ITC is now part of the standard arsenal for software patent lawyers. Actual bans are very rare, a Qualcomm phone ban is the only one I remember, and the ITC has also said explicitly that bans are only possible at the request of product developers, not trolls.
That said, in terms of stock prices, market confidence etc. filing a complaint at the ITC is probably a win in itself in this legal system that encourages competitors to shoot each other rather than out-do each other.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/United_States_International_Trade_Commission
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Phone_patent_litigation
I've added them to the list:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Software_distributors_paying_Microsoft_patent_tax
The costs being passed on is bad enough, but it's also worrying to note that these deals include an implied admission by the signees that they need MS's permission for the distribution of their products.
That means MS can cancel their business at any time, and it implies that no one else can develop for that platform without MS's permission.
Here's UAntwerp's subjects for year ("deel") 1-3:
http://www.ua.ac.be/main.aspx?c=.OOD2011&n=94160
In Dutch, but 95% readable to English speakers. ("gegevens"=data, "uitbating"=operating, "inleiding"=introduction)
I'm studying law in Belgium and there's lots of general education subjects, but that makes sense for law.
To slashdotters, this may be "duh" science, but it's really important to have this on paper when we talk to judges and legislators. Otherwise, we're left explaining the problems and hoping that the legislator will agree that our logic is "obviously" correct.
Bessen also co-authored Patent Failure with Michael Meurer and a previous study An Empirical Look at Software Patents, along with Robert Hunt.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Studies_on_economics_and_innovation
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/James_Bessen
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/An_Empirical_Look_at_Software_Patents
Dave 1.0 says:
> what if someone wants to keep their software from being compatible with someone else's software for security or profit reasons?
If you want your servers to only talk to *your* software, then the hi-tech answer is: passwords.
"Security by obscurity" is the term for your proposed abuse of incompatibility :-)
(If you want to block compatibility for profit reasons, you either use passwords, or you're asking for a legalised monopoly and the answer is sorry, but just no.)
This is a real problem - much bigger than the usual story we hear about some big corporation maybe having to pay some amount of money.
Software, to be useful, *has to* be compatible with other software - exactly compatible for data formats, and a degree of similarity is needed in terms of interface and behaviour.
This is the real problem, and it can't be fixed by "reform" or higher standards (which are much talked about but never come).
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Interoperability_exceptions
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_with_neither_litigation_nor_threats
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patenting_around_what_will_become_essential
AC says:
> the Supreme Court isn't designed to make changes to law.
The Supreme Court has an obligation to make a ruling. If the law is incomplete or unclear (as is the case for software patents), their decision has the same effect as what a legislature can do.
This is a fourth rebranding of the proposed Patent Reform Act. Deckchairs get rearranged but there is little substance to all this and none of the driving forces have computer users in mind.
Some procedures get changed to make X more efficient and to improve quality sometimes for Y.
None of this solves the software patents problem in the USA. The software patents problem *isn't* caused by some bad apple applications slipping through the procedures. The problem is that software has to conform to standards (interfaces and data formats), and these are being covered by thickets of patents.
If there's 900 patents on something (i.e. mpeg), then weeding out the worst 10% changes nothing.
We need abolition, and we need Congress's support in this. The current Supreme Court has shown itself to be reluctant regarding substantial changes to law, and even if we won there, if we have no support in Congress then our victory would be wiped out by a legislative change.
Yes, do work on this proposal. Work to get software clearly excluded - you have to keep trying if you want to have a chance. But don't get overexcited. This is unlikely to be a big turning point - that is, of course, unless you get active and make it happen.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/The_Patent_Reform_Act_(USA)
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG_LA
> Fukushima was damaged by a tsunami rather than by one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded on Earth - and Italy has no ocean coast.
The lesson from Fukushima isn't be that tsunamis are dangerous, it's that out current outlook for predicting problems is probably too narrow.
> Fukushima no.1 complex include some of the oldest operating reactors in the world
Operated and continually monitored by one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world.
And more modern reactors, they're ok for earthquake-prone regions?
Yeh, just for those who don't remember: Italia has frequent earthquakes, in all regions of the country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Italy
Click on the epicentre cities to see where they are, dispersed along the length of the country.
Nuclear = "Progress"? Bonkers.
My favourite failed "trust technology!" argument was after the Fukushima quake when Sarkozy tried to reassure the French people by saying that France's nuclear power stations were the most advanced in the world. That's probably correct, and it would be a good point to make after a nuclear accident in a developing country, but this is Japan he was talking about.
Making them 3 years would solve many many problems.
But, the TRIPS agreement says patents have to last 20 years.
However, the TRIPS agreement doesn't say that software has to be patentable. So countries could declare that software isn't patentable, and then create some new legal thingy called "petents", and say that petents last 3 years and that software innovations can be petented.
This would be hard work because some countries (USA for example) push the idea that TRIPS requires software patents.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/TRIPS
Really, shortening the duration would be as much work, and there's always the risk that the monopolists will find some other nasty clause to stick in to make 3-year petents really harmful.
Let's just go for abolition. It will take time, but it's the only practical solution.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_abolish_software_patents
This may help or slightly harm the situation.
We have a problem with thickets of patents, like the 900+ patents in the MPEG LA portfolio. Weeding out a few here and there will not help.
In the 90s, there were problems with single patents (public key crypto, LZW, etc.), but corporations nowadays don't gamble their monopolies on single patents. They use thickets.
The USA have been trying peer-to-patent, but there's no visible change in the patent problem there. What we need, for software, is abolition.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_review_by_the_public
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Raising_examination_standards_wouldn't_fix_much
No :-)
In my defence, painting protests as terrorism is all too common nowadays:
> That sounds like terrorism to me
Yeh, I guess people concerned with public health should limit themselves to shouting. Because megacorps pay attention, y'know.
(Most forms of protesting must sound like terrorism to you.)
> Hopefully not in companies using non-free software.
No worries, the awards were for his contribution to free software. The specifics can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Recognition
(But the two wouldn't be equivalent anyway - when you work for a company, you do what they want, but receiving an award doesn't require you to do the company's bidding.)
> that RMS went and booked the other speaking engagements shows that he truly has no political sensitivities
By booking engagements in Israel, he showed that he looks past sectarian boundaries and sees people, each of which deserves freedom in their use of computers.
RMS writes extensively about politics:
http://stallman.org/archives/polnotes.html
Israel and Palestine are one of the most recurring topics.
There's nothing in the free *software* philosophy about what conditions can be put on plane tickets. There's a hint in the name - it's about software, not planes.
His lousy options were to cancel the Israel gigs, or cancel the Israel and the Palestinian gigs. He went for the former, and apologised.
This isn't news at all. This part of his work must be pretty frustrating for him.
> How does Stallman pay his bills, anyway?
(For a detailed answer, you could read a biography about him: http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/faif-2.0.pdf )
Some organisations pay him for the talks he gives. He also won some awards in the 90s which came with chunky cash prizes which he said he would invest.
His bills probably aren't too big anyway. He asks his hosts to pay his travel and accommodation (usually staying with someone in their house rather than in a hotel). He has no kids, which saves him a lot of money.
FSF doesn't pay him any salary.
I'll add them to the lis:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Software_distributors_paying_Microsoft_patent_tax ...actually, HTC started paying MS back in April 2010:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dOa4j5g0dXYJ:www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2010/apr10/04-27mshtcpr.mspx
If you want a permissive licence, use the Apache 2.0 licence.
FSF's doc says this.
I concur. Apache serves the purpose that permissive licences can serve, plus it contains patent protections:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License
Only 380? That's a pity. An old friend that lives 380,000,006 light years away is always inviting me over but there's no way I'd find his place without a map.
It's probably not that far as-the-crow-flies, but light takes a longer, curvy path.
Take some free software, add non-free software, keep the source code for the latter to yourself, and do some advertising emphasising the free software base.
The quote I gave from TFM seems to say pretty clearly that this is their model. What's your point?