The new versions of.NET for the iPhone and Android will be source compatible with MonoTouch and Mono for Android. Like those versions, they will be commercial products, built on top of the open core Mono.
"open core" is not free software, and it's not open source.
A pen register is an electronic device that records all numbers called from a particular telephone line. The term has come to include any device or program that performs similar functions to an original pen register, including programs monitoring Internet communications.
I thought there was a court case (antitrust?) where it was ruled that for competition reasons, Microsoft couldn't sell Unix systems - and this was always presumed to include GNU/Linux.
Is this gone with recent the end of the "oversight period" put in place in 2002?
Just an example (with pictures) of what can be done with these things. (Magnetic core memory was the main form of non-volatile memory for computers from the 50s through to the 70s.)
Perhaps most importantly BackTrack 5 âoerevolutionâ will be our first release to include full source code in its repositories. This is a big thing for us, as it officially joins us to the open-source community and clears up any licensing issues which were present in BackTrack 4.
The discussion of software patents focusses way too much on court cases and big companies.
Companies have all sorts of expenses, and trolls is another. Some companies (particularly big ones) can afford that.
The real harm is when standards are ruined, or whole fiels (ex: video), or when SMEs and small developers are forced to stop distributing their software (or when they don't even start, since they know it would be doomed).
Yay! Hindi pa ako nakapunta sa pinas pero ang asawa ko'y galing alamada, cotabato. Ilonggo/Hiligaynon ang unang wika niya pero maliit lang ang mga Ilonggo ko na diksiyonario. Maraming pilipino dito sa Brussels at nagka-kareko ako ng tagalog sa lahat ng party:-) Diyan ako natuto.
TRIPS says that patents have to be granted for inventions in "any field of technology", but there's no definition of this term, and if computer programs are literature and stories aren't patentable, then computer programs are not patentable under TRIPS.
Further, a general principal of law is that international treaties that restrict sovereignty are to be interpreted narrowly. Trying to stretch TRIPS to include software is not only incorrect but it's also against this general principal of law.
The pro-swpat lobbyists mostly try the "TRIPS says" trick when they're talking to people who they think won't read the text.
In January 2011, prominent European academics issued an âoeOpinion of European Academics on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreementâ (ACTA). The academics invite the European institutions, in particular the European Parliament, and the national legislators and governments to withhold consent of ACTA, âoeâ¦as long as significant deviations from the EU acquis or serious concerns on fundamental rights, data protection, and a fair balance of interests are not properly addressedâ.
The Commission fails to make its point in a convincing way. The Commission shows a lack of basic reading skills, does not address points raised by the academics and fails to reason in a logical way. Regarding the border measures, the Commission actually agrees with the academics. The Parliament should ask the European Court of Justice an opinion on ACTA.
It is too much work to address all the flaws in the Commissionâ(TM)s notes. I will give some examples.
ACTAâ(TM)s damages are higher than EU lawâ(TM)s damages
The academics wrote: âoeSome of the factors mentioned at the end of the provision are not provided for in art. 13.1 Directive 2004/48. These factors should not be adopted in European law since they are not appropriate to measure the damage. âoeThe value of the infringed good or service, measured by the market price, [or] the suggested retail priceâ, as indicated in art. 9.1 ACTA, does not reflect the economic loss suffered by the right holder.â
The Commission states: âoeThere is no conflict between article 9 of ACTA and article 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC. Both provisions refer to ways in which courts can come to the determination of fair damages for the injured party.â
Damages in EU law are based on economic loss suffered by the right holder. The academics show that ACTA goes beyond that. The Commission just calls them both âoefairâ, and sees no difference. This is like saying: âoebig cars and small cars are both nice cars, so there is no difference.â But with cars and with damages, it is not only important both are cars or damages, the size is relevant as well. ACTA exceeds the level of damages in EU law. The Commission does not address the size aspect raised by the academics.
Bringing different things under the same category does not make them the same. Fines and death penalty are both deterrent, they are not the same.
Going beyond economic loss suffered by the right holder is not âoefairâ. It disproportionally hurts for instance startup companies in conflict with major patent holders. The Commission and ACTA advocate seeing damages based on retail price as âoefairâ. Unbalanced enforcement measures may heighten market entrance risks for innovators. Startup companies are often confronted with patent minefields. Even a mere allegation of infringement may easily lead to market exclusion. Startup companies often do not have enough resources to litigate. ACTA is biased against startup companies, the heightened damages hurt innovation.
The Commission states: âoeThe examples given in article 9.1 of ACTA and highlighted by the authors of the Opinion are not mandatory for the ACTA Parties (cf. the provision says âoemay includeâ).â
But this âoemayâ in article 9.1, is permissive towards the rights holders, it refers to âoeany legitimate measure of value the right holder submitsâ. Article 9.1 is not permissive towards the ACTA parti
That's the starting point I'd use if I had to argue based on software being math, but I'd rather not rely on that.
Being equal to math isn't the reason why software patents are a problem for society. Blocking software development, forcing incompatibility, stifling competition, and being incompatible with the development models (lots of individuals and SMEs write software) and certain popular distributions models (freeware, free software) are the reasons, and we should focus on them.
If we say software=math, the court could say that only some software is math, and then patent drafters just have to formulate their claims such that they fit the court's definition of non-just-math software. It's not a path to victory.
If software developers are prohibited from decoding your video format, the result is incompatibility.
Some people would indeed love to have a monopoly, and would spend millions for it, but these monopolies are simply not in the public interest. They're impeding software development and blocking interoperability.
However, you have to remember that this is *not* the end of the discussion (or at best, this will result in this one patent getting invalidated or narrowed).
When faced with "software=math" arguments, judges still argue that *applications* of math to real world problems can be patentable.
What we need is legislation saying that writing, distributing, selling, and using software cannot constitute a patent violation.
Ay, salamat. Kainin mo nga! Natakot pa ako sa balut. Kinakain ko lahat - dinuguan, puwet ng manok, adidas, dila ng baka, tainga ng baboy - kundi balut.
My guess is it's from Tagalog (Filipino), where "maliit" means small.
The Tagalog pronunciation is three syllables ma - lee - eet, with the final 't' barely pronounced - the syllable is ended by touching the roof of your mouth, just behind your teeth, with your tongue, and your tongue stays there so there's no final puff of air.
Irish Free Software Organisation (IFSO) opposes the extension of copyright which may be put to a vote in JURI today or tomorrow, and we ask that you do the same. Further, we ask for your support in requesting a new first reading for this proposed directive.
Software companies with dominant market positions are increasingly using the copyright of cultural works as a barrier to block other software developers. Due to Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), music lovers can be required to use the software of a small group of "approved" large software companies, or be blocked from listening to DRM'd music.
A few large companies are protected from competition, and the majority of software developers are locked out - including all the "small artists" of the software field.
For people who object to DRM, or who don't find any acceptable software among the "approved" group, there is still public domain works. Extending copyright impoverishes the public domain and our cultural heritage.
Below is a selection of links to independent studies highlighting the harms of copyright extension.
2. UK government's "Gower's review", which concluded that:
"The European Commission should retain the length of
protection on sound recordings and performersâ(TM) rights at 50
years." (page "56" - which is the 60th page of the PDF document)
Writing is a good exercise for organising your thoughts, and having to explain some of your edits (and sometimes fight over them), makes you analyse exactly what you are trying to express and makes you check your sources.
Wikipedia is also ahead of academia in some aspects. On writing source, Wikipedia is usually way more precise. While academia requires that a fact be referenced with "Benkton, J. 2004", which means nothing to most people and not precise at all, Wikipedia requires (or at least encourages) authors to give the authors name, the name of the article/book, and optionally a quote, page number, and other info - and Wikipedia provides ways for readers to question the relevance of sources or ask for more precision.
Wikipedia will be on my CV, next time I have to write one.
DRM and signed hardware is the biggest legal threat beside patents.
If we liberate the PC, only to find that people are doing their computing on handheld computers (such as phones) and games consoles which won't boot if the software's not approved, then we'll be shafted.
The answer is (as it always was) that we have to educate people about what sovereignty/liberty/independence means for computing, and that having freedom is valuable. That takes years (ask RMS), but it's the only way to win successive battles. There's no point in defeating some current problem if the same attack will succeed later under a different guise.
After DRM and patents, the big problem is centralised social networking, where people do their computing on remote servers which they have no control over.
I'm reading with interest to see if this ruling can also provide a "public interest" base for excluding software from patentability if the question ever gets to the ECJ.
Slashdot Mirror
(bungled my html - that last sentence is a note from me, not a quote from the article.)
From TFM:
I thought there was a court case (antitrust?) where it was ruled that for competition reasons, Microsoft couldn't sell Unix systems - and this was always presumed to include GNU/Linux.
Is this gone with recent the end of the "oversight period" put in place in 2002?
A friend recently made a "magnetic core memory" extension board for an Arduino:
http://www.corememoryshield.com/report.html
Just an example (with pictures) of what can be done with these things. (Magnetic core memory was the main form of non-volatile memory for computers from the 50s through to the 70s.)
http://www.backtrack-linux.org/backtrack/backtrack-5-release-tool-suggestions/
The discussion of software patents focusses way too much on court cases and big companies.
Companies have all sorts of expenses, and trolls is another. Some companies (particularly big ones) can afford that.
The real harm is when standards are ruined, or whole fiels (ex: video), or when SMEs and small developers are forced to stop distributing their software (or when they don't even start, since they know it would be doomed).
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/More_than_trolls
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Audio-video_patents
Irish talaga pero pilipina ang asawa ko.
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/learning-tagalog.html
Yay! Hindi pa ako nakapunta sa pinas pero ang asawa ko'y galing alamada, cotabato. Ilonggo/Hiligaynon ang unang wika niya pero maliit lang ang mga Ilonggo ko na diksiyonario. Maraming pilipino dito sa Brussels at nagka-kareko ako ng tagalog sa lahat ng party :-) Diyan ako natuto.
Gudlak sa project mo!
> Unfortunately, this is not allowed under TRIPS.
TRIPS is no problem. TRIPS says that computer programs are to be considered literary works.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/TRIPS
TRIPS says that patents have to be granted for inventions in "any field of technology", but there's no definition of this term, and if computer programs are literature and stories aren't patentable, then computer programs are not patentable under TRIPS.
Further, a general principal of law is that international treaties that restrict sovereignty are to be interpreted narrowly. Trying to stretch TRIPS to include software is not only incorrect but it's also against this general principal of law.
The pro-swpat lobbyists mostly try the "TRIPS says" trick when they're talking to people who they think won't read the text.
May 1, 2011
By Ante
In January 2011, prominent European academics issued an âoeOpinion of European Academics on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreementâ (ACTA). The academics invite the European institutions, in particular the European Parliament, and the national legislators and governments to withhold consent of ACTA, âoeâ¦as long as significant deviations from the EU acquis or serious concerns on fundamental rights, data protection, and a fair balance of interests are not properly addressedâ.
In April 2011, the European Commissionâ(TM)s services put on-line comments to the European Academicsâ(TM) Opinion on ACTA. The Commission denies ACTA is incompatible with EU law.
The Commission fails to make its point in a convincing way. The Commission shows a lack of basic reading skills, does not address points raised by the academics and fails to reason in a logical way. Regarding the border measures, the Commission actually agrees with the academics. The Parliament should ask the European Court of Justice an opinion on ACTA.
It is too much work to address all the flaws in the Commissionâ(TM)s notes. I will give some examples.
ACTAâ(TM)s damages are higher than EU lawâ(TM)s damages
The academics wrote: âoeSome of the factors mentioned at the end of the provision are not provided for in art. 13.1 Directive 2004/48. These factors should not be adopted in European law since they are not appropriate to measure the damage. âoeThe value of the infringed good or service, measured by the market price, [or] the suggested retail priceâ, as indicated in art. 9.1 ACTA, does not reflect the economic loss suffered by the right holder.â
The Commission states: âoeThere is no conflict between article 9 of ACTA and article 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC. Both provisions refer to ways in which courts can come to the determination of fair damages for the injured party.â
Damages in EU law are based on economic loss suffered by the right holder. The academics show that ACTA goes beyond that. The Commission just calls them both âoefairâ, and sees no difference. This is like saying: âoebig cars and small cars are both nice cars, so there is no difference.â But with cars and with damages, it is not only important both are cars or damages, the size is relevant as well. ACTA exceeds the level of damages in EU law. The Commission does not address the size aspect raised by the academics.
Bringing different things under the same category does not make them the same. Fines and death penalty are both deterrent, they are not the same.
Going beyond economic loss suffered by the right holder is not âoefairâ. It disproportionally hurts for instance startup companies in conflict with major patent holders. The Commission and ACTA advocate seeing damages based on retail price as âoefairâ. Unbalanced enforcement measures may heighten market entrance risks for innovators. Startup companies are often confronted with patent minefields. Even a mere allegation of infringement may easily lead to market exclusion. Startup companies often do not have enough resources to litigate. ACTA is biased against startup companies, the heightened damages hurt innovation.
The Commission states: âoeThe examples given in article 9.1 of ACTA and highlighted by the authors of the Opinion are not mandatory for the ACTA Parties (cf. the provision says âoemay includeâ).â
But this âoemayâ in article 9.1, is permissive towards the rights holders, it refers to âoeany legitimate measure of value the right holder submitsâ. Article 9.1 is not permissive towards the ACTA parti
I'm not a fan of software=math arguments, but an example of their value is in the US Supreme Court's "Flook" ruling:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Parker_v._Flook_(1978,_USA)
That's the starting point I'd use if I had to argue based on software being math, but I'd rather not rely on that.
Being equal to math isn't the reason why software patents are a problem for society. Blocking software development, forcing incompatibility, stifling competition, and being incompatible with the development models (lots of individuals and SMEs write software) and certain popular distributions models (freeware, free software) are the reasons, and we should focus on them.
If we say software=math, the court could say that only some software is math, and then patent drafters just have to formulate their claims such that they fit the court's definition of non-just-math software. It's not a path to victory.
If software developers are prohibited from decoding your video format, the result is incompatibility.
Some people would indeed love to have a monopoly, and would spend millions for it, but these monopolies are simply not in the public interest. They're impeding software development and blocking interoperability.
There are more reasons here:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_abolish_software_patents
I've collected various examples of this argument here:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Software_is_math
However, you have to remember that this is *not* the end of the discussion (or at best, this will result in this one patent getting invalidated or narrowed).
When faced with "software=math" arguments, judges still argue that *applications* of math to real world problems can be patentable.
What we need is legislation saying that writing, distributing, selling, and using software cannot constitute a patent violation.
Ay, salamat. Kainin mo nga! Natakot pa ako sa balut. Kinakain ko lahat - dinuguan, puwet ng manok, adidas, dila ng baka, tainga ng baboy - kundi balut.
My guess is it's from Tagalog (Filipino), where "maliit" means small.
The Tagalog pronunciation is three syllables ma - lee - eet, with the final 't' barely pronounced - the syllable is ended by touching the roof of your mouth, just behind your teeth, with your tongue, and your tongue stays there so there's no final puff of air.
Maliit is the Tagalog (Filipino) word for small. Do I win a prize?
The whole idea of the GPL is that distributors are required to pass freedoms on to recipients.
Do you have any suggestions for how to do this without placing requirements on distributors???
Here's an article he got published in Nature back in 2001
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/stallman.html
With my colleagues from Irish Free Software Organisation:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie/2011-April/002981.html
===========
Dear Mr. Crowley,
Irish Free Software Organisation (IFSO) opposes the extension of copyright
which may be put to a vote in JURI today or tomorrow, and we ask that you do
the same. Further, we ask for your support in requesting a new first
reading for this proposed directive.
Software companies with dominant market positions are increasingly using the
copyright of cultural works as a barrier to block other software developers.
Due to Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), music lovers can be required
to use the software of a small group of "approved" large software companies,
or be blocked from listening to DRM'd music.
A few large companies are protected from competition, and the majority of
software developers are locked out - including all the "small artists" of
the software field.
For people who object to DRM, or who don't find any acceptable software
among the "approved" group, there is still public domain works. Extending
copyright impoverishes the public domain and our cultural heritage.
Below is a selection of links to independent studies highlighting the harms
of copyright extension.
Yours sincerely,
CiarÃn O'Riordan, +32 487 64 17 54
Irish Free Software Organisation
http://ifso.ie/
1. 8 Universities and policy centres issued this 2-page
statement about how the proposal would harm Europe's culture
and economy:
http://www.cippm.org.uk/downloads/Press%20Release%20Copyright%20Extension.pdf
2. UK government's "Gower's review", which concluded that:
"The European Commission should retain the length of
protection on sound recordings and performersâ(TM) rights at 50
years." (page "56" - which is the 60th page of the PDF document)
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr06_gowers_report_755.pdf
3. Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam:
"Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound
Recordings is a Bad Idea"
http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf
===========
It's also excellent writing practice.
Writing is a good exercise for organising your thoughts, and having to explain some of your edits (and sometimes fight over them), makes you analyse exactly what you are trying to express and makes you check your sources.
Wikipedia is also ahead of academia in some aspects. On writing source, Wikipedia is usually way more precise. While academia requires that a fact be referenced with "Benkton, J. 2004", which means nothing to most people and not precise at all, Wikipedia requires (or at least encourages) authors to give the authors name, the name of the article/book, and optionally a quote, page number, and other info - and Wikipedia provides ways for readers to question the relevance of sources or ask for more precision.
Wikipedia will be on my CV, next time I have to write one.
DRM and signed hardware is the biggest legal threat beside patents.
If we liberate the PC, only to find that people are doing their computing on handheld computers (such as phones) and games consoles which won't boot if the software's not approved, then we'll be shafted.
The answer is (as it always was) that we have to educate people about what sovereignty/liberty/independence means for computing, and that having freedom is valuable. That takes years (ask RMS), but it's the only way to win successive battles. There's no point in defeating some current problem if the same attack will succeed later under a different guise.
After DRM and patents, the big problem is centralised social networking, where people do their computing on remote servers which they have no control over.
The preliminary ruling has been published in French and German:
* http://www.europeandignitywatch.org/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/ECJ/Conclusions_de_l_Avocat_General_Yves_Bot.pdf
* http://www.europeandignitywatch.org/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/ECJ/Schlussantraege_des_Generalanwalts_Yves_Bot.pdf
And there's the ECJ's press release in English:
* http://www.europeandignitywatch.org/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/ECJ/ECJ_Press_Release.pdf
I'm reading with interest to see if this ruling can also provide a "public interest" base for excluding software from patentability if the question ever gets to the ECJ.
First Post Slashdot? I didn't know the kernel was getting that specialised, but you proved it is.
Anon said:
> .NET [...] Even if they did have a Monopoly in that arena, it's open spec...
'fraid not. It's patented. After years of begging, MS has improved their patent grant twice, but it's still too narrow to make .NET safe.