The CEO cannot unilaterally change company policy on employee benefits or anything else. And if the extent of his activism is to donate to a campaign 6 years ago (he has not spoken publicly on the issue very much) then it probably isn't a major issue for him.
And even he were a major campaign leader against gay marriage, it doesn't necessarily mean he is going to bring his politics into the Boardroom. The founder/owner of the Stagecoach bus company in the UK (Brian Souter) campaigned very strongly and publicly against the repeal of Section 28 (an statute that banned the "promotion" of homosexuality in schools), especially in Scotland, using his personal fortune to run an unofficial 'referendum' on the law there. However, Stagecoach has an excellent record as an equal-opportunities employer, with no-one expressing concern that Mr Souter was using his company as a platform for his own view on homosexuality or that its employment practices reflected it in any way.
Ultimately, limited companies are not Leninist organizations, in the sense of being the personal tool of the CEO. The CEO has to answer to the Board and if he did want to change Mozilla employment practice to discriminate against gays, or use corporate money to finance an anti-gay-marriage campaign, other Board members would have to agree to it.
No, most people will say, "Why are law enforcers bothering about someone who failed to return a borrowed video disk worth $10 nine years ago?"
No formal statute of limitations here in the UK, but the Crown Prosecution Service would almost certainly drop the case due to lack of public interest / passage of time since the alleged offence.
It would be easier for the US to get him extradited from the UK than from Sweden. Our extradition treaty with the US has far fewer safeguards than does Sweden's. And Sweden wouldn't be able extradite him to the US anyway without him going back to the UK first. I don't see why he can't go to Sweden to face questioning. He seems to have a case to answer, as well he would if the allegations against him were made in the UK (not that this matters legally for a European Arrest Warrant to be valid, but it makes a difference morally).
Nothing. As far as I'm concerned, no-one over the age of about 11 has any business celebrating Hallowe'en (except parents of young children). So as a proud non-parent, I plan to stay at home and be glad I live in a gated block. But just in case somebody decides to buzz the gate for obnoxious kids, I shall avoid answering the door.
It has been used actually, in the mid 1990s. More recently the EP also used its power to reject an entire Commission line-up because it objected to one particular candidate.
This particular vote is non-binding, but the same is true about a lot of votes in national parliaments. You are also wrong to say that the Europarliament "[is] very weak and has limited influence"; actually it has equal power with the European Council over all EU legislation, and it has full veto pwer. For instance, MEPs rejected ACTA last year, meaning that the EU is unable to sign the treaty. It also rejected the software patents directive (remember that?) in 2005.
Also because of the principle of separation of powers, MEPs are independent of both the Council and the Commission: there is no "payroll vote" as in most national parliaments, and consequently party discipline is much weaker. The situation is similar to that of US Congress; a US President cannot bank on unqualified support from Congress even when both the House and Senate are controlled by his own party.
Finally the European Commission is indeed the executive branch of the EU, but it is NOT "directed by national governments": you are probably thinking of the Council, which is indeed made up of representatives of national governments. You can think of it as a kind of unelected Senate. Commissioners are appointed by national governments of each country, but once appointed they are independent of the government that appointed them.
because it's not science fiction, but political fiction. The only "futuruistic" technology mentioned is the telescreen, and that is only described in vague terms. Sure, it's a two-way communication / one-way surveillance device, but beyone that no attempt is made to describe how it's supposed to work. Everything else in the book is late 1940s technology.
Of course 1984 shouldn't be on the list, as it is not science fiction. It imagines a political dystopia, and does not go into details about the technology. In fact, apart from the "telescreens", the technology depicted in the story is crude and primitive compared to the real 1980s. 1984 is about the use of the/political/ power of a one-party state to achieve total control over people's lives.
It's also illegal in the EU, where privacy is taken very seriously. Frankly I'm shocked this is even an issue in the US; employers have no business demanding confidential personal info from employees or candidates.
Brinkhorst does not belong to the same party as Bolkestein.
Bolkestein belongs to VVD, which is (as far as MEP voting records go) the only Dutch party which is NOT against software patents.
Brinkhorst belongs to D'66, which is strongly AGAINST software patents (D'66 MEP Johanna Boogerd-Quaak led the anti-swpat opinion for ELDR, and was followed by half the bloc)
Both parties belong to the same European bloc (ELDR) but are very different: VVD is right-wing free-market "liberal" (more like conservative), D'66 is radical left-libertarian liberal.
Brinkhorst's role shows that even people from parties sympathetic to the anti-swpat point of view are liable go 'go native' when put in charge of "intellectual property" policy.
I'm always surprised that there's so much resistance to patent law among the open software crowd. One point of patents is to get the methods out into the open. If it weren't for patents, true inventions (even inventive processes) would often be held as trade secrets for much longer than patent protection lasts.
But no-one reads patents for the purpose of finding out about software processes. They're useless as they're written in patentese, for the benefit of patent lawyers not programmers.
You see, the point of patents is to stimulate research. Yes, you pay for it by having a 20 year interval in which someone gets to collect royalties for their investment. But the benefit in the long run is that you actually get research.
Yes, that is how the system is supposed to work. But the fact is that in software it doesn't. Patenting is not some natural remedy which always simulates research in any field. If it is, then it should be applies everywhere, like recipes and business methods... oh sorry I forgot the Americans are already doing that.
The "convenient mistake" is yours: asserting that same rules apply to software as they do for pharmacy. WRONG! Your argument is a stawman, because they are NOT the same, and if you had any idea at all about software development you'd understand that.
The 20-year lifespan of a patent is probably right for medicines, imagine having to program using only ideas which were known about in 1984, when the state of the art in home computing was the Sinclair ZX Spectrum.
Do I think we'd be better off, if anyone started patenting software algorithms since 1950? Damn right. We'd have had more people actually paying from research,
These algorithms were created without the protection provided by patents (as were all the other innovations you mentioned in another post). Since software patents became widespread, innovation has reduced. There is evidence that software companies are now using patenting as a substitute for R&D, not as a way of protecting it (ie as patenting goes up, R&D goes down).
instead of just hordes of people copy-and-pasting the same code over and over again.
Coying-and-pasting other peope's code into your own program is a copyright issue, and so programmers are already protected from this. Hardly any programmer does it anyway --- it's hardly worth trying as you have to work out exactly what bit of code does what. You might as well just write your own program with the same functionality. And that takes just as much time as the original. In software, first-mover advantage. along with copyright on the original code, are generally sufficient to allow someone to profit from a really novel idea.
Now I do understand that it's fashionable on/. to bitch and moan about how you should be allowed to steal everyone's work. Whether it's copy-and-pasting someone's algorithm, or downloading every new movie on P2P, or whatever, the ISO-standard/. freeloader should never have to pay for anything.
I do not download movies or music from P2P services. [I use legal, but unencumbered, services.] I do not use warez. That whole scene has a seedy air that I really do not like. I use licenced software (some of which is purchased, tho' most is Free Software that came with my Linux distro). I respect creators and authors rights and believe that such people should be entitled to payment for their work.
Please bear in mind, the Free Software community and the crackers/warez community are very different. FS people know about the need for intellectual protection in software: licences like the GPL are underpinned by copyrght law, and authors have been known to enforce it in the courts.
My beef with software patents is primarily is that they do not reward creators or authors. They reward only schemers, and people who want to play legal games instead of actually develop software. They also prevent follow-on innovation. If it becomes illegal to publish something you yourself wrote, quite obviously authors rights are undermined. And the people who do all this much-vaunted research are not rewarded either, instead the people who get the royalties are a bunch of patent lawyers.
Why don't _you_ give a new algorithm away, instead of asking that others give you stuff for free? Go, actually _invent_ something new, and put it in the public domain.
That, more or less, is what was done with the PNG and OGG image and audio formats. The former, at least, is now widespread enough to be a de facto standard.
The point about patents is made... how? Far as I know the monopoly in question had _nothing_ to do with patents, but merely with who owns the infrastructure. So you point is?
The point is, it's a monopoly. A patent is a <B>legal monopoly</B> on some product or process. The point is how a monopoly impeded progress in telecomms, and when competition was introduced, innovation blossomed. How the monopoly came to exist isn't the point: the pont is that monopolies are often bad for innovation. IT, in particular, is an area where competition, not monopoly, drives innovation.
<BLOCKQUOTE>... a ton of Open Source people _copying_ what's been invented by someone else. Maybe doing a better implementation of it, but copying someone else's idea nevertheless.</BLOCKQUOTE>
Even if that were true, so what? By that reckoning MS arguably copied the GUI "invention" from Apple. <I>That is how innovation in software happens.</I> Rapid follow-on innovation is the key to the IT sector's success. You gave many examples of exactly that (assuming they are all true, which I doubt).
<BLOCKQUOTE>And I also notice that whenever it comes to these patents, I see lots of bogus "well, duh, that was obvious", but usually noone actually offering examples of prior art.</BLOCKQUOTE>
Then you're not looking hard enough (and nor are the patent offices). Patent offices regularly issue patents for things which software developers have known about, <I>and verifiably publicly talked about</I> for years.
<BLOCKQUOTE>then go patent all that new stuff you OSS folks are discovering, and donate the patents to the public domain. That ought to keep the corporations off for good, no?</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Well, then you shouldn't have any problem getting the patents before them, right?
Or at least the prior art? What's the problem, then?</BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you realize how much it costs to obtain a patent? And how much time it takes? Time and money which we developers would much rather spend on actual <B>development</B>, not playing games with lawyers.
<BLOCKQUOTE>Or at least the prior art?</BLOCKQUOTE>
The average cost of challenging an <I>invalid</I> software patent in court is around US$1.5 million. The USPTO charges some 4-5 fig sum to re-examine a patent, and that <I>doesn't</I> include the prior art search that you have to do of your own back. Again, time and money which developers and software companies would much rather spend <I>developing software</I>.
<BLOCKQUOTE>What's the problem, then?</BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem is when large companies have massive patent portfolios and can use them to threaten to threaten potential competitors which have to give in because they couldn't afford the defence --- even when the patents are obviously dumb. Read this <A HREF= "http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.h tml">ar ticle</a> about how IBM used its patenting muscle against Sun (then a start-up). This isn't from some subversive lefty anti-business publication. This is from Forbes, a respected business magazine.
Want more info from 'mainstream' sources about how too many patents are a bad thing? How about the <A HREF="http://www.ffii.org.uk/ftc/ftc.html">FTC</A> ? How about <A HREF="http://www.researchineurope.org/">economists </A>?
The problem is when some outfit consisting only of a dozen lawyers who have never done a day's coding in their lives goes on a suing spree over a patent which no-one had ever known existed. And again, most have to settle, even when they'd probably win in court.
The problem is when software companies spend time and money applying for patents simply as defence against potential patent suits (we infringe on your patents? Well you infri
Slashdot Mirror
The CEO cannot unilaterally change company policy on employee benefits or anything else. And if the extent of his activism is to donate to a campaign 6 years ago (he has not spoken publicly on the issue very much) then it probably isn't a major issue for him.
And even he were a major campaign leader against gay marriage, it doesn't necessarily mean he is going to bring his politics into the Boardroom. The founder/owner of the Stagecoach bus company in the UK (Brian Souter) campaigned very strongly and publicly against the repeal of Section 28 (an statute that banned the "promotion" of homosexuality in schools), especially in Scotland, using his personal fortune to run an unofficial 'referendum' on the law there. However, Stagecoach has an excellent record as an equal-opportunities employer, with no-one expressing concern that Mr Souter was using his company as a platform for his own view on homosexuality or that its employment practices reflected it in any way.
Ultimately, limited companies are not Leninist organizations, in the sense of being the personal tool of the CEO. The CEO has to answer to the Board and if he did want to change Mozilla employment practice to discriminate against gays, or use corporate money to finance an anti-gay-marriage campaign, other Board members would have to agree to it.
No, most people will say, "Why are law enforcers bothering about someone who failed to return a borrowed video disk worth $10 nine years ago?" No formal statute of limitations here in the UK, but the Crown Prosecution Service would almost certainly drop the case due to lack of public interest / passage of time since the alleged offence.
That didn't help Christopher Tappin (exactly the sort of person your typical Home Counties Tory might be expected to support)
It would be easier for the US to get him extradited from the UK than from Sweden. Our extradition treaty with the US has far fewer safeguards than does Sweden's. And Sweden wouldn't be able extradite him to the US anyway without him going back to the UK first. I don't see why he can't go to Sweden to face questioning. He seems to have a case to answer, as well he would if the allegations against him were made in the UK (not that this matters legally for a European Arrest Warrant to be valid, but it makes a difference morally).
Nothing. As far as I'm concerned, no-one over the age of about 11 has any business celebrating Hallowe'en (except parents of young children). So as a proud non-parent, I plan to stay at home and be glad I live in a gated block. But just in case somebody decides to buzz the gate for obnoxious kids, I shall avoid answering the door.
It has been used actually, in the mid 1990s. More recently the EP also used its power to reject an entire Commission line-up because it objected to one particular candidate.
This particular vote is non-binding, but the same is true about a lot of votes in national parliaments. You are also wrong to say that the Europarliament "[is] very weak and has limited influence"; actually it has equal power with the European Council over all EU legislation, and it has full veto pwer. For instance, MEPs rejected ACTA last year, meaning that the EU is unable to sign the treaty. It also rejected the software patents directive (remember that?) in 2005. Also because of the principle of separation of powers, MEPs are independent of both the Council and the Commission: there is no "payroll vote" as in most national parliaments, and consequently party discipline is much weaker. The situation is similar to that of US Congress; a US President cannot bank on unqualified support from Congress even when both the House and Senate are controlled by his own party. Finally the European Commission is indeed the executive branch of the EU, but it is NOT "directed by national governments": you are probably thinking of the Council, which is indeed made up of representatives of national governments. You can think of it as a kind of unelected Senate. Commissioners are appointed by national governments of each country, but once appointed they are independent of the government that appointed them.
because it's not science fiction, but political fiction. The only "futuruistic" technology mentioned is the telescreen, and that is only described in vague terms. Sure, it's a two-way communication / one-way surveillance device, but beyone that no attempt is made to describe how it's supposed to work. Everything else in the book is late 1940s technology.
Of course 1984 shouldn't be on the list, as it is not science fiction. It imagines a political dystopia, and does not go into details about the technology. In fact, apart from the "telescreens", the technology depicted in the story is crude and primitive compared to the real 1980s. 1984 is about the use of the /political/ power of a one-party state to achieve total control over people's lives.
It's also illegal in the EU, where privacy is taken very seriously. Frankly I'm shocked this is even an issue in the US; employers have no business demanding confidential personal info from employees or candidates.
Gender? Words have gender. People have sex.
sorry guys, but Taiwan passed its own DMCA earlier this year.
Brinkhorst does not belong to the same party as Bolkestein. Bolkestein belongs to VVD, which is (as far as MEP voting records go) the only Dutch party which is NOT against software patents. Brinkhorst belongs to D'66, which is strongly AGAINST software patents (D'66 MEP Johanna Boogerd-Quaak led the anti-swpat opinion for ELDR, and was followed by half the bloc) Both parties belong to the same European bloc (ELDR) but are very different: VVD is right-wing free-market "liberal" (more like conservative), D'66 is radical left-libertarian liberal. Brinkhorst's role shows that even people from parties sympathetic to the anti-swpat point of view are liable go 'go native' when put in charge of "intellectual property" policy.
It's not a good idea in general, but in this specific case it is. The minister voted without consulting Parliament and in doing so misled Parliament.
The point is, it's a monopoly. A patent is a <B>legal monopoly</B> on some product or process. The point is how a monopoly impeded progress in telecomms, and when competition was introduced, innovation blossomed. How the monopoly came to exist isn't the point: the pont is that monopolies are often bad for innovation. IT, in particular, is an area where competition, not monopoly, drives innovation.
<BLOCKQUOTE>... a ton of Open Source people _copying_ what's been invented by someone else.
Maybe doing a better implementation of it, but copying someone else's idea nevertheless.</BLOCKQUOTE>
Even if that were true, so what? By that reckoning MS arguably copied the GUI "invention" from Apple. <I>That is how innovation in software happens.</I> Rapid follow-on innovation is the key to the IT sector's success. You gave many examples of exactly that (assuming they are all true, which I doubt).
<BLOCKQUOTE>And I also notice that whenever it comes to these patents, I see lots of bogus "well, duh, that was obvious", but usually noone actually offering examples of prior art.</BLOCKQUOTE>
Then you're not looking hard enough (and nor are the patent offices). Patent offices regularly issue patents for things which software developers have known about, <I>and verifiably publicly talked about</I> for years.
<BLOCKQUOTE>then go patent all that new stuff you OSS folks are discovering, and donate the patents to the public domain. That ought to keep the corporations off for good, no?</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Well, then you shouldn't have any problem getting the patents before them, right?
Or at least the prior art? What's the problem, then?</BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you realize how much it costs to obtain a patent? And how much time it takes? Time and money which we developers would much rather spend on actual <B>development</B>, not playing games with lawyers.
<BLOCKQUOTE>Or at least the prior art?</BLOCKQUOTE>
The average cost of challenging an <I>invalid</I> software patent in court is around US$1.5 million. The USPTO charges some 4-5 fig sum to re-examine a patent, and that <I>doesn't</I> include the prior art search that you have to do of your own back. Again, time and money which developers and software companies would much rather spend <I>developing software</I>.
<BLOCKQUOTE>What's the problem, then?</BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem is when large companies have massive patent portfolios and can use them to threaten to threaten potential competitors which have to give in because they couldn't afford the defence --- even when the patents are obviously dumb. Read this <A HREF=
"http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.h tml">ar ticle</a> about how IBM used its patenting muscle against Sun (then a start-up). This isn't from some subversive lefty anti-business publication. This is from Forbes, a respected business magazine.
Want more info from 'mainstream' sources about how too many patents are a bad thing? How about the <A HREF="http://www.ffii.org.uk/ftc/ftc.html">FTC</A> ? How about <A HREF="http://www.researchineurope.org/">economists </A>?
The problem is when some outfit consisting only of a dozen lawyers who have never done a day's coding in their lives goes on a suing spree over a patent which no-one had ever known existed. And again, most have to settle, even when they'd probably win in court.
The problem is when software companies spend time and money applying for patents simply as defence against potential patent suits (we infringe on your patents? Well you infri
MEPs don't vote as national blocs anyway.
Alex Macfie <alex@cgce.net>