If you want pin-cites to everything, it is all there in the previous articles in our discussion.
Not once did you provide any proof Yahoo! made a counter offer to Microsoft, though I did provide links saying Yahoo!'s largest shareholders, er second largest, said Yahoo! should ask for at least $40. Those are different things however, a counter offer requires the board to make it not a shareholder.
We can reasonably infer from the WSJ's report that the request for at least $40 was made in the context of trying to get Microsoft to up its offer.
You can, but I don't. To me all WSJ said was he said she said, it offered no evidence Yahoo! in fact made any counter offer.
How this is not an attempt to negotiate (negotiate - to arrange for or bring about by discussion and settlement of terms [reference.com] is beyond me.
You offer a definition pf "negotiate" but do not provide what I asked for, evidence Yahoo!'s board in fact tried to negotiate at all.
I contend that this dissemination of information is at the very least a negotiating tactic. Why else would Yahoo tell the WSJ? The use of negotiating tactics is prima facie evidence of an attempt at negotiation.
I pointed WSJ did not say any counter offer was in fact made by the board but you keep saying they did While I offer links showing none was made you keeping repeating the same old same old without providing any evidence to support your contention.
As we're going around and around without you providing any proof I feel I'm wasting my tyme, so I'm ending this.
They should protect the product just like anything else protected under patents.
If the product, software, isn't the code though then what is it? Is it what the software does? If so then wouldn't this prevent others from releasing software that does the same thing?, even if differently?
The generally accepted legal definition of a counter offer is:
The [1] rejection of an offer to buy or sell that [2] makes a different offer during the course of negotiations, [3] changing the terms in some way.
And when did Yahoo! do any of these?
Do we have a different offer made during the course of negitiations? Well according to the Bloomberg article cited previously, "Yahoo wants at least $40 a share, the Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend." This is definitely a statement made during the course of negotiations.
TFA never, ever, said any negotiation took place. If you have another source that gives details to such then please provide them, and please don't tell me to look, proving a negative like this is much more difficult if not impossible than proving a counter offer was made by the board to Microsoft. No matter how much tyme is spent it can't really be proven whereas only one example of it happened is needed to prove it did happen And he said she said isn't proof it's hearsay.
I put the burden on you to prove that this act was not a different offer.
Yeap, as I say above you want me to prove a negative which can be impossible instead of you proving a positive which should be easy.
Don't forget that this also prevents large corporations with money to throw around from just wiping out a small start-up business by underpricing them, out-marketing them, and out branding them.
Like Microsoft has never done any of this? Fact is is large corporations can and do get away with it because they can afford an army of lawyers to drag patent infringement lawsuits until the plaintiff is broke. Or if they eventually lose what they end up paying is chump change.
The patent system exists to protect and encourage innovation, not to stifle it. This is why the system needs fixed, as it no longer performs this function. As it stands now, innovation is being stifled because it's difficult to innovate without stepping on someone else's obscure and overly vague patent.
And how do you fix it?
Actually I have an idea I got from another/.er. Maybe what could be done is to have the patent term last only a few years, from when a product is released on the market and to stop patent trolls they'd have to release a product within a reasonable tyme period. Say make the term 5 years, then if the patent holder wants to extend it another year they would then pay a 1% royalty on sales. After 5 years the royalty would be 10% and in 10 year it would be 25%. The money paid could then be used to hire enough expert patent examiners to make sure it isn't obvious or in the public domain, there's no prior art.
However this would only apply to hardware and not to software. Software already has protection, it's called copyright.
I believe it was in its first edition when I read it (in '93?), so it's been a while.
Yea, I read it when it first came out in '84. Back then I loved reading the magazine "Byte". My fav columns were Steve Ciarcia's "Circuit Cellar" who now has his own magazine "Circuit Cellar" and Jerry Pournelle's "Chaos Manor".
I might not quite remember the details like the name of Tech Model Railroad Club.
Because of an injury my memory is weird, I recall some things easy while other things I can't recall. A few years ago this proved to be a difficulty I had when I was taking Java classes. I'd do alright in the first class but then I could only recall a little bit for the second class so I'd start behind. I reread the book last year though, from where I am now all I have to do to get it is stand up and grab it from my book shelf.
How is a software implementation of an idea different from a hardware implementation of it?
Unlike hardware software is protected by copyrights.
OTOH, copyrights are very different from patents.
They are now but they used to be similar. Both lasted 14 year with one 14 year extension possible. A patent required the details and a working example so anyone proficient in the field could build one themselves so that eventually how to do so would enter the public domain. Copyrights required the entire work being submitted or on file, I hear now copyrights for software do not require this. Without the entire code it could never enter the public domain.
they specifically do not protect the ideas being expressed.
Ideas shouldn't be protected, only specific implementations of an idea should be. Patent X which protects solution A to problem B shouldn't prevent me prevent me from patenting a totally different solution to B. For instance even if NTP had released an actual product using it's patents so long as RIM had not used their specific implementation of the patents NTP shouldn't of been able to sue RIM for patent infringement, well they shouldn't have won.
I haven't made up my mind on patents for hardware. If you go over my posts on patents over the past couple of years, while I've always opposed software patents, you can see I went from supporting them to opposing them to now when I don't what to think of them. There are good points as well as bad points to patents. The father of capitalism, Adam Smith, too wasn't sure about them. In the sense that they grant a government monopoly he opposed them however he also thought people would invent more if they could be sure they could benefit from a limited monopoly. Though I'm still thinking it through, I'm starting to lean towards a system where an inventor could get a patent for a few years, from the tyme they produce a product for the public but they have to release within a reasonable tyme period or they'll lose it, but in order to keep a monopoly afterwards they'd have to pay a premium on a sliding scale. Say the first year after the patent expires they may be required to pay 1% of sells as a royalty, then the fifth year, 10%, and 25% the 10th year. The longer they want to hold the patent the more they pay. Then the money generated can be used to hire enough expert patent examiners so they will have enough tyme to check for uniqueness and prior art.
I personally don't have a problem with the concept of patenting software. And by software, I mean a full application. The biggest problem with software patents and the patent system as a whole is that you can patent bits and pieces of code/components. I say patent the product, not the product's components.
So then a person can create a compeating product and be stopped from selling it?
Which makes perfect sense considering that nothing of any real consequence was accomplished in mathematics or computer science prior to 1980, when the US Patent Office was not considering software patentable.
Have you ever heard of the internet? It was created in the 1970s, specifically before 1970 ARPANet, the predecessor of the internet was being created. On 7 April 1969 ARPA awarded BBN won the contract to create it. Eric Allman created Sendmail in 1983 as a descendant of Delivermail which was created in 1979. In 1977 BSD started being distributed. And following experiments in the '70 Usenet was established in 1980. What wasn't created, or preceded by something earlier, in the early '80s if not before was Gopher, created in 1991, the World Wide Web created in 1989, IRC, and Instant Messaging.
Complete baseless nonsense. It's exactly the opposite.
I don't see how you can say that. Because of patents it's hard to create a "high quality video codec". All, or almost all progress is based on what was done before, but if it can't be used there's not much progress.
A few FOSS developers can't develop something so complex as an advanced video codec, without depending on using others' (patented) developments.
See, you agree. Without infringing on patents a quality codec is difficult, However if non were patented then good quality codecs could be created.
FOSS hasn't developed a lossy video codec that does utilize patented method either...
And who wants to create a lossy odec, other than maybe MS and other proprietary venders?
FOSS serves a purpose, but developing ground-breaking new technologies isn't it. That requires lots of money, and FOSS doesn't have it, nor would it be smart to waste money in such a way, if they did.
So, Linux, OS X, and most of the software that runs the net isn't ground breaking? That's funny as most of the software that does run the net is FOSS. FOSS was there before the net was MS's wet dream.
Software patens must continue to exist. Maybe in a better-defined way, but if they are abolished, software will be hindered severely.
If software patents are needed so much then how did all the software before patents were granted for them get written? And how is it FOOS projects exist now? Without patents the members of MIT's Tech Model Railroad Club were writing programs for the PDP1 then leaving them out for others to improve. A good read on it, and hackers, is Steven Levy's "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution".
my worry with abolishment is that it will allow well funded companies to become bigger and there would be no incentive for small companies to start.
I see it just the opposite. Software patent drive up the price of starting and running a software business. If I were to use my free tyme to write a program to do something I wouldn't be able to afford to make sure I didn't infringe on anyone else's patents. That's not a problem when there are no software patents, but with them it is.
I think shortening both the application process
Shortening the tyme for patent applications will only make things worse. Patent examiners will basically be made to rubber stamp applications. This would increase costs because more money would be needed to dispute patents, whether because of prior art, the examiners not having enough tyme to check for it, or otherwise.
FOOS has yet to demonstrate development of a high quality video codec, without re-using numerous patented methods.
In other words progress in discouraged which is the oppose of what patents are supposed to do. This is one reason I oppose software patents, even with an army of lawyers it's difficult if not impossible to make sure you're not infringing on a patent. A lone programmer couldn't do it.
This is one of the better reasons for patents in general. Showcasing a product that has yet to reach the market so you can gain funding from venture capitalists becomes riskier if the venture capitalists can turn tail and give the idea to someone else.
This is pretty easy to deal with, NDAs and non compeat contracts. What, some won't sign any? Then they loose because they won't have a product while an angel investor will.
When the original copyright and patent lengths were set, development and distribution was much slower.
The original copyright and patent terms were 14 year with one 14 year extension possible. And it was Thomas Jefferson, who originally opposed them, who calculated how long they should last. When he did he used an actuarial or life table. While development can be much quicker now, using TJ's methodology because people live longer patents would be longer. Personally I'm not sure about patents in general but I oppose software patents.
Many companies have come to rely on software patents raising the barrier to entry for competitors.
WHich is why software patents are bad, someone who does not have the resources will find it harder to break into business because of patents, meanwhile those patents won't stop Microsoft or other companies from infringing on patents. "So go ahead and sue us, in the end if we have to pay you, years later, it'll be chump change to us." "Microsoft appeals Office patent infringement damages".
Like I mentioned, we have patents pending and have invested a substantial amount of money on lawyer and other patent fees. Are we going to get our money back?
You never should of have had to pay all those legal bills to begin with, and without software patents you wouldn't have had to. Software patents are only good for lawyers, it makes them richer while others pay more.
So the legal fees to research whether a line of code infringes on a patent are far greater in terms of proportion, compared to some multi-million pound drug company or manufacturing company.
* Software seems to be more likely to be built on previous innovations.
Ah but drug research is usually based on prior research or old knowledge. "The Pill", Progesterone, used to prevent pregnancy was based on the southern Mexican plant yam. The American Indians living there used the plant for this reason, to prevent pregnancy. Ethnobotany is the study of how different ethnic groups use plants for health or otherwise. And there are different ethnic groups throughout the world fighting against those who take the knowledge as their own for profit and are fighting against biopiracy.
in all seriousness, I don't object at all to significantly shortening the term of software patents. I do, however, find all arguments for completely abolishing them, entirely irrational, and borne from ignorance.
In all seriousness I've yet to hear any argument in support of software patents. Throughout the 1960s and '70s software was written without patent protection, and now FOOS projects show more software being written all the tyme without patents. Software already has protection, it's called copyrights, and GNU depends on them.
It's pretty easy to "re-implement" newly developed pharmaceutical drugs as well...
But it costs a lot to get FDA approval for a drug. All of the testing needed to win approval can cost millions of dollars. What's ironic is that pharmaceutical companies spend more money on advertising and marketing than they do on drug research.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why don't you provide studies or other evidence saying software needs patents for software to be created?
FalconIf you want pin-cites to everything, it is all there in the previous articles in our discussion.
Not once did you provide any proof Yahoo! made a counter offer to Microsoft, though I did provide links saying Yahoo!'s largest shareholders, er second largest, said Yahoo! should ask for at least $40. Those are different things however, a counter offer requires the board to make it not a shareholder.
We can reasonably infer from the WSJ's report that the request for at least $40 was made in the context of trying to get Microsoft to up its offer.
You can, but I don't. To me all WSJ said was he said she said, it offered no evidence Yahoo! in fact made any counter offer.
How this is not an attempt to negotiate (negotiate - to arrange for or bring about by discussion and settlement of terms [reference.com] is beyond me.
You offer a definition pf "negotiate" but do not provide what I asked for, evidence Yahoo!'s board in fact tried to negotiate at all.
I contend that this dissemination of information is at the very least a negotiating tactic. Why else would Yahoo tell the WSJ? The use of negotiating tactics is prima facie evidence of an attempt at negotiation.
I pointed WSJ did not say any counter offer was in fact made by the board but you keep saying they did While I offer links showing none was made you keeping repeating the same old same old without providing any evidence to support your contention.
As we're going around and around without you providing any proof I feel I'm wasting my tyme, so I'm ending this.
FalconThey should protect the product just like anything else protected under patents.
If the product, software, isn't the code though then what is it? Is it what the software does? If so then wouldn't this prevent others from releasing software that does the same thing?, even if differently?
FalconI still believe there needs to be some form of patent protection for software, but certainly not for the code or methods themselves.
If software patents don't protect the code, which is what copyright should do, or the methods then what do they protect?
FalconThe generally accepted legal definition of a counter offer is:
The [1] rejection of an offer to buy or sell that [2] makes a different offer during the course of negotiations, [3] changing the terms in some way.
And when did Yahoo! do any of these?
Do we have a different offer made during the course of negitiations? Well according to the Bloomberg article cited previously, "Yahoo wants at least $40 a share, the Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend." This is definitely a statement made during the course of negotiations.
TFA never, ever, said any negotiation took place. If you have another source that gives details to such then please provide them, and please don't tell me to look, proving a negative like this is much more difficult if not impossible than proving a counter offer was made by the board to Microsoft. No matter how much tyme is spent it can't really be proven whereas only one example of it happened is needed to prove it did happen And he said she said isn't proof it's hearsay.
I put the burden on you to prove that this act was not a different offer.
Yeap, as I say above you want me to prove a negative which can be impossible instead of you proving a positive which should be easy.
FalconDon't forget that this also prevents large corporations with money to throw around from just wiping out a small start-up business by underpricing them, out-marketing them, and out branding them.
Like Microsoft has never done any of this? Fact is is large corporations can and do get away with it because they can afford an army of lawyers to drag patent infringement lawsuits until the plaintiff is broke. Or if they eventually lose what they end up paying is chump change.
The patent system exists to protect and encourage innovation, not to stifle it. This is why the system needs fixed, as it no longer performs this function. As it stands now, innovation is being stifled because it's difficult to innovate without stepping on someone else's obscure and overly vague patent.
And how do you fix it?
Actually I have an idea I got from another /.er. Maybe what could be done is to have the patent term last only a few years, from when a product is released on the market and to stop patent trolls they'd have to release a product within a reasonable tyme period. Say make the term 5 years, then if the patent holder wants to extend it another year they would then pay a 1% royalty on sales. After 5 years the royalty would be 10% and in 10 year it would be 25%. The money paid could then be used to hire enough expert patent examiners to make sure it isn't obvious or in the public domain, there's no prior art.
However this would only apply to hardware and not to software. Software already has protection, it's called copyright.
FalconI believe it was in its first edition when I read it (in '93?), so it's been a while.
Yea, I read it when it first came out in '84. Back then I loved reading the magazine "Byte". My fav columns were Steve Ciarcia's "Circuit Cellar" who now has his own magazine "Circuit Cellar" and Jerry Pournelle's "Chaos Manor".
I might not quite remember the details like the name of Tech Model Railroad Club.
Because of an injury my memory is weird, I recall some things easy while other things I can't recall. A few years ago this proved to be a difficulty I had when I was taking Java classes. I'd do alright in the first class but then I could only recall a little bit for the second class so I'd start behind. I reread the book last year though, from where I am now all I have to do to get it is stand up and grab it from my book shelf.
FalconThis will be my final response.
Because of your idiocy this is my last response.
FalconHow is a software implementation of an idea different from a hardware implementation of it?
Unlike hardware software is protected by copyrights.
OTOH, copyrights are very different from patents.
They are now but they used to be similar. Both lasted 14 year with one 14 year extension possible. A patent required the details and a working example so anyone proficient in the field could build one themselves so that eventually how to do so would enter the public domain. Copyrights required the entire work being submitted or on file, I hear now copyrights for software do not require this. Without the entire code it could never enter the public domain.
they specifically do not protect the ideas being expressed.
Ideas shouldn't be protected, only specific implementations of an idea should be. Patent X which protects solution A to problem B shouldn't prevent me prevent me from patenting a totally different solution to B. For instance even if NTP had released an actual product using it's patents so long as RIM had not used their specific implementation of the patents NTP shouldn't of been able to sue RIM for patent infringement, well they shouldn't have won.
FalconI haven't made up my mind on patents for hardware. If you go over my posts on patents over the past couple of years, while I've always opposed software patents, you can see I went from supporting them to opposing them to now when I don't what to think of them. There are good points as well as bad points to patents. The father of capitalism, Adam Smith, too wasn't sure about them. In the sense that they grant a government monopoly he opposed them however he also thought people would invent more if they could be sure they could benefit from a limited monopoly. Though I'm still thinking it through, I'm starting to lean towards a system where an inventor could get a patent for a few years, from the tyme they produce a product for the public but they have to release within a reasonable tyme period or they'll lose it, but in order to keep a monopoly afterwards they'd have to pay a premium on a sliding scale. Say the first year after the patent expires they may be required to pay 1% of sells as a royalty, then the fifth year, 10%, and 25% the 10th year. The longer they want to hold the patent the more they pay. Then the money generated can be used to hire enough expert patent examiners so they will have enough tyme to check for uniqueness and prior art.
FalconI personally don't have a problem with the concept of patenting software. And by software, I mean a full application. The biggest problem with software patents and the patent system as a whole is that you can patent bits and pieces of code/components. I say patent the product, not the product's components.
So then a person can create a compeating product and be stopped from selling it?
FalconWhich makes perfect sense considering that nothing of any real consequence was accomplished in mathematics or computer science prior to 1980, when the US Patent Office was not considering software patentable.
Have you ever heard of the internet? It was created in the 1970s, specifically before 1970 ARPANet, the predecessor of the internet was being created. On 7 April 1969 ARPA awarded BBN won the contract to create it. Eric Allman created Sendmail in 1983 as a descendant of Delivermail which was created in 1979. In 1977 BSD started being distributed. And following experiments in the '70 Usenet was established in 1980. What wasn't created, or preceded by something earlier, in the early '80s if not before was Gopher, created in 1991, the World Wide Web created in 1989, IRC, and Instant Messaging.
FalconIn other words progress in discouraged
Complete baseless nonsense. It's exactly the opposite.
I don't see how you can say that. Because of patents it's hard to create a "high quality video codec". All, or almost all progress is based on what was done before, but if it can't be used there's not much progress.
A few FOSS developers can't develop something so complex as an advanced video codec, without depending on using others' (patented) developments.
See, you agree. Without infringing on patents a quality codec is difficult, However if non were patented then good quality codecs could be created.
FOSS hasn't developed a lossy video codec that does utilize patented method either...
And who wants to create a lossy odec, other than maybe MS and other proprietary venders?
FOSS serves a purpose, but developing ground-breaking new technologies isn't it. That requires lots of money, and FOSS doesn't have it, nor would it be smart to waste money in such a way, if they did.
So, Linux, OS X, and most of the software that runs the net isn't ground breaking? That's funny as most of the software that does run the net is FOSS. FOSS was there before the net was MS's wet dream.
FalconSoftware patens must continue to exist. Maybe in a better-defined way, but if they are abolished, software will be hindered severely.
If software patents are needed so much then how did all the software before patents were granted for them get written? And how is it FOOS projects exist now? Without patents the members of MIT's Tech Model Railroad Club were writing programs for the PDP1 then leaving them out for others to improve. A good read on it, and hackers, is Steven Levy's "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution".
FalconWhat's the worst that could happen if patents were abolished? Simple, inventors could refuse to invent stuff.
Except things have been invented throughout history without patents.
Falconmy worry with abolishment is that it will allow well funded companies to become bigger and there would be no incentive for small companies to start.
I see it just the opposite. Software patent drive up the price of starting and running a software business. If I were to use my free tyme to write a program to do something I wouldn't be able to afford to make sure I didn't infringe on anyone else's patents. That's not a problem when there are no software patents, but with them it is.
I think shortening both the application process
Shortening the tyme for patent applications will only make things worse. Patent examiners will basically be made to rubber stamp applications. This would increase costs because more money would be needed to dispute patents, whether because of prior art, the examiners not having enough tyme to check for it, or otherwise.
FalconFOOS has yet to demonstrate development of a high quality video codec, without re-using numerous patented methods.
In other words progress in discouraged which is the oppose of what patents are supposed to do. This is one reason I oppose software patents, even with an army of lawyers it's difficult if not impossible to make sure you're not infringing on a patent. A lone programmer couldn't do it.
FalconThis is one of the better reasons for patents in general. Showcasing a product that has yet to reach the market so you can gain funding from venture capitalists becomes riskier if the venture capitalists can turn tail and give the idea to someone else.
This is pretty easy to deal with, NDAs and non compeat contracts. What, some won't sign any? Then they loose because they won't have a product while an angel investor will.
When the original copyright and patent lengths were set, development and distribution was much slower.
The original copyright and patent terms were 14 year with one 14 year extension possible. And it was Thomas Jefferson, who originally opposed them, who calculated how long they should last. When he did he used an actuarial or life table. While development can be much quicker now, using TJ's methodology because people live longer patents would be longer. Personally I'm not sure about patents in general but I oppose software patents.
FalconMany companies have come to rely on software patents raising the barrier to entry for competitors.
WHich is why software patents are bad, someone who does not have the resources will find it harder to break into business because of patents, meanwhile those patents won't stop Microsoft or other companies from infringing on patents. "So go ahead and sue us, in the end if we have to pay you, years later, it'll be chump change to us." "Microsoft appeals Office patent infringement damages".
Like I mentioned, we have patents pending and have invested a substantial amount of money on lawyer and other patent fees. Are we going to get our money back?
You never should of have had to pay all those legal bills to begin with, and without software patents you wouldn't have had to. Software patents are only good for lawyers, it makes them richer while others pay more.
FalconSo the legal fees to research whether a line of code infringes on a patent are far greater in terms of proportion, compared to some multi-million pound drug company or manufacturing company.
* Software seems to be more likely to be built on previous innovations.
Ah but drug research is usually based on prior research or old knowledge. "The Pill", Progesterone, used to prevent pregnancy was based on the southern Mexican plant yam. The American Indians living there used the plant for this reason, to prevent pregnancy. Ethnobotany is the study of how different ethnic groups use plants for health or otherwise. And there are different ethnic groups throughout the world fighting against those who take the knowledge as their own for profit and are fighting against biopiracy.
FalconI'm torn when it comes to software patents. Inventors need to have a LIMITED amount of time in which they can exclusively profit on their ideas.
Software can already enjoy two protections, copyrights and trade secrets.
Falconin all seriousness, I don't object at all to significantly shortening the term of software patents. I do, however, find all arguments for completely abolishing them, entirely irrational, and borne from ignorance.
In all seriousness I've yet to hear any argument in support of software patents. Throughout the 1960s and '70s software was written without patent protection, and now FOOS projects show more software being written all the tyme without patents. Software already has protection, it's called copyrights, and GNU depends on them.
FalconIt's pretty easy to "re-implement" newly developed pharmaceutical drugs as well...
But it costs a lot to get FDA approval for a drug. All of the testing needed to win approval can cost millions of dollars. What's ironic is that pharmaceutical companies spend more money on advertising and marketing than they do on drug research.
FalconAbolition of Software Patents is just plainly nonsense.
What's nonsense is software patents. As shown by Linux and other FOSS projects has shown they are not needed.
FalconHowever, since only one company was successful (better product, better marketing, better luck, whatever reason), the successful company was sued.
I don't know of an actual product the "unsuccessful" company released to the public. DO you have a link to it?
Falcon