Problem is, do you think that protocols using only ideas from before 2008 will be optimal for whatever hardware and software systems we'll be using in 2028?
The MPEG patent thicket is a prime example of the real problem of software patents. If I want to write a video player, it has to play the formats that people encode videos in. The veto power of patents equates to the right to prohibit me, and everyone, from writing a functional video player. I think I already have pretty good info, but there's loads more of this story to tell. Help really appreciated in documenting this:
Obama's administration submitted a Bilski brief, and Obama's made a statement about wanting to enforce US patents overseas. I'm starting to document the administration's software patent related stances here :
It's good that a portion of his ill-gotten gains will save some lives, but it's tragic that so many more people are dying because access to medicine is blocked by the TRIPS agreement that Gates and friends pushed through.
This donation mustn't be let overshadow the harm. If it's let, then more such harm will be accepted in the future.
Same here, but most of my family and friends probably would:-/
I don't see any easy solutions, but maybe one good idea would be for browsers that exist for their users (i.e. free software web-browsers) should consider adding the functionality in an optional way with the best privacy possible.
It's a meta search engine that focusses on privacy by not logging your IP address and your searches. On the technical side, it's nearly as good as the big name search engine I used previously.
Here's a plugin for GNU IceCat / IceWeasel / Firefox: Ixquick, or the https version (which I haven't tried, but I guess is the same to users).
One hiccup: their ads system uses Google ads. Maybe they've implemented this in an anonymous way. I hope they have, but either way, at least with ixquick there a hope of privacy, unlike Google.
It's a meta search engine that focusses on privacy by not logging your IP address and your searches. On the technical side, it's nearly as good as the big name search engine I used previously.
Here's a plugin for GNU IceCat / IceWeasel / Firefox: Ixquick, or the https version (which I haven't tried, but I guess is the same to users).
Since patents aren't specific to any company, this means Motorola thinks all imports incorporating "Wi-Fi access, application management, user interface, or power management" should be subject to a veto by them.
This demonstrates again why patents don't work with software:
Infringement is unavoidable - imagine telling your customers you've decided to leave out Wi-Fi and power management!
Harm to standards - software just *has* to use existing ideas, compatibility with other software and with usage paterns is essential
There's no page yet on swpat.org for Motorola or for RIM or for their litigation(s). If someone could start pages for any of those, that would be welcome.
To build the case for excluding software from patentability, it's important to document the fact that antitrust doesn't offer a solution. If someone can help document this, here's the page on the public swpat.org documentation wiki:
I'm always worried that Firefox is making privacy too low a focus. Many of the privacy features I'd like would to see in Firefox would reduce the amount of data Google and other search engines gather about my WWW habits.
For as long as the Mozilla Foundation is financially dependent on Google, I presume that the Mozilla Foundation is betraying its users privacy in return for Google's money.
Being free software usually prevents projects from betraying their users, but this is a bizare case where those controls haven't worked.
(I know I can solve *my* problem by installing various plugins or changing browsers, but I'm not just looking for a quick fix for me, I'd like the privacy of my family and friends to be protected too.)
A draft that was leaked via Wikileaks (actually, it's offline until Jan 18th, but that's where you'll find the link when they're back to usual business
Google announces that it will now display pictures of some guy's brain lying on the ground in Tiananmen Square, and while passing that on, Slashdot pre-warns people about "holy shit" being displayed on a workplace computer screen.
I can only speak for the domain of software development, but there was a period from 1996-2008 when the USA was disproportionately feeling the rewards of software patenting. The rewards were always severly outweighed by the costs ($11 billion in 2008), but there were always people pointing at these rewards.
Now that the companies of the USA's economy will increasingly become the targets of software patents instead of the users, those rewards will diminishing.
Patent policy for other domains can be considered while only looking at the economic effects. For software, the social effects have to be considered too because software development is something that individuals can do and participate in - like writing a book, reporting news, or writing music. So, it makes sense to have economic studies to make our point, but we also have to remember to have other arguments and to point out that these other issues exist.
Microsoft has filled homes, offices and universities with software that the billions of users can't change. How many jobs would be created if all the offices, homes and universities had the option to pay someone to add a feature or make whatever changes? Or to organise themselves as a company to make the changes themselves and offer support or further development?
How much progress would be made if software development wasn't bottle necked by having only one company in the world able to do development of that operating system?
I clicked those links, plus some from a higher-up post, and found some mentions of bad behaviour, but it's mixed in with long comments about other stuff I've no interest in. To present information in a readable way, I suggest making one page/post about this one topic, and write a statement, link to a proof for that statement, then write another statement, link to a proof for that statement, rince, repeat as necessary.
When it's written, reread it from the point of view of someone who's doubtful (not an enemy, just a critical visitor), and fix the points where you think that reader might stop reading.
Glad to know you agree with us all on that......but the question was on a different topic.
I've given the highlights of Google's patents moves. Today's story adds another crumb of info, this time about design patents on software. The question is: anyone else got new pieces to add to help make the picture of Google's stance on software patents?
I've tried to figure out Google's stance on software patents, but it's never clear.
The brief they signed for the Supreme Court Bilski case does seem to argue against software patents, so that's the main thing.
On the other hand, they're stockpiling them. But do they use them aggressively? Have they ever argued *for* them being generally allowed by the USPTO?
(I know they support "patent reform", but that's only important for massive corporations, it's got little to do with anything of importance to software developers or users)
Slashdot Mirror
Problem is, do you think that protocols using only ideas from before 2008 will be optimal for whatever hardware and software systems we'll be using in 2028?
While you're thinking about that, please support campaigns to abolish software patents.
The MPEG patent thicket is a prime example of the real problem of software patents. If I want to write a video player, it has to play the formats that people encode videos in. The veto power of patents equates to the right to prohibit me, and everyone, from writing a functional video player. I think I already have pretty good info, but there's loads more of this story to tell. Help really appreciated in documenting this:
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki.
I've just started a wiki page to document the Novell-MS deals :
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, so if you'd like to contribute to building the case against software patents, dig in!
I've gathered some info already about patent trolls:
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
Obama's administration submitted a Bilski brief, and Obama's made a statement about wanting to enforce US patents overseas. I'm starting to document the administration's software patent related stances here :
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
It's good that a portion of his ill-gotten gains will save some lives, but it's tragic that so many more people are dying because access to medicine is blocked by the TRIPS agreement that Gates and friends pushed through.
This donation mustn't be let overshadow the harm. If it's let, then more such harm will be accepted in the future.
(ACTA is the modern TRIPS. We can still stop it.)
No techie I know installs any toolbar...
Same here, but most of my family and friends probably would :-/
I don't see any easy solutions, but maybe one good idea would be for browsers that exist for their users (i.e. free software web-browsers) should consider adding the functionality in an optional way with the best privacy possible.
I've switched to using
It's a meta search engine that focusses on privacy by not logging your IP address and your searches. On the technical side, it's nearly as good as the big name search engine I used previously.
Here's a plugin for GNU IceCat / IceWeasel / Firefox: Ixquick, or the https version (which I haven't tried, but I guess is the same to users).
One hiccup: their ads system uses Google ads. Maybe they've implemented this in an anonymous way. I hope they have, but either way, at least with ixquick there a hope of privacy, unlike Google.
I've switched to using
It's a meta search engine that focusses on privacy by not logging your IP address and your searches. On the technical side, it's nearly as good as the big name search engine I used previously.
Here's a plugin for GNU IceCat / IceWeasel / Firefox: Ixquick, or the https version (which I haven't tried, but I guess is the same to users).
What checks are in place to prevent this being used as an excuse to take down "toublesome" sites?
I mean, computers that are part of the Tor privacy network, or part of freenet, or bittorrent servers, or used by contributors to Wikileaks.
Regarding software patents, I've gathered some info already about H.264 and the standards problem:
It's a public wiki, help welcome.
Since patents aren't specific to any company, this means Motorola thinks all imports incorporating "Wi-Fi access, application management, user interface, or power management" should be subject to a veto by them.
This demonstrates again why patents don't work with software:
There's no page yet on swpat.org for Motorola or for RIM or for their litigation(s). If someone could start pages for any of those, that would be welcome.
To build the case for excluding software from patentability, it's important to document the fact that antitrust doesn't offer a solution. If someone can help document this, here's the page on the public swpat.org documentation wiki:
Thanks.
If you remember other stories of silly software patents, please help document this problem here:
(On the public swpat.org documentation wiki)
Thanks.
Please do a fundraiser for the campaign I'm working on. Thanks.
(It's End Software Patents, bank details when the first 1% is raised.)
I'm always worried that Firefox is making privacy too low a focus. Many of the privacy features I'd like would to see in Firefox would reduce the amount of data Google and other search engines gather about my WWW habits.
For as long as the Mozilla Foundation is financially dependent on Google, I presume that the Mozilla Foundation is betraying its users privacy in return for Google's money.
Being free software usually prevents projects from betraying their users, but this is a bizare case where those controls haven't worked.
(I know I can solve *my* problem by installing various plugins or changing browsers, but I'm not just looking for a quick fix for me, I'd like the privacy of my family and friends to be protected too.)
Of course, this draft is from last year.
When you're making a TV show that needs a mummy army, just let me know
Google announces that it will now display pictures of some guy's brain lying on the ground in Tiananmen Square, and while passing that on, Slashdot pre-warns people about "holy shit" being displayed on a workplace computer screen.
A high-expectation joke from good Mr. Taco?
I can only speak for the domain of software development, but there was a period from 1996-2008 when the USA was disproportionately feeling the rewards of software patenting. The rewards were always severly outweighed by the costs ($11 billion in 2008), but there were always people pointing at these rewards.
Now that the companies of the USA's economy will increasingly become the targets of software patents instead of the users, those rewards will diminishing.
Patent policy for other domains can be considered while only looking at the economic effects. For software, the social effects have to be considered too because software development is something that individuals can do and participate in - like writing a book, reporting news, or writing music. So, it makes sense to have economic studies to make our point, but we also have to remember to have other arguments and to point out that these other issues exist.
The good news is that there's the Bilski case which might solve the problem, and there are also initiatives in other countries, most notably Israel, New_Zealand, the EU, Australia, and something starting in . Help sought.
Microsoft has filled homes, offices and universities with software that the billions of users can't change. How many jobs would be created if all the offices, homes and universities had the option to pay someone to add a feature or make whatever changes? Or to organise themselves as a company to make the changes themselves and offer support or further development?
How much progress would be made if software development wasn't bottle necked by having only one company in the world able to do development of that operating system?
Larry Lessig has put out a video explaining that FSF is the organisation which is really helping computer users: fsf-2009-larrylessig.ogv.
Code Plex was always just a PR move, let's not get caught up in the hype.
Those links are too unreadable.
I clicked those links, plus some from a higher-up post, and found some mentions of bad behaviour, but it's mixed in with long comments about other stuff I've no interest in. To present information in a readable way, I suggest making one page/post about this one topic, and write a statement, link to a proof for that statement, then write another statement, link to a proof for that statement, rince, repeat as necessary.
When it's written, reread it from the point of view of someone who's doubtful (not an enemy, just a critical visitor), and fix the points where you think that reader might stop reading.
How can someone differentiate between your tl;dr links and this:
http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/07/13/backlash-feminism-considered-harmful/#comment-1146
?
Glad to know you agree with us all on that... ...but the question was on a different topic.
I've given the highlights of Google's patents moves. Today's story adds another crumb of info, this time about design patents on software. The question is: anyone else got new pieces to add to help make the picture of Google's stance on software patents?
I've tried to figure out Google's stance on software patents, but it's never clear.
The brief they signed for the Supreme Court Bilski case does seem to argue against software patents, so that's the main thing.
On the other hand, they're stockpiling them. But do they use them aggressively? Have they ever argued *for* them being generally allowed by the USPTO?
(I know they support "patent reform", but that's only important for massive corporations, it's got little to do with anything of importance to software developers or users)
Here's what I have so far: