All of Amazon's content will be DRM free, only a portion of iTune's content will be DRM free. IMO siding with the more moral of the companies (and in this case that would be Amazon as I'm only talking sales of music, not one-click patents) gives them a reward and others an incentive to fucking catch up.
So you're saying that if I want to roommate with someone in America, I'm legally not allowed to ask their sexual orientation? Wow. Lucky for me I'm openminded, but that would suck for a lot of people. I can't believe you force people to potentially live with those they judge to be morally corrupt.
Right, always finding something bad even in a good news, aren't you Mike. Well here in Australia we have centrelink which pays out money to various people due to various things (single-mother's benefits, old-age pension, dole, etc). If the government overpays then they take it out of the money they owe in the future. I don't know why the Canadian government doesn't do the same in this case. Oh, that's right. Its because the money goes to corporations not private individuals. I guess they're more important.
How on Earth would this "return in the hands of the consumers" be organized. Pay it back to the government who then puts it to use in public services. Much better then it being used to buy some CEO another yacht.
The USPTO won't, but the Supreme Court has to uphold software patents. Even though these patents have been granted since 1981, never before has the US Supreme Court upheld one. Therefore someone with the balls and money willing to fight a patent all the way to the Supreme Court could void every single software patent. Unfortunately anyone with that much money probably has software patents of their own, and so have an incentive to settle.
I'll pass Wow, so you'd rather do with more luxury goods then see your fellow man have better health. I surely hope your ethic isn't what's meant by the phrase "the American way."
If such a trivial patent is valid, then the US patent system is realy b0rked. Well I was taking the idea that some of Microsoft's 235 patents may be valid and may not be re-implementable. I wasn't talking specifically about the screen saver example.
You imply that, say, Red Hat or Novell own the code involved Aaah, no. I clearly stated in my hypothetical that my employer would only be licensing the code from me rather then owning it. I realize this is unusual, hence why I explicitly said it;)
Its important to ask is Open Innovation Network's patents of the same quality of Microsoft's? Large companies tend to have a habit of patenting everything under the sun because they can afford to and who knows what will help them. Does OIN follow the same practice? Or are they more cautious with what they patent? If they're more cautious (and knowing nothing about them I don't know) then those 30 of those patents might be valid whereas Microsoft's valid patents could be significantly less. So yes, those 37 patents may be of a significant threat to Microsoft, if OIN has the lawyers to enforce them.
If you're simply worried about programming around patents then check out the USPTO website. If, however, you're worried about infringing on valid and enforceable patents, you'll probably want to wait for this list to be produced which should, at the very least, have a couple.
No patents do NOT protect ideas. They protect implementations of ideas (i.e. inventions). It is definitely possible to implement an old idea (or a patented idea) in a new (and even innovative way) that isn't under patent. Having said that....
It would be very difficult to create an alternative to an established idea such as this. This is true. Some of these patents will be valid (under US law) and as such will require those that wish to distribute and develop them in the US to remove these infringements and won't be able to implement the ideas without infringing on the patent. Hopefully this will spur OSS projects to develop new and innovative solutions to the problems the patents solve and it will spur creativity and be of benefit to everyone. Hopefully it will encourage OSS developers to stop playing catch up and innovate instead (as some already do).
So when I work for a closed source software company my company shouldn't be sued, but me (if let's pretend the company only licenses my work rather then own it)?
Please don't put your anti-google spam as replies to my posts. I call it that because your post has nothing to do with monopolies. Next time try an on-topic reply or simply make a new thread in an article.
But the state didn't give it a monopoly on operating systems. It gave it a monopoly on the Windows code. By your logic Linux and Apple would have had monopolies on operating systems all at the same time (and no I'm not talking about an oligopoly, I'm pointing out the logical flaw in the AC's claim). It was a nice try though;)
Well if people care more about good search results then not "being afraid" then I'd suggest they go see a psychiatrist. If however they're not afraid of google, why would anyone switch?
Slashdot Mirror
All of Amazon's content will be DRM free, only a portion of iTune's content will be DRM free. IMO siding with the more moral of the companies (and in this case that would be Amazon as I'm only talking sales of music, not one-click patents) gives them a reward and others an incentive to fucking catch up.
So you're saying that if I want to roommate with someone in America, I'm legally not allowed to ask their sexual orientation? Wow. Lucky for me I'm openminded, but that would suck for a lot of people. I can't believe you force people to potentially live with those they judge to be morally corrupt.
Because it involves e-mails. Slashdot covers news involving technology, e-mails are technology.
So my school book is taxed by this as well? After all, its a blank media ;)
The USPTO won't, but the Supreme Court has to uphold software patents. Even though these patents have been granted since 1981, never before has the US Supreme Court upheld one. Therefore someone with the balls and money willing to fight a patent all the way to the Supreme Court could void every single software patent. Unfortunately anyone with that much money probably has software patents of their own, and so have an incentive to settle.
Sounds like he's a victim to me. Do you blame rape victims as well?
It was an honest question!
What demand does Apple meet?
So your punishing the followers of a religion/cult/scam rather then the leaders? That makes perfect sense.
Its important to ask is Open Innovation Network's patents of the same quality of Microsoft's? Large companies tend to have a habit of patenting everything under the sun because they can afford to and who knows what will help them. Does OIN follow the same practice? Or are they more cautious with what they patent? If they're more cautious (and knowing nothing about them I don't know) then those 30 of those patents might be valid whereas Microsoft's valid patents could be significantly less. So yes, those 37 patents may be of a significant threat to Microsoft, if OIN has the lawyers to enforce them.
If you're simply worried about programming around patents then check out the USPTO website. If, however, you're worried about infringing on valid and enforceable patents, you'll probably want to wait for this list to be produced which should, at the very least, have a couple.
So when I work for a closed source software company my company shouldn't be sued, but me (if let's pretend the company only licenses my work rather then own it)?
They're in the article, so thanks for the karma whoring.
Oh really? Because I can do without Google just fine.
Please don't put your anti-google spam as replies to my posts. I call it that because your post has nothing to do with monopolies. Next time try an on-topic reply or simply make a new thread in an article.
But the state didn't give it a monopoly on operating systems. It gave it a monopoly on the Windows code. By your logic Linux and Apple would have had monopolies on operating systems all at the same time (and no I'm not talking about an oligopoly, I'm pointing out the logical flaw in the AC's claim). It was a nice try though ;)
And yet people give it to Google willingly. Yes, Google's services are just THAT good.
Well if people care more about good search results then not "being afraid" then I'd suggest they go see a psychiatrist. If however they're not afraid of google, why would anyone switch?