The European Patent Organisation isn't part of the European Union. The Patent Office is supervised by an Administrative Council, composed of representatives from the contracting states.
It is actually less a matter of money and more a matter of logical consistency. If a particular invention can be implemented in either hardware or software, for example, it is not logically consistent to allow it to be patented if it is implemented in hardware, but not if it is implemented in software.
As an example of this problem, suppose I implement an invention in hardware and patent it. If you then re-implement it in software, is that a violation of the patent? If so, then why would an original implementation in software not be patentable? If not, then what is the value of the patent in the first place?
The position of the EPO would seem to be that a computer program is not itself patentable, but that an otherwise patentable invention does not cease to be patentable simply because it is implemented in software. I think this is a reasonable and consistent approach.
The proposed directive on computer-implemented inventions (CII) was also supported by the European Patent Office, as in effect a codification of existing case law and practice by the EPO. The position of the EPO explained here notes that inventions implemented in software are patentable in Europe, with the notable exception of the UK, as long as they make a technical contribution.
Currently there are parts of Europe which, rather than follow EU law, style themselves as a 51st state and take after US law instead. That occurs in spite of being member states in the EU and not in the US. Sweden, for example, is one which has a patent office promoting software patents. For that matter the European Patent Office is still granting (invalid) patents on software. Until these and the others actually start following EU law by refusing further patents on software and annulling any previously granted software patents, the danger is not reduced. If anything, complacency increases the risk.
Which particular EU legislation are you referring to? The purpose of the CII directive was to codify and harmonise the existing practice of the EPO and the patent offices in most EU member states, which holds that whilst computer programs themselves are excluded from patentability, inventions implemented in software that make a technical contribution are not. Without the CII, there is simply no harmonisation, and existing practice is not affected.
A few campaign finance laws are hardly even relevant when it comes to the political influence that money can buy. It doesn't even have to be overt influence; here in the USA, all of the news media is owned by a few large companies built on FCC granted monopolies. They may not endorse specific political candidates, but they sure do define what a "mainstream candidate" is and they simply provide no favorable coverage for anyone who supports policies that hurt them financially.
In most of Europe, the situation is quite different. The primary TV and radio broadcasters are typically state owned, with various legal obligations to treat political parties fairly. It is common, for example, to require that equal airtime be given to all parties meeting a specific threshold of support, for party political broadcasts. Other forms of political broadcasting (including indirect broadcasts by pressure groups) are generally forbidden, or severely restricted.
Another important point is that the electoral systems in most EU countries (France and the UK being notable exceptions) are broadly proportional, so it is difficult to convince people not to vote for the party they actually agree with, just because the number of supporters is small. That's why in many countries there is a wide range of parties with divergent views, with some parties coming and going from parliament as issues of interest to the public change. The most important factor in their success is not how much money they have, but the extent to which the public agree with their policies.
If the political system in the United States is corrupted by money, that is unfortunate, but it doesn't mean the same is true in all Western countries.
I'm entirely willing to presuppose that money can (and does) influence democratic political systems.
This arguably isn't generally the case. In most countries of western/northern Europe, for example, and with a few exceptions such as Italy, there are statutory bans on political advertising, and political parties are typically granted limited, free airtime. As a result, the ability of money to corrupt the democratic process is severely curtailed.
I understand the system in the USA is quite different, with money being a key determinant in the acquisition of political power, but this is a particular aspect of certain political systems, and not of democratic systems generally. Many countries in eastern Europe also unfortunately allow paid political advertising, to the detriment of their political systems.
A free market *absolutely* implies free market entry. A "natural monopoly" refers to the case where a potential competitor won't enter the market because it'd be a bad deal economically, not the case when they don't enter the market because the government forbids it.
As I said, a free market does not imply competition. If a market is a natural monopoly, the natural situation will be a single producer, without any need for state intervention. If a market is a natural monopoly, a monopolist is not 'breaking the free market', as you put it.
As long as they continue to wield economically significant market power, they will acquire a ton of economic power that can then be translated into political power. At that point, you no longer have a free market *or* a free society - and that's a hell of a lot more important than what you pay for some gadget.
This presupposes a political system based on wealth rather than on democracy. In any case, a free market does not necessarily imply competition. Some markets are natural monopolies, for example.
And as a side note. Why doesn't MS just lower the cost of windows ?
If you read the article, it sounds like this is exactly what Microsoft are doing:
'And Microsoft's own prices have dropped so low it now sells a $3 package of Windows and Office to students.'
As soon as you need people with guns to force the populous to obey laws that they would much rather break, then you're not living in freedom anymore. It doesn't matter if the laws are about restricting the sale of party drugs or restricting the copying of bits. If "the people" want to do it and "the government" is stopping them, then the government is not for the people.. and it obviously isn't by the people.
Firstly, there is not a monolithic entity called 'the people'. Secondly, in Western societies, most people favour laws protecting authors' rights in principle, even if many of them are willing to violate them in small ways in practice. In the same way, most of the public favour laws taxing income, but a good number are willing to offer or accept cash in hand work on a limited basis, in blatant violation of the same laws.
One of the reasons we need the state in the first place is because people are not perfectly moral. A small minority are willing to do great harm to others to benefit themselves, but a much larger group, probably a majority, are willing to harm others in small ways if the benefits to themselves are large enough. Examples include insurance fraud, theft of stationery from employers, violation of copyright, limited avoidaince of tax, etc.
As for Stallman, his views are completely out of step with the views of the general public in any Western democracy. His band of dedicated and very vocal followers certainly get their point across, but most politicians rightly recognise them for the fringe group that they are.
Ah, so the complaint is about the search boxes in the Explorer UI, and not the search service. In that case, there is at least a reasonable basis for the complaint, but the suggestion that searching the local file system is 'middleware' is dubious at best: a content indexing service has been a standard feature of Windows since Windows 2000, and a basic search interface has always been part of Explorer. The primary difference in Vista is simply that the two features have been replaced by much improved versions, which work together and offer a better and more accessible UI.
The only real argument for the middleware claim is that Microsoft distributes Windows Desktop Search separately for Windows XP. However, this is arguably just an upgrade to the older indexing and search features in XP, and not a separate product. On the whole, the middleware argument is extremely weak, even if it is perhaps not entirely without merit.
According to this link, Spyglass Mosaic, which was licensed by Microsoft, didn't include any code from NCSA Mosaic. Assuming that's correct, Microsoft didn't use any NCSA Mosaic code, but did use Spyglass Mosaic code, so I suppose it's a matter of the interpretation of 'Mosaic code'. I had in mind the NCSA Mosaic code in my original post.
Wow, that's amazing logic. Many economists argue X causes Y. You contend Y, therefore you must prove X.
Ah, I did not say you must prove every market is a natural monopoly, I said the assumption cannot be taken for granted, i.e. you must argue for it (as you now have done). The prior point was also referring to the sustainability of monopolies, and not to their cause per se.
I actually would also contend that all industries are natural monopolies: due to economies of scale for the production of almost everything, and the value of brand recognition, almost everything is a natural monopoly. Further, because businesses prie future profits as well, that monopoly will continue to operate even if that price point is where perfect competion would place it. Lastly, I would contend that competitors will always merge/be aquired, as, where would the downside be?
The evidence tends to suggest otherwise. Certain industries with high fixed costs can arguably be described as tending towards oligopoly, but many other industries are dominated by small firms, particularly in the services sector. There are certainly some areas where there is a tendency towards natural monopoly, particularly where fixed capital costs are very high, or where network effects are strong, but these attributes are far from universal.
Empirically, mergers fail all the time. The recent decision of DaimlerChrysler to sell most of its Chrysler unit is perhaps a good example. In theory, the merger of Daimler-Benz and Chrysler should have allowed certain functions duplicated in each firm to be combined, and for larger purchases, both potentially leading to lower costs. In practice, it didn't work out. In contrast, Porsche has in recent years been the world's most profitable car firm, despite being quite small. The failure of the DaimlerChrysler merger is hardly unique to the car industry either: in fact, most mergers fail, particularly international ones. There are a variety of reasons, but a frequent problem is differences in corporate culture.
Why isn't bigger always better? One reason is organisational structure. Small firms tend to have relatively flat organisational structures, but as a firm grows, it requires increasing layers of management to coordinate all of the employees. If the added organisational costs are offset by gains from factors such as greater specialisation, lower input costs (for buying in higher quantities) or elimination of duplicate functions, a larger size can pay off, but if not, a smaller size may be preferable.
[I]nstead of simply making a better desktop search for Windows to compete with Google, Microsoft created a desktop search that interferes with the performance of Google's offering.
From what I've read, the only way Microsoft's search service is claimed to 'interfere' with Google's is by existing and being enabled: running two services to index content will of course slow both of them down. The fact that Microsoft's service can easily be turned off or disabled makes this complaint a nonsense. If Google's installer doesn't turn off conflicting services, Google have only themselves to blame.
If there's more to the issue that that, I would appreciate being enlightened. As it is, it looks like Microsoft simply created a better search offering, and Google are whingeing about it because their own offering is no longer competitive.
You're right for the most part, but many economists argue that without state intervention, monopolies are only sustainable in markets where a single producer constitutes the lowest-cost method of production (looking at cost in relation to value created), i.e. where a natural monopoly exists. If you assume that every market is a natural monopoly, then the natural state under capitalism must necessarily be monopoly, but this assumption cannot be taken for granted.
Nonsense, of course you can stop it. The 'Windows Search' service is simply one of many non-essential Windows services, and can be stopped or disabled by any user with administrative privileges. If that is the heart of Google's complaint, then they're either dishonest or incompetent.
or remove Microsoft's Desktop Search from Windows Explorer.
Explorer has had a search function since Windows 95, so if Google are upset by that, it's a bit late to start complaining now.
If it is ruled that desktop search is a separate market to operating systems, then Microsoft are acting illegally by including desktop search with their operating system, rather than providing it as a separate product.
This is one of the most important reasons why many, including Alan Greenspan, object to these laws: insofar as the question of whether or not desktop search is a separate market from operating systems is a legal rather than a technical one, there is no way for Microsoft to know whether or not including this functionality in the OS is illegal until a judicial ruling, after the fact.
To take another example, Apple is arguably a dominant firm in music players, which may limit its ability to discriminate in negotiations with, for example, media firms publishing music on iTunes. Apple management can't know whether or not the iPod is a dominant product or monopoly in legal terms until a judicial ruling, after the fact. Should they focus on maximising shareholder wealth by securing the best deals with media firms, or should they treat all such firms equally, to avoid future prosecution for abusing a dominant position/legal monopoly?
The view that judges ought to decide whether or not a given feature can be included in a particular software product, or represents a different market, is not particularly appealing, either from a technical or an economic perspective.
On the broader point, I suspect most people who bring this up know the difference, and are simply using a rhetorical device to express their disapproval of laws that treat dominant firms differently to non-dominant ones.
That's not true. Microsoft's old searching software might not have been very capable, but it's been around since 1996, and in 2003 Microsoft demonstrated the replacement for it (based at the time on WinFS) that finally shipped with Vista. This demonstration predated both Google Desktop Search and Apple Spotlight.
Microsoft can be faulted for taking an inordinately long time to get their solution to the market, but they've been trying to do it since the mid-1990s, and if there was any copying going on, Google and Apple arguably copied the idea from Microsoft, and not the other way round.
That isn't quite right. Netscape's browser was not based on Mosaic, because the licensing chosen by the University of Illinois would not grant an exclusive right to the source code to Netscape. The university's aim was to licence it to anyone who wished to use it, and this didn't fit with Netscape's plans. That's why Marc Andreessen and the other Netscape developers called their new browser 'Mozilla', meaning 'Mosaic killer'. For Internet Explorer, on the other hand, Microsoft did acquire a Mosaic licence, but apparently never used any of the Mosaic code itself.
As for how Netscape imagined it would be a viable business model to sell a browser when Mosaic was given away for free, there was apparently much debate about this early on, with some at Netscape believing the browser should be given away to drive sales of the server (which would offer unique features not supported by browsers other than Netscape's), whilst others argued the browser ought to be sold. In the end, they effectively gave it away to consumers, but charged commercial users. It wasn't a viable business model, and so it eventually collapsed, with Microsoft speeding up the process by giving away IE.
If you have reason to believe it is not, there are a few approaches. One is to demand the right to build binaries for your own use, but the supplier would probably object to this. A more realistic option is to insist that you be allowed to build the supplied source code with the same tools used by the supplier, and compare the resulting binaries with those supplied. Finally, machine code is not entirely opaque: it can be disassembled and compared to the purported source code, although compiler optimisations make this a far more difficult task than would be the case with unoptimised code.
Analysing the machine code is in any event the only way to be absolutely certain, even if you are building completely open source code yourself, as the compiler could be compromised. Having the source code to the compiler is not a solution either, because if that code was in turn compiled by a compromised compiler, it will produce compromised code, and so on.
Governments have big budgets and are important customers. If a supplier is willing to supply source code, it is rather unlikely the supplier would object to providing the development environment necessary to build the system, with the understanding that this would only be done for the purposes of analysis, and not put into production.
And sneak in a backdoor to the code I sell the government. Since it's "more secure" closed source which they can't see, they'll never know about it as I data mine their systems.
Ah, but you have missed the basic point that closed source does not preclude providing the code to trusted parties. Most governments have access to Microsoft's OS source code, for example, so are perfectly free to employ experts to scour it for weaknesses and backdoors. If any backdoors were found, you can be quite certain the software would be banned from use by agencies of the respective government.
The essential difference in this respect between closed and open source, you see, is that with closed source, it is only trusted parties that are allowed to see the source code, whereas with open source, anyone can see it.
There is also the issue of bugs, which can sometimes be used to bypass security mechanisms. Bugs can of course be found without source code, e.g. through testing, but it is far easier for an expert looking for weaknesses to find bugs when the source code is available than when it isn't.
Why would anyone want to see the demise of the mainframe, or any other particular technology? I don't understand all the emotion about such things: if the mainframe continues to provide value in certain areas, then customers in those areas will continue to buy it.
This is simply consumerism at work. Intel and AMD want you to repeatedly buy newer and faster CPUs, NVidia and ATI/AMD want you to buy ever faster GPUs, Microsoft and Apple want you to buy operating systems with ever more features. Hard drive manufacturers want you to buy ever larger drives, RAM manufacturers want you to buy ever larger RAM modules, Apple want you to repeatedly replace music players with newer ones with ever more capacity and features, mobile phone vendors want you to repeatedly replace your mobile with more fashionable new models more features, and so on.
A relatively old PC can still perform useful work, particularly with a stripped down version of Linux installed, but newer PCs are clearly better. In the same way, an old mobile can still be used to talk and SMS, but that isn't good enough for most people. If you wish to take advantage of the latest developments in technolgy (and fashion), you've no choice but to upgrade. That is simply the nature of Western consumerism.
Btw, Vista could turn out like another WindowsME, so you may be borrowing trouble in your haste to deploy Vista.
Highly improbable. Windows ME was the last gasp of a dying operating system, the MS-DOS/Win16/Win9x line, and was vastly inferior to Windows 2000, which had already been released. It was clear that the Windows 2000 line was the future (Windows XP is the direct successor of Windows 2000), and that Windows ME would not be developed further.
Vista continues to gradually increase its market share, and in June overtook Windows 2000 as the system with the second-largest installed base behind XP. It still has a very long way to go before catching XP, and will quite likely take longer to displace XP than XP did to replace Windows 9x. In that sense, the Vista release is perhaps more similar to the Windows 2000 release. Windows 2000 made slow and steady progress, but had considerably higher hardware requirements than Windows 98, so a lot of users stayed with 98 until they replaced their systems, by which time XP had been released.
The Office Open XML (OOXML) format created by Microsoft is an open standard, Standard ECMA-376. There is no need for Microsoft to support a competing standard such as ODF, unless it becomes the de facto standard, which is rather unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
The European Patent Organisation isn't part of the European Union. The Patent Office is supervised by an Administrative Council, composed of representatives from the contracting states.
As an example of this problem, suppose I implement an invention in hardware and patent it. If you then re-implement it in software, is that a violation of the patent? If so, then why would an original implementation in software not be patentable? If not, then what is the value of the patent in the first place?
The position of the EPO would seem to be that a computer program is not itself patentable, but that an otherwise patentable invention does not cease to be patentable simply because it is implemented in software. I think this is a reasonable and consistent approach.
The proposed directive on computer-implemented inventions (CII) was also supported by the European Patent Office, as in effect a codification of existing case law and practice by the EPO. The position of the EPO explained here notes that inventions implemented in software are patentable in Europe, with the notable exception of the UK, as long as they make a technical contribution.
Another important point is that the electoral systems in most EU countries (France and the UK being notable exceptions) are broadly proportional, so it is difficult to convince people not to vote for the party they actually agree with, just because the number of supporters is small. That's why in many countries there is a wide range of parties with divergent views, with some parties coming and going from parliament as issues of interest to the public change. The most important factor in their success is not how much money they have, but the extent to which the public agree with their policies.
If the political system in the United States is corrupted by money, that is unfortunate, but it doesn't mean the same is true in all Western countries.
I understand the system in the USA is quite different, with money being a key determinant in the acquisition of political power, but this is a particular aspect of certain political systems, and not of democratic systems generally. Many countries in eastern Europe also unfortunately allow paid political advertising, to the detriment of their political systems.
As I said, a free market does not imply competition. If a market is a natural monopoly, the natural situation will be a single producer, without any need for state intervention. If a market is a natural monopoly, a monopolist is not 'breaking the free market', as you put it.Firstly, there is not a monolithic entity called 'the people'. Secondly, in Western societies, most people favour laws protecting authors' rights in principle, even if many of them are willing to violate them in small ways in practice. In the same way, most of the public favour laws taxing income, but a good number are willing to offer or accept cash in hand work on a limited basis, in blatant violation of the same laws.
One of the reasons we need the state in the first place is because people are not perfectly moral. A small minority are willing to do great harm to others to benefit themselves, but a much larger group, probably a majority, are willing to harm others in small ways if the benefits to themselves are large enough. Examples include insurance fraud, theft of stationery from employers, violation of copyright, limited avoidaince of tax, etc.
As for Stallman, his views are completely out of step with the views of the general public in any Western democracy. His band of dedicated and very vocal followers certainly get their point across, but most politicians rightly recognise them for the fringe group that they are.
The only real argument for the middleware claim is that Microsoft distributes Windows Desktop Search separately for Windows XP. However, this is arguably just an upgrade to the older indexing and search features in XP, and not a separate product. On the whole, the middleware argument is extremely weak, even if it is perhaps not entirely without merit.
According to this link, Spyglass Mosaic, which was licensed by Microsoft, didn't include any code from NCSA Mosaic. Assuming that's correct, Microsoft didn't use any NCSA Mosaic code, but did use Spyglass Mosaic code, so I suppose it's a matter of the interpretation of 'Mosaic code'. I had in mind the NCSA Mosaic code in my original post.
Empirically, mergers fail all the time. The recent decision of DaimlerChrysler to sell most of its Chrysler unit is perhaps a good example. In theory, the merger of Daimler-Benz and Chrysler should have allowed certain functions duplicated in each firm to be combined, and for larger purchases, both potentially leading to lower costs. In practice, it didn't work out. In contrast, Porsche has in recent years been the world's most profitable car firm, despite being quite small. The failure of the DaimlerChrysler merger is hardly unique to the car industry either: in fact, most mergers fail, particularly international ones. There are a variety of reasons, but a frequent problem is differences in corporate culture.
Why isn't bigger always better? One reason is organisational structure. Small firms tend to have relatively flat organisational structures, but as a firm grows, it requires increasing layers of management to coordinate all of the employees. If the added organisational costs are offset by gains from factors such as greater specialisation, lower input costs (for buying in higher quantities) or elimination of duplicate functions, a larger size can pay off, but if not, a smaller size may be preferable.
From what I've read, the only way Microsoft's search service is claimed to 'interfere' with Google's is by existing and being enabled: running two services to index content will of course slow both of them down. The fact that Microsoft's service can easily be turned off or disabled makes this complaint a nonsense. If Google's installer doesn't turn off conflicting services, Google have only themselves to blame.
If there's more to the issue that that, I would appreciate being enlightened. As it is, it looks like Microsoft simply created a better search offering, and Google are whingeing about it because their own offering is no longer competitive.
You're right for the most part, but many economists argue that without state intervention, monopolies are only sustainable in markets where a single producer constitutes the lowest-cost method of production (looking at cost in relation to value created), i.e. where a natural monopoly exists. If you assume that every market is a natural monopoly, then the natural state under capitalism must necessarily be monopoly, but this assumption cannot be taken for granted.
To take another example, Apple is arguably a dominant firm in music players, which may limit its ability to discriminate in negotiations with, for example, media firms publishing music on iTunes. Apple management can't know whether or not the iPod is a dominant product or monopoly in legal terms until a judicial ruling, after the fact. Should they focus on maximising shareholder wealth by securing the best deals with media firms, or should they treat all such firms equally, to avoid future prosecution for abusing a dominant position/legal monopoly?
The view that judges ought to decide whether or not a given feature can be included in a particular software product, or represents a different market, is not particularly appealing, either from a technical or an economic perspective.
On the broader point, I suspect most people who bring this up know the difference, and are simply using a rhetorical device to express their disapproval of laws that treat dominant firms differently to non-dominant ones.
Microsoft can be faulted for taking an inordinately long time to get their solution to the market, but they've been trying to do it since the mid-1990s, and if there was any copying going on, Google and Apple arguably copied the idea from Microsoft, and not the other way round.
As for how Netscape imagined it would be a viable business model to sell a browser when Mosaic was given away for free, there was apparently much debate about this early on, with some at Netscape believing the browser should be given away to drive sales of the server (which would offer unique features not supported by browsers other than Netscape's), whilst others argued the browser ought to be sold. In the end, they effectively gave it away to consumers, but charged commercial users. It wasn't a viable business model, and so it eventually collapsed, with Microsoft speeding up the process by giving away IE.
Analysing the machine code is in any event the only way to be absolutely certain, even if you are building completely open source code yourself, as the compiler could be compromised. Having the source code to the compiler is not a solution either, because if that code was in turn compiled by a compromised compiler, it will produce compromised code, and so on.
Governments have big budgets and are important customers. If a supplier is willing to supply source code, it is rather unlikely the supplier would object to providing the development environment necessary to build the system, with the understanding that this would only be done for the purposes of analysis, and not put into production.
The essential difference in this respect between closed and open source, you see, is that with closed source, it is only trusted parties that are allowed to see the source code, whereas with open source, anyone can see it.
There is also the issue of bugs, which can sometimes be used to bypass security mechanisms. Bugs can of course be found without source code, e.g. through testing, but it is far easier for an expert looking for weaknesses to find bugs when the source code is available than when it isn't.
Why would anyone want to see the demise of the mainframe, or any other particular technology? I don't understand all the emotion about such things: if the mainframe continues to provide value in certain areas, then customers in those areas will continue to buy it.
A relatively old PC can still perform useful work, particularly with a stripped down version of Linux installed, but newer PCs are clearly better. In the same way, an old mobile can still be used to talk and SMS, but that isn't good enough for most people. If you wish to take advantage of the latest developments in technolgy (and fashion), you've no choice but to upgrade. That is simply the nature of Western consumerism.
Vista continues to gradually increase its market share, and in June overtook Windows 2000 as the system with the second-largest installed base behind XP. It still has a very long way to go before catching XP, and will quite likely take longer to displace XP than XP did to replace Windows 9x. In that sense, the Vista release is perhaps more similar to the Windows 2000 release. Windows 2000 made slow and steady progress, but had considerably higher hardware requirements than Windows 98, so a lot of users stayed with 98 until they replaced their systems, by which time XP had been released.
The Office Open XML (OOXML) format created by Microsoft is an open standard, Standard ECMA-376. There is no need for Microsoft to support a competing standard such as ODF, unless it becomes the de facto standard, which is rather unlikely.