Not to mention the story about a Canadian who's son was gravely injured... he brought is son to the hospital, but he couldn't be admitted without a paramedic or an ambulance. So they waited... while the son died... for an ambulance to come from across down so he could be admitted.
What PJ is effectively pointing out is that software patents have degenerated from rewarding true innovators to being serious road blocks to software innovation. They are land mines waiting to explode on anyone writing serious software without the resources to pay an army of lawyers to protect them.
I unistalled mirc in favor of it.. it's a great IRC client! Everyone using mirc casually that is looking for a good Free alternative should look at KVirc
I know this is yet-another-example-of-MS-is-teh-evil... blah blah.... Is just ridiculous. How many things must something be "compatible"...
When you are talking about email protocols, you are darned tooting right that nobody wants to have to 'ask nicely to Microsoft' for the permission to implement the standard.
Simplified for our trolling friend here: if you want people to play by certain rules you don't first tell them they need to ask you first if it's ok for them to obey those rules.
The threat is from the Middle Easterner, not the average American
Hey, couple of trick questions:
What race was Timothy McVeigh? What was his nationality?
Fanaticism isn't a monopoly of the Middle East you know. Give yourself a nice listen to a bunch of Bible belt holy talk someday. It can be a most refreshing learning experience as to what some of the religious right would do if there wasn't a constitution preventing them.
It really isn't the USPTOs job to weed through prior art and do all that investigative legwork
Right, it's perfectly legitimate for the government to foist unto industries the cost of litigating untold numbers of stupid patents. Because, as everyone knows, patents are first and foremost about giving lawyers jobs. How else would those poor people manage to afford their BMWs?
If patent officials aren't capable of discerning idiotic patents like that they shouldn't be trusted to assess ANY patent applications.
Furthermore, P2P file-sharing technology can allow its users to access the files of other users, even when the computer is "off" if the computer itself is connected to the Internet via broadband.
Nice to know these are some of the watchdogs keeping us safe from Microsoft's excesses. It's amazing 46 AGs read this and actually signed it. Yes, ladies and gentlement, even when your kid's computer is off it is being used to traffic porn.
Apparently the demonic forces in Doom3 are also possessing the computers of a lot of silly lawyers.
480 billion dollars a year for the military alone. America spends more money protecting itself than anything else. The funny thing is the only thing most americans have to worry about isn't foreign threats, it's getting shot by some desperate thug who doesn't give a crap about anything anymore.
It is so ironic that a nation that spends so much on security manages to do it to in a way that does nothing to resolve the real problems that exist in the country today.
There isn't any implied fitness for use or any kind of warranty in ALL the commercial software I have EVER used. In fact every EULA I have ever read removes as _much_ as possible any legal recourse somebody could take against the manufacturer of said commercial software.
One great example is the lawsuit that happened between Timeline and Microsoft over an alleged patent violation. Timeline claimed all SQL Server customers were on the hook for their patent: according to Timeline's summary of the decision: "SQL Server developers who create a new product by adding code in an "Infringing Combination" (as defined below) must obtain their own patent license."
Anyways, the point is that the purchase of commercial software in of itself does not protect you from patent claims. EULAs are only about protecting the IP of people who make commercial software.
I think there is an advantage with open source in this respect: using open source could eliminate any claim about an infrigement being underhanded.
The real solution is to clean up software patents.
I've recently had the joy of trying to open a number of MS Office documents in Office 2003. Guess what, according to Word 2003 those Word 97 documents were corrupted. Loaded fine in Open Office though. Go figure.
So much for ubiquitous office formats.... not to mention, of course, that Word is such a pleasure with large documents to begin with. It's so much fun dropping a picture on a word page-- talk about having to bloody reformat my document all the time...
But thats my point. There is a whole host of engineers out there who given the actual desire to do so would have come up with "wagging antennas" after a few beers and some sillyness. In fact, most of I read seems to be in fact just art in my opinion.
Since mathematics cannot be patented your comparison is interesting. I'd never seen Chernoff faces until I read your link and concur that idea seems quite original. There's a lot of original math, literature, music, art and philosophy. We don't allow patents on those for very sound reasons. Why, all of a sudden, originality became the only criteria in deciding patents elsewhere can only be explained by wonton greed.
Continuing your thoughts, I'd point out that you only need to go to a theme park to see all manner of real-world devices (everything from bumper-cars to the gadgets used to make machines in theme park rides more lively) that are already being used for this similar purposes.
Slight clarification: When I say revoke binary rights, I mean revoke access to their binary distribution, not my rights to build their source then use and distribute it as I please.
By buying this subscription I've paid for the rights to versions say A, B, C and D all of which must be GPLed. B, C, D are future releases, but I've paid for them and I have rights to receive them. I then choose to exercise my GPL rights to distribute my version A. Upon hearing this Sveasoft tells me I've violated their subscription license and have lost my subscription rights to B, C, D. But since I have already paid for B, C, and D and the GPL applies to them I still have GPL rights to the source. I have those rights because I received them the second Sveasoft entered into a license agreement with me to distribute them to me. Because Sveasoft cannot revoke my GPL rights, Sveasoft can only avoid giving me the source of B, C, and D if they refrain from making any new distributions for the term of the initial contract I subscribed to.
Therefore, Sveasoft can revoke my binary rights but is still obligated to distribute the source of future releases to me because they cannot revoke my GPL rights. Sveasoft can refund my money and say all they want: they cannot revoke my GPL rights. I can only lose them if I violate the GPL.
"selling free applications and having a name that sounds like 'windows'"
Ok, I'll bite. I don't use Lindows/Linspire but this post is incorrect.
1. Lindows sells a subscriptions service where they offer easy to install apps. This may not seem useful to you but it's very useful to a horde of people for whom installing software is too complex. They are selling "making it easy for you" not the free software.
2. Lindows doesn't represent the community and nobody would take seriously an attempt on their part to do so. They do however contribute to it. Recently, for example, they hired a fulltime mozilla developer. I'm also pretty sure they help finance/contribute to the development of some KDE apps. Additionally, they help pay for the bandwidth of the kdelook website.
3. Microsoft's rights to the word window are debatable at best. IMO owning the rights to the use of words in a specific context is a stupid idea that should never have been allowed.
4. I don't blame Lindows for taking the 20mil. It's not cheap fighting litigation all around the world and extra tough when you're trying to build a business at the same time. Especially when your opponent has bottomless pits of money.
Most big software companies are very opposed to the "communist" nature of the GPL.
Rubbish. The GPL helps me say this: "want modify and use my code? Fine, then make it $free like I did. Want a version that lets you close yours and protect your 'secrets'? Pay me and you can have a different license.
The GPL allows a lot of programmers to protect their work with a license that prevents vultures from hijacking it into their own product and not giving anything back in return.
How could something whose very existence is to protect my IP be communistic?
A 20 year monopoly on the arrangment of 'stuff' is ok with you?
By the way, I hope you are not infringing my patent on "poor taste furniture" covering such things such as the use of duct tape to cover broken springs.
Also, if you hang up your towels next to your shower, I'm going to sue.
Using a technicality to justify different treatment is exactly the kind of thing that makes countries scoff at the U.S. when after the fact the government takes the moral high-ground about human rights. It may be 'legal' but, judging how the U.S. is perceived internationally these days, not many countries are fooled about whether or not it is right.
If America won't treat its prisoners by the same standards it expects American prisoners to be treated then there is no 'red line' anymore. Soon other countries will be using the words 'terrorist' or 'none-combatant' to justify egregious abuses whilst the U.S. sits quietly by because it can no longer criticize other countries failure to respect the Geneva Conventions in their 'fight' against 'terrorism'.
The U.S. declared itself to be at war against terrorism. The President has himself said that America is at war with terrorists who are the 'enemy of freedom'. How can the very people America is supposed to be fighting against -- who it is at war with -- be none-combatants? These disingenuous distinctions to create convenient excuses to circumvent international conventions that regulate the treatment of prisoners in a war bring only discredit to the very morality of the fight.
This President has in my opinion done irreparable harm to the prestige of the United States in the matter of human rights. The ends do not justify the means if you are a moral person; the same is true for a country.
A better analogy for this user's problem. Except you missquote me. So I will repeat myself again. My issue was with the causality you and he established: that somehow the situation he encountered is the fault of Linux.
What I had an issue with in this entire thread was the notion that it was Linux's responsability to "build compatible trailer hitches for all trailers out there"; that consequently it was the fault of Linux that this compatability didn't exist. To further stretch this analogy: "only the manufacturer of the trailer understands how to build the hitch properly".
Finally, you impute to me things I have never done or said: "you and half of slashot say he is a clueless noob sheep for not wanting...". I'll let your statement lie in the irony of saying that in a sentence where you lambast Linux advocates for behavior of similar respectability.
Like I said. You don't understand operating systems.
A correct analogy is that you are complaining that the trailer you bought for your car doesn't attach itself to the car properly; then you blame the makers of the car for this fact even though the documentation for the trailer clearly said they didn't support your make of car.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the story about a Canadian who's son was gravely injured... he brought is son to the hospital, but he couldn't be admitted without a paramedic or an ambulance. So they waited... while the son died... for an ambulance to come from across down so he could be admitted.
This sounds like BS. Reference please.
Software is fundamentally a mathematical process.
Read Donald Knuth's letter to the USPTO to get a better understanding of this reasoning against software patents.
What PJ is effectively pointing out is that software patents have degenerated from rewarding true innovators to being serious road blocks to software innovation. They are land mines waiting to explode on anyone writing serious software without the resources to pay an army of lawyers to protect them.
http://www.kvirc.net
I unistalled mirc in favor of it.. it's a great IRC client! Everyone using mirc casually that is looking for a good Free alternative should look at KVirc
...fuck you, too
No thanks. But feel free to try yourself on a dry splintered piece of drift wood anytime.
I know this is yet-another-example-of-MS-is-teh-evil ... blah blah .... Is just ridiculous. How many things must something be "compatible" ...
When you are talking about email protocols, you are darned tooting right that nobody wants to have to 'ask nicely to Microsoft' for the permission to implement the standard.
Simplified for our trolling friend here: if you want people to play by certain rules you don't first tell them they need to ask you first if it's ok for them to obey those rules.
The threat is from the Middle Easterner, not the average American
Hey, couple of trick questions:
What race was Timothy McVeigh?
What was his nationality?
Fanaticism isn't a monopoly of the Middle East you know. Give yourself a nice listen to a bunch of Bible belt holy talk someday. It can be a most refreshing learning experience as to what some of the religious right would do if there wasn't a constitution preventing them.
It really isn't the USPTOs job to weed through prior art and do all that investigative legwork
Right, it's perfectly legitimate for the government to foist unto industries the cost of litigating untold numbers of stupid patents. Because, as everyone knows, patents are first and foremost about giving lawyers jobs. How else would those poor people manage to afford their BMWs?
If patent officials aren't capable of discerning idiotic patents like that they shouldn't be trusted to assess ANY patent applications.
Furthermore, P2P file-sharing technology can allow its users to access the files of other users, even when the computer is "off" if the computer itself is connected to the Internet via broadband.
Nice to know these are some of the watchdogs keeping us safe from Microsoft's excesses. It's amazing 46 AGs read this and actually signed it. Yes, ladies and gentlement, even when your kid's computer is off it is being used to traffic porn.
Apparently the demonic forces in Doom3 are also possessing the computers of a lot of silly lawyers.
480 billion dollars a year for the military alone. America spends more money protecting itself than anything else. The funny thing is the only thing most americans have to worry about isn't foreign threats, it's getting shot by some desperate thug who doesn't give a crap about anything anymore.
It is so ironic that a nation that spends so much on security manages to do it to in a way that does nothing to resolve the real problems that exist in the country today.
There isn't any implied fitness for use or any kind of warranty in ALL the commercial software I have EVER used. In fact every EULA I have ever read removes as _much_ as possible any legal recourse somebody could take against the manufacturer of said commercial software.
One great example is the lawsuit that happened between Timeline and Microsoft over an alleged patent violation. Timeline claimed all SQL Server customers were on the hook for their patent:
according to Timeline's summary of the decision:
"SQL Server developers who create a new product by adding code in an "Infringing Combination" (as defined below) must obtain their own patent license."
Anyways, the point is that the purchase of commercial software in of itself does not protect you from patent claims. EULAs are only about protecting the IP of people who make commercial software.
I think there is an advantage with open source in this respect: using open source could eliminate any claim about an infrigement being underhanded.
The real solution is to clean up software patents.
I've recently had the joy of trying to open a number of MS Office documents in Office 2003. Guess what, according to Word 2003 those Word 97 documents were corrupted. Loaded fine in Open Office though. Go figure.
So much for ubiquitous office formats.... not to mention, of course, that Word is such a pleasure with large documents to begin with. It's so much fun dropping a picture on a word page-- talk about having to bloody reformat my document all the time...
lol... do you want an eggroll with that?
But thats my point. There is a whole host of engineers out there who given the actual desire to do so would have come up with "wagging antennas" after a few beers and some sillyness. In fact, most of I read seems to be in fact just art in my opinion.
Since mathematics cannot be patented your comparison is interesting. I'd never seen Chernoff faces until I read your link and concur that idea seems quite original. There's a lot of original math, literature, music, art and philosophy. We don't allow patents on those for very sound reasons. Why, all of a sudden, originality became the only criteria in deciding patents elsewhere can only be explained by wonton greed.
Continuing your thoughts, I'd point out that you only need to go to a theme park to see all manner of real-world devices (everything from bumper-cars to the gadgets used to make machines in theme park rides more lively) that are already being used for this similar purposes.
I mean really.... because there's never been a movie/tv show ever that tried to portray a car as having emotions....
And it isn't like the idea of making a piece of machinery have emotions isn't something we talk about on Slashdot ad-nauseaum.
I'm sorry, but you must be easily impressed if you think this idea isn't obvious.
Slight clarification:
When I say revoke binary rights, I mean revoke access to their binary distribution, not my rights to build their source then use and distribute it as I please.
By buying this subscription I've paid for the rights to versions say A, B, C and D all of which must be GPLed. B, C, D are future releases, but I've paid for them and I have rights to receive them. I then choose to exercise my GPL rights to distribute my version A. Upon hearing this Sveasoft tells me I've violated their subscription license and have lost my subscription rights to B, C, D. But since I have already paid for B, C, and D and the GPL applies to them I still have GPL rights to the source. I have those rights because I received them the second Sveasoft entered into a license agreement with me to distribute them to me. Because Sveasoft cannot revoke my GPL rights, Sveasoft can only avoid giving me the source of B, C, and D if they refrain from making any new distributions for the term of the initial contract I subscribed to.
Therefore, Sveasoft can revoke my binary rights but is still obligated to distribute the source of future releases to me because they cannot revoke my GPL rights. Sveasoft can refund my money and say all they want: they cannot revoke my GPL rights. I can only lose them if I violate the GPL.
"selling free applications and having a name that sounds like 'windows'"
Ok, I'll bite. I don't use Lindows/Linspire but this post is incorrect.
1. Lindows sells a subscriptions service where they offer easy to install apps. This may not seem useful to you but it's very useful to a horde of people for whom installing software is too complex. They are selling "making it easy for you" not the free software.
2. Lindows doesn't represent the community and nobody would take seriously an attempt on their part to do so. They do however contribute to it. Recently, for example, they hired a fulltime mozilla developer. I'm also pretty sure they help finance/contribute to the development of some KDE apps. Additionally, they help pay for the bandwidth of the kdelook website.
3. Microsoft's rights to the word window are debatable at best. IMO owning the rights to the use of words in a specific context is a stupid idea that should never have been allowed.
4. I don't blame Lindows for taking the 20mil. It's not cheap fighting litigation all around the world and extra tough when you're trying to build a business at the same time. Especially when your opponent has bottomless pits of money.
Most big software companies are very opposed to the "communist" nature of the GPL.
Rubbish. The GPL helps me say this: "want modify and use my code? Fine, then make it $free like I did. Want a version that lets you close yours and protect your 'secrets'? Pay me and you can have a different license.
The GPL allows a lot of programmers to protect their work with a license that prevents vultures from hijacking it into their own product and not giving anything back in return.
How could something whose very existence is to protect my IP be communistic?
A 20 year monopoly on the arrangment of 'stuff' is ok with you?
By the way, I hope you are not infringing my patent on "poor taste furniture" covering such things such as the use of duct tape to cover broken springs.
Also, if you hang up your towels next to your shower, I'm going to sue.
They needed a nice psychological number. 0.99 is one in many countries....
I could dig buying tunes at 0.99 pesos a pop -- rubles would be good too... Hell, I'd even pay for a legal address there in order to do it.
Using a technicality to justify different treatment is exactly the kind of thing that makes countries scoff at the U.S. when after the fact the government takes the moral high-ground about human rights. It may be 'legal' but, judging how the U.S. is perceived internationally these days, not many countries are fooled about whether or not it is right.
If America won't treat its prisoners by the same standards it expects American prisoners to be treated then there is no 'red line' anymore. Soon other countries will be using the words 'terrorist' or 'none-combatant' to justify egregious abuses whilst the U.S. sits quietly by because it can no longer criticize other countries failure to respect the Geneva Conventions in their 'fight' against 'terrorism'.
The U.S. declared itself to be at war against terrorism. The President has himself said that America is at war with terrorists who are the 'enemy of freedom'. How can the very people America is supposed to be fighting against -- who it is at war with -- be none-combatants? These disingenuous distinctions to create convenient excuses to circumvent international conventions that regulate the treatment of prisoners in a war bring only discredit to the very morality of the fight.
This President has in my opinion done irreparable harm to the prestige of the United States in the matter of human rights. The ends do not justify the means if you are a moral person; the same is true for a country.
In the case of health care, the repeat customer is a broke customer with two mortgages and three jobs.
Say hello to your dentist for me and don't forget to bring him some asprin.
A better analogy for this user's problem. Except you missquote me. So I will repeat myself again. My issue was with the causality you and he established: that somehow the situation he encountered is the fault of Linux.
...".
What I had an issue with in this entire thread was the notion that it was Linux's responsability to "build compatible trailer hitches for all trailers out there"; that consequently it was the fault of Linux that this compatability didn't exist. To further stretch this analogy: "only the manufacturer of the trailer understands how to build the hitch properly".
Finally, you impute to me things I have never done or said: "you and half of slashot say he is a clueless noob sheep for not wanting
I'll let your statement lie in the irony of saying that in a sentence where you lambast Linux advocates for behavior of similar respectability.
Like I said. You don't understand operating systems.
A correct analogy is that you are complaining that the trailer you bought for your car doesn't attach itself to the car properly; then you blame the makers of the car for this fact even though the documentation for the trailer clearly said they didn't support your make of car.