I agree with your observation regarding the contents being for public use on the eBay servers. The solution should be technical, by telling exactly who and how can access this information, which could be enforced by legal means of course.
On the ethical issue: I am not sure that a site has the ethics behind it to dump advertising on me in exchange for information they provide. (They lawfully can do so of course.) I thought eBay makes a cut from the items sold via its service. I see no ethical problem of someone using a different program than eBay's own to watch that data and filter out the crap. Would it be a problem if the same thing would be done to e.g. IBM's patent server http://www.patents.ibm.com/? I see no significant amount of ads there by the way - only IBM logo and info on IBM, no banners.
So I think that eBay should be satisfied if their name (and a maybe a link to their site) would be mandatory for everyone operating a search service based on their public database. Or alternatively they should implement some kind of registration on their site.
They say: "STATEMENT: Increased government regulation and litigation of the Technology industry will lead to consumers paying higher prices."
What about this instead: "STATEMENT: Increased government regulation and litigation of the monopolies in Technology industry will lead to better competition and result consumers paying lower prices."
They ask: "QUESTION: Do you think increased government regulation, including the regulation of software design, will have a negative or positive effect on the high tech industry and companies, like Microsoft, to innovate and bring new products to consumers?"
Alternative: "QUESTION: Do you think increased government regulation, including the regulation of software licensing and interoperability issues, will have a negative or positive effect on the high tech industry and the companies', like Microsoft's business ethics; will it prevent anticompetitive practices and bring wider choice to consumers?"
They ask: "QUESTION: Recent press reports suggest that the Justice Department will seek to break-up Microsoft into separate companies. Do you favor efforts by the government to break-up Microsoft, or do you think a penalty like break-up would be too extreme given what you know about the case?"
What about this: "QUESTION: Recent press reports suggest that the Justice Department will seek to break-up Microsoft into separate companies. Do you favor efforts by the government to break-up Microsoft, or do you think another solution would be better suited to prevent further anticompetitive behaviour, given what you know about the case?"
They ask: "QUESTION: The Department of Justice is deciding what, if any, regulations to pursue against Microsoft. If you knew that the Department of Justice was proposing a regulation that would end up increasing the cost of software to consumers, would you support or oppose the regulation? Would you strongly (support/oppose) it or (support/oppose) it somewhat?"
Variant: "QUESTION: The Department of Justice is deciding what, if any, regulations to pursue against Microsoft. If you knew that the Department of Justice was proposing a regulation that would end up decreasing the cost of software to consumers, would you support or oppose the regulation? Would you strongly (support/oppose) it or (support/oppose) it somewhat?"
They ask: "QUESTION: If you knew that the Department of Justice was proposing a regulation that would give government the power to decide how to design parts of Microsoft's software, would you support or oppose the regulation? Would you strongly (support/oppose) it or (support/oppose) it somewhat?"
Could be: "QUESTION: If you knew that the Department of Justice was proposing a regulation that would give government the power to enforce open standards and portability of Microsoft's software, would you support or oppose the regulation? Would you strongly (support/oppose) it or (support/oppose) it somewhat?"
They ask: "QUESTION: Some suggest that regulation of Microsoft will require the creation of a new government office or agency. Do you support or oppose the creation of a new government office or agency to regulate or monitor Microsoft's business practices? Do you strongly (support/oppose) it or (support/oppose) it somewhat?"
Should ask: "QUESTION: Some suggest that this survey is funded by Microsoft and contains very stupid and ill-worded questions. Do you support or oppose the creation of a new government office or agency to regulate or monitor ethics followed by polling agencies? Do you strongly (support/oppose) it or (support/oppose) it somewhat?"
"QUESTION: Some people say Microsoft has strong competitors in the PC operating system/applications market- they point to the recent merger of VA LINUX and Andover Net, as well as 'companies' like Apple, Red Hat, Debian, Suse, Be, FreeBSD. Other people say Microsoft doesn't have strong competitors based on market share percentages. Which side do you (dis)agree with more?"
Finally, if YOU are asked next time: refuse to take part in polls like this. It was just so unfair.
I have read the ruling. I do not think that either side is completely right. I now want to give a chance to the US legal system to sort this out.
Therefore I joined the EFF 10 minutes ago, with intention to let the defendants to play in the same league as the guys with the money and to enable them to put up the best possible defense and so we could arrive to a decision that I think might point further than copyright and Linux DVD player.
I expect that this will start an evolutionary process that will put concepts like intellectual property, licensing, control of use, encryption, open source, etc into some new light/context; better suited to the "information" age.
Why are the lines so long? It was not so last time I read Slashdot. I did not find any way to set this. Can anyone tell me what can I do, it is really annoying. (I can increase the Netscape window size but then it limits the number of windows I can comfortably place on the screen.)
This story proves again that we must be very cautious about coverage presented by the traditional media.
I encourage everyone to be very critical about news coverage. Think independently and form your own opinion. If we all do this then it might force them to change their practices.
"Chaney said that John Pope, product manager for Microsoft Passport, called today to thank him for his actions, explain the problem, and offer to pay him back."
John Pope?!? Is this not a made up story?
By the way I seem coming across very strange foreign names. For example I saw a poem a few years ago and the author's family name was "Goodwriter".
In your analogy do/can you consider the software distributor to be the "independent mechanic". (Some used car dealers give you warranty etc.)
Second question: if the seller knows explicitly that the brakes are bad then is it still ok to sell it?
I think an OSS developer is not liable the same way as a closed source company's employer (that is towards the customer) but the OSS distributor can be liable the same way as a proprietary software maker/distributor.
Let us say that I do not care (as I do) that whether the software I use is closed or open sourced. I purchase only service from MS or an OSS distributor: the services of the program and some form of maintanance from the maker. (Helpline, patches, return policy, etc.)
This is simply not an open source/closed source issue. With open source I CAN get the source too, an added benefit! But this is mainly the distributors decision how they plan to provide the service. An OSS distributor thinks that having the source open makes their life easier, good for them. A proprietary system maker thinks otherwise, their choice.
As for the kit plan analogy: If someone puts together planes from kits and sells them, would you hold them liable or not? I certainly would. I would even expect them to make sure to some extent that the material they use is flawless etc.
The OSS developer is not responsible the same way as an employee of a closed source company is not. (He can face retribution from the company that employed him/her but that is a different issue.)
Furthermore if a PC distributor/manufacturer sells the computer with a system preinstalled then I think that they take responsibility for the software! So if say they download a LINUX distro and install it then we can expect that the set up is reasonable professionally done. Therefore they will probably contract a company which specializes in this work, my understanding is that this is the way LINUX distributors want to make money. And so to sign a contract either with RED HAT or MS that they are not liable to any extent appears to be the same foolish thing to do.
MS and open source authors cannot be compared here in my opinion, but MS and OSS distributors should be. (The open source authors should not be hold liable more than a MS employee.)
And though this might be not the legal stand, I think that it should not be possible to reject all liability as is done in MS EULA for example. I think there are contracts that are invalid due to their terms which do not satisfy some requironments. (For example if you sign a 1 year rent agreement with an apartmant complex which says that you have to pay for 12 months even if you move out earlier, then I think it is illegal and this clause is invalid. IANAL though.)
If I buy a computer with software advertised as "Internet ready" and such, and I buy on an internet site and my credit card number gets to third parties hands then I should be able to sue the maker/distributor of my OS and/or browser (if it is intergated by design) or the owner of the e-commerce site. (Who should be able to held responsible the maker of their e-software in turn, etc.)
I have the same "feeling" about the EULA, but as IANAL I could not be sure. Do you mean that if the EULA would be challanged in court then it would not hold up really? Why anyone had not tried that before, I wonder?
Furthermore the legal authorities do not have a responsibility (say in the US) that if such a contract is used (in very large numbers!) then that they could act against it (without a user actually filing a lawsuit)? Why it did not become an issue on the MS trial, for example?
I seem to agree with your point regarding GPL'd software. In that case I see it more of as if you were buying parts, material and instruction for building an automobile and so you are mainly responsible for the result. (You can actually compile and configure your system as you wish and if say you use a tampered with compiler then that is not the compiled source's responsibility. Now we can start musing about gcc etc.) And taking the automobile analogy further: you do not allow home made vehicles to be used on public streets right out of someone's garage, you use some certification, same should work with i.e. e-commerce software I guess: to set up and use a system it should be proved/certified to satisfy certain requironments. (It is not enough to inform the user that it is not secure for example, I might not even know what that means.)
So for this reason I rule out OSS developer responsibility. But I would not rule out the responsibility of a DISTRIBUTOR! So I think RED HAT should be held liable if their system is not configured as could be expected from a professional etc., just like MS, and they should act on discovered exploits in a timely manner like the car manufacturers with calling back autos if needed.
This is not any different after all from a proprietary system. You would not blame the MS employee for using this or that insecure encryption, but would hold MS as a company liable instead, right?
It would be nice if you could post that letter somewhere that others can review it and if agree then their name, email address etc. could be added at the bottom.
I think it would be more shocking then a few hundred seperate e-mail.
By the way if someone wishes to write about - the one-1-click patent - etoy lawsuit then I am interested to join in those too.
What about setting up a web page where I can click on "support this action" and then it automatically sends an e-mail every day (or every time hundred new supporter signs up) to the appropriate address with the names?
I should patent this idea!! (Before some bozo does it...)
I happily inform you that you were just chosen from millions and already got into the famous IQ40 Club! Let us congratulate you on this occasion and assure you that if you will be persistent in the legal battle against Leonardo/ISAST, then you have pretty good chances to get into the IQ20 Club as well!"
or:
"Dear Mgmt,
Thank you for your interest in our training courses. Unfortunately we do not offer these "Ethical and Intelligent Business Practices" for those who are presently place themselves in the bottom 1% on our "ethical values/intelligence" scale. We forwarded your application to our medical sister organization. If your treatment is successful we hope we can serve you in the future, so please reapply in 2010."
I do not advocate parental abuse of children but if the fathers of these humans were beaten up their kids when they had spit on the Mona Lisa poster in the local art museum, then it would have been a great service to us all.
> but because a bunch of big companies that make generous campain contributions to key lawmakers would stand to suffer because of the existence of this patent. I doubt those same companies will support any patent reform that challenges their own bottom lines.
I guess that is why I have this wish that the USPTO upheld the patent. I just would like to see the circus show to which it would lead to...
And if the USPTO overturns this then I just will feel even more frustrated when it will become clear that they have no intention to change the way they operate in general (I almost said "do business") and the same time no offical investigation will follow to find out why this patent was accepted in the first place.
It were too good if the only course of action possible for the companies would be to force the patent laws to be changed to resolve this. That will not happen otherwise.
A few weeks ago I thought that I found the good solution for the patent misery. It involves the GPL and so I find it interesting that others also have some similar thoughts. Here follows my idea:
First part: The patent concept* should be replaced by GPL Patent (GPLP) which means that every patented idea were also released under the GPL. (*I talk about patenting of algorithms, programs and such.)
Basically it would give the option to either use it as a GPL'd resource, and so the derived work/idea would be also released to the public or to pay a licensing fee and use it commercially in any way.
This would not solve the problem of having one-click patents and such but at least would protect the little guy and universities for example. (It was said that universities might be required to pay licensing fees related to gene research, study material etc.)
I know that I did not describe it fully but the idea is that for example a not for profit organization could use any software without fearing patent infringement, since they would use the GPL variation and would declare that their output belongs to the public domain too.
This whole process would require the official recognition (on government level) of the GPL and because its involvement it would soon become easy to invalidate a patent because of prior art in the form of a referring to previous GPL-d ideas.
But the real killer for the stupid patents is in the: Second part: The patent application process should have a phase where the applicant should prove that actual research was done on the problem.
So they should ask first and if noone can solve their problem in say 30 days then a patent can be granted. Clearly if an answer comes up in less than 30 days then it is not really required much R&D.
Take the one-click patent. They would post in a journal and/or the web that they need a solution to do the shopping in one-click etc. I guess someone would come up with a solution in less than 30 days...
The posting requironment can be dropped if previous research can be proved. For example a new compression algorithm would fall into this category, since research on compression has been done for a while (publications etc.), therefore something faster or more efficient would be easy to patent. Same with better speach recognition, longer battery life for electric cars, etc.
Of course patenting most business models would be impossible since it would not fit in with the idea of previous research requironment.
So what I want to avoid is the following: someone comes up and says I spent 3 years of research to do something and someone else says it is trivial. If the question/problem is made public beforehand then the second guy will have a chance to air his views at the right time.
I put in a little bit more than 40 and that is because I am interested in what I am doing. Furthermore I think if I were doing 60 hours, then I could not get a social life, recreation and that would decrease my output. So I do not do that. I am happy that I can work 6-7 hours one day and 9-10 on an other without any questions asked. Again, my employer would be stupid to 'encourige' me to work much more than 40 hours it would just result in decresed hourly output. Mat
Why do you have to work more than 37 hours if your contract says 37 hours? Is it the 'work ethic' ther or you cannot complete your tasks?
I think that if someone is working more than the agreed number of hours (40 at my workplace) then either the person lacks knowledge for this job or the tasks call for more workers or better workload distributions etc. I would feel uncomfortable if I had to work say 60 hours to get the job done, fearing that someone will assume I am not competent. Or maybe I am a little bit paranoid? At least if I were a manager - as I am not - I would be concerned if an employee constantly works 60 hours per week.
Anyways the work I do cannot be measured by lines of code, I cannot even imagine to be paid by the hour. Sometimes I work in my car while I wait for a stop light to turn green thinking about the data structures/algorithms I will use or at home reading articles on storage allocation techniques or discussing work related problems with coworkers while playin pool and sipping beer etc. How could this be calculated on an hourly basis?
I am sure that if I were spending significantly more than 40 hours in my office, then I would not get enough rest and recreatinal activities and I am sure that it would result in decrease of my work efficency. I think the time spent in the office is mainly justified by the fact that there is 'team work' and that we provide coverage to the users of our tools; and the same time I know about employes who work from home most of the time.
When I hear someone working 60-70 hours I cannot help thinking that their 'hourly' output would be 2x more if they were not forcing themselves to work more than 40 hours. Maybe I am wrong here, at least I still need 8+ hours of sleep at nights and if I do not get it on weekdays I get more on the weekends...
Raising children not only became more expensive but stopped being an "investment" from the parents point of view. What I mean is that in the past having many children added to the safety of the parent: the chances were bigger that someone will be able to cater for the elderly. Today there is insurance, medicare, savings, etc. and the society expects much less catering from the offsprings, and what is needed can be provided by 1 or 2 child. So everyone is busy to insure their own future which pushes out the age when they start family etc., with relation to the other causes as well of course.
I do not see any breakthrough in this new technology. (Not everything new worth a patent, see later.) The patent text is unnecesarily complicated, I guess it is so to hide that it is something quite obvious.
However I do not blame the patent holder but the authorities who issued the patent. Their conduct encourages the appearence of these stupid patents and lawsuits. Is there any way to sue the patent office over their actions instead? I am convinced that what they do cannot conform to the intention of the law and simply hurts technological advancement, competition etc.
Can *I* sue the patent office claiming that I might suffer due to the stupid patents they issue? (Ok everyone can err but their level of negligence/incompetence seems to be well over the mark recently.)
As for what I think should worth a patent: I suggest that an idea should be patentable if the problem were investigated/documented previously (by others also) and so the solution puts an end to an already existing discussion. So if sg just falls immediately out by applications of prior art under a new environment then it should not be patentable. Examples for this would be like using the internet for shopping using your credit card on-line etc. These are new concepts since on-line shopping was not possible before the internet was "invented" but it is clearly just extending already existing ideas to the new territory.
The bottom line is that before filing for a patent the company should publish the problem first (I have scientific papers or such in mind.) And if they do not get answer (within a time frame) for their problem or their algorithm is superior to them (which is defined in the problem description like we want a system doing this and that as fast as possible as much automatized as possible etc.), then they can apply for a patent. Of course others could apply too. This method would rule out the current abuse of the system when one main point is to raise unreasonable high barriers for others doing something obvious which does not really need R&D.
I loved the cartoon with Inspector Gadget. But here in the USA it is not shown at least as I am aware of it. I wonder whether they will use Gadget as a marketing vehicle? Matyas
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your observation regarding the contents being for public use on the eBay servers. The solution should be technical, by telling exactly who and how can access this information, which could be enforced by legal means of course.
On the ethical issue: I am not sure that a site has the ethics behind it to dump advertising on me in exchange for information they provide. (They lawfully can do so of course.) I thought eBay makes a cut from the items sold via its service. I see no ethical problem of someone using a different program than eBay's own to watch that data and filter out the crap. Would it be a problem if the same thing would be done to e.g. IBM's patent server http://www.patents.ibm.com/?
I see no significant amount of ads there by the way - only IBM logo and info on IBM, no banners.
So I think that eBay should be satisfied if their name (and a maybe a link to their site) would be mandatory for everyone operating a search service based on their public database. Or alternatively they should implement some kind of registration on their site.
Matyas
Agreed.
They say:
"STATEMENT: Increased government regulation and litigation of the Technology industry will lead to consumers paying higher prices."
What about this instead:
"STATEMENT: Increased government regulation and litigation of the monopolies in Technology industry will lead to better competition and result consumers paying lower prices."
They ask:
"QUESTION: Do you think increased government regulation, including the regulation of software design, will have a negative or positive effect on the high tech industry and companies, like Microsoft, to innovate and bring new products to consumers?"
Alternative:
"QUESTION: Do you think increased government regulation, including the regulation of software licensing and interoperability issues, will have a negative or positive effect on the high tech industry and the companies', like Microsoft's business ethics; will it prevent anticompetitive practices and bring wider choice to consumers?"
They ask:
"QUESTION: Recent press reports suggest that the Justice Department will seek to break-up Microsoft into separate companies. Do you favor efforts by the government to break-up Microsoft, or do you think a penalty like break-up would be too extreme given what you know about the case?"
What about this:
"QUESTION: Recent press reports suggest that the Justice Department will seek to break-up Microsoft into separate companies. Do you favor efforts by the government to break-up Microsoft, or do you think another solution would be better suited to prevent further anticompetitive behaviour, given what you know about the case?"
They ask:
"QUESTION: The Department of Justice is deciding what, if any, regulations to pursue against Microsoft. If you knew that the Department of Justice was proposing a regulation that would end up increasing the cost of software to consumers, would you support or oppose the regulation? Would you strongly (support/oppose) it or (support/oppose) it somewhat?"
Variant:
"QUESTION: The Department of Justice is deciding what, if any, regulations to pursue against Microsoft. If you knew that the Department of Justice was proposing a regulation that would end up decreasing the cost of software to consumers, would you support or oppose the regulation? Would you strongly (support/oppose) it or (support/oppose) it somewhat?"
They ask:
"QUESTION: If you knew that the Department of Justice was proposing a regulation that would give government the power to decide how to design parts of Microsoft's software, would you support or oppose the regulation? Would you strongly (support/oppose) it or (support/oppose) it somewhat?"
Could be:
"QUESTION: If you knew that the Department of Justice was proposing a regulation that would give government the power to enforce open standards and portability of Microsoft's software, would you support or oppose the regulation? Would you strongly (support/oppose) it or (support/oppose) it somewhat?"
They ask:
"QUESTION: Some suggest that regulation of Microsoft will require the creation of a new government office or agency. Do you support or oppose the creation of a new government office or agency to regulate or monitor Microsoft's business practices? Do you strongly (support/oppose) it or (support/oppose) it somewhat?"
Should ask:
"QUESTION: Some suggest that this survey is funded by Microsoft and contains very stupid and ill-worded questions. Do you support or oppose the creation of a new government office or agency to regulate or monitor ethics followed by polling agencies? Do you strongly (support/oppose) it or (support/oppose) it somewhat?"
"QUESTION: Some people say Microsoft has strong competitors in the PC operating system/applications market- they point to the recent merger of VA LINUX and Andover Net, as well as 'companies' like Apple, Red Hat, Debian, Suse, Be, FreeBSD. Other people say Microsoft doesn't have strong competitors based on market share percentages. Which side do you (dis)agree with more?"
Finally, if YOU are asked next time: refuse to take part in polls like this. It was just so unfair.
Matyas
> Whats also freaky, is democrats where more likly > to answer to not breakup microsoft...
Democrats were more likely to answer to break up Microsoft.
Matyas
I have read the ruling. I do not think that either side is completely right. I now want to give a chance to the US legal system to sort this out.
Therefore I joined the EFF 10 minutes ago, with intention to let the defendants to play in the same league as the guys with the money and to enable them to put up the best possible defense and so we could arrive to a decision that I think might point further than copyright and Linux DVD player.
I expect that this will start an evolutionary process that will put concepts like intellectual property, licensing, control of use, encryption, open source, etc into some new light/context; better suited to the "information" age.
Mátyás
Why are the lines so long? It was not so last time I read Slashdot. I did not find any way to set this. Can anyone tell me what can I do, it is really annoying. (I can increase the Netscape window size but then it limits the number of windows I can comfortably place on the screen.)
Matyas
This story proves again that we must be very cautious about coverage presented by the traditional media.
I encourage everyone to be very critical about news coverage. Think independently and form your own opinion. If we all do this then it might force them to change their practices.
Matyas
Quote from the article:
"Chaney said that John Pope, product manager for Microsoft Passport, called today to thank him for his actions, explain the problem, and offer to pay him back."
John Pope?!? Is this not a made up story?
By the way I seem coming across very strange foreign names. For example I saw a poem a few years ago and the author's family name was "Goodwriter".
Iam Skilledcoder
In your analogy do/can you consider the software distributor to be the "independent mechanic". (Some used car dealers give you warranty etc.)
Second question: if the seller knows explicitly that the brakes are bad then is it still ok to sell it?
I think an OSS developer is not liable the same way as a closed source company's employer (that is towards the customer) but the OSS distributor can be liable the same way as a proprietary software maker/distributor.
Matyas
Let us say that I do not care (as I do) that whether the software I use is closed or open sourced. I purchase only service from MS or an OSS distributor: the services of the program and some form of maintanance from the maker. (Helpline, patches, return policy, etc.)
This is simply not an open source/closed source issue. With open source I CAN get the source too, an added benefit! But this is mainly the distributors decision how they plan to provide the service. An OSS distributor thinks that having the source open makes their life easier, good for them. A proprietary system maker thinks otherwise, their choice.
As for the kit plan analogy: If someone puts together planes from kits and sells them, would you hold them liable or not? I certainly would. I would even expect them to make sure to some extent that the material they use is flawless etc.
The OSS developer is not responsible the same way as an employee of a closed source company is not. (He can face retribution from the company that employed him/her but that is a different issue.)
Furthermore if a PC distributor/manufacturer sells the computer with a system preinstalled then I think that they take responsibility for the software! So if say they download a LINUX distro and install it then we can expect that the set up is reasonable professionally done. Therefore they will probably contract a company which specializes in this work, my understanding is that this is the way LINUX distributors want to make money. And so to sign a contract either with RED HAT or MS that they are not liable to any extent appears to be the same foolish thing to do.
What do you think?
Matyas
MS and open source authors cannot be compared here in my opinion, but MS and OSS distributors should be. (The open source authors should not be hold liable more than a MS employee.)
And though this might be not the legal stand, I think that it should not be possible to reject all liability as is done in MS EULA for example. I think there are contracts that are invalid due to their terms which do not satisfy some requironments. (For example if you sign a 1 year rent agreement with an apartmant complex which says that you have to pay for 12 months even if you move out earlier, then I think it is illegal and this clause is invalid. IANAL though.)
If I buy a computer with software advertised as "Internet ready" and such, and I buy on an internet site and my credit card number gets to third parties hands then I should be able to sue the maker/distributor of my OS and/or browser (if it is intergated by design) or the owner of the e-commerce site. (Who should be able to held responsible the maker of their e-software in turn, etc.)
Matyas
I have the same "feeling" about the EULA, but as IANAL I could not be sure. Do you mean that if the EULA would be challanged in court then it would not hold up really? Why anyone had not tried that before, I wonder?
Furthermore the legal authorities do not have a responsibility (say in the US) that if such a contract is used (in very large numbers!) then that they could act against it (without a user actually filing a lawsuit)? Why it did not become an issue on the MS trial, for example?
I seem to agree with your point regarding GPL'd software. In that case I see it more of as if you were buying parts, material and instruction for building an automobile and so you are mainly responsible for the result. (You can actually compile and configure your system as you wish and if say you use a tampered with compiler then that is not the compiled source's responsibility. Now we can start musing about gcc etc.) And taking the automobile analogy further: you do not allow home made vehicles to be used on public streets right out of someone's garage, you use some certification, same should work with i.e. e-commerce software I guess: to set up and use a system it should be proved/certified to satisfy certain requironments. (It is not enough to inform the user that it is not secure for example, I might not even know what that means.)
So for this reason I rule out OSS developer responsibility. But I would not rule out the responsibility of a DISTRIBUTOR! So I think RED HAT should be held liable if their system is not configured as could be expected from a professional etc., just like MS, and they should act on discovered exploits in a timely manner like the car manufacturers with calling back autos if needed.
This is not any different after all from a proprietary system. You would not blame the MS employee for using this or that insecure encryption, but would hold MS as a company liable instead, right?
Matyas
It would be nice if you could post that letter somewhere that others can review it and if agree then their name, email address etc. could be added at the bottom.
I think it would be more shocking then a few hundred seperate e-mail.
By the way if someone wishes to write about
- the one-1-click patent
- etoy lawsuit
then I am interested to join in those too.
What about setting up a web page where I can click on "support this action" and then it automatically sends an e-mail every day (or every time hundred new supporter signs up) to the appropriate address with the names?
I should patent this idea!! (Before some bozo does it...)
Matyas
What about something like these:
"Dear Leonardo Finance Management,
I happily inform you that you were just chosen from millions and already got into the famous IQ40 Club! Let us congratulate you on this occasion and assure you that if you will be persistent in the legal battle against Leonardo/ISAST, then you have pretty good chances to get into the IQ20 Club as well!"
or:
"Dear Mgmt,
Thank you for your interest in our training courses. Unfortunately we do not offer these "Ethical and Intelligent Business Practices" for those who are presently place themselves in the bottom 1% on our "ethical values/intelligence" scale. We forwarded your application to our medical sister organization. If your treatment is successful we hope we can serve you in the future, so please reapply in 2010."
I do not advocate parental abuse of children but if the fathers of these humans were beaten up their kids when they had spit on the Mona Lisa poster in the local art museum, then it would have been a great service to us all.
Matyas
> but because a bunch of big companies that make generous campain contributions to key lawmakers would stand to suffer because of the existence of this patent. I doubt those same companies will support any patent reform that challenges their own bottom lines.
I guess that is why I have this wish that the USPTO upheld the patent. I just would like to see the circus show to which it would lead to...
And if the USPTO overturns this then I just will feel even more frustrated when it will become clear that they have no intention to change the way they operate in general (I almost said "do business") and the same time no offical investigation will follow to find out why this patent was accepted in the first place.
It were too good if the only course of action possible for the companies would be to force the patent laws to be changed to resolve this. That will not happen otherwise.
Matyas
A few weeks ago I thought that I found the good solution for the patent misery. It involves the GPL and so I find it interesting that others also have some similar thoughts. Here follows my idea:
First part:
The patent concept* should be replaced by GPL Patent (GPLP) which means that every patented idea were also released under the GPL.
(*I talk about patenting of algorithms, programs and such.)
Basically it would give the option to either use it as a GPL'd resource, and so the derived work/idea would be also released to the public or to pay a licensing fee and use it commercially in any way.
This would not solve the problem of having one-click patents and such but at least would protect the little guy and universities for example. (It was said that universities might be required to pay licensing fees related to gene research, study material etc.)
I know that I did not describe it fully but the idea is that for example a not for profit organization could use any software without fearing patent infringement, since they would use the GPL variation and would declare that their output belongs to the public domain too.
This whole process would require the official recognition (on government level) of the GPL and because its involvement it would soon become easy to invalidate a patent because of prior art in the form of a referring to previous GPL-d ideas.
But the real killer for the stupid patents is in the:
Second part:
The patent application process should have a phase where the applicant should prove that actual research was done on the problem.
So they should ask first and if noone can solve their problem in say 30 days then a patent can be granted. Clearly if an answer comes up in less than 30 days then it is not really required much R&D.
Take the one-click patent. They would post in a journal and/or the web that they need a solution to do the shopping in one-click etc. I guess someone would come up with a solution in less than 30 days...
The posting requironment can be dropped if previous research can be proved. For example a new compression algorithm would fall into this category, since research on compression has been done for a while (publications etc.), therefore something faster or more efficient would be easy to patent. Same with better speach recognition, longer battery life for electric cars, etc.
Of course patenting most business models would be impossible since it would not fit in with the idea of previous research requironment.
So what I want to avoid is the following: someone comes up and says I spent 3 years of research to do something and someone else says it is trivial. If the question/problem is made public beforehand then the second guy will have a chance to air his views at the right time.
Oh, well it will not happen anytime soon.
Matyas
> You do NOT want to have the FSF involved with anything "for the public good".
Based on what I read on their pages I ask: Why not?
I put in a little bit more than 40 and that is because I am interested in what I am doing. Furthermore I think if I were doing 60 hours, then I could not get a social life, recreation and that would decrease my output. So I do not do that. I am happy that I can work 6-7 hours one day and 9-10 on an other without any questions asked. Again, my employer would be stupid to 'encourige' me to work much more than 40 hours it would just result in decresed hourly output. Mat
Why do you have to work more than 37 hours if your contract says 37 hours? Is it the 'work ethic' ther or you cannot complete your tasks?
I think that if someone is working more than the agreed number of hours (40 at my workplace) then either the person lacks knowledge for this job or the tasks call for more workers or better workload distributions etc. I would feel uncomfortable if I had to work say 60 hours to get the job done, fearing that someone will assume I am not competent. Or maybe I am a little bit paranoid? At least if I were a manager - as I am not - I would be concerned if an employee constantly works 60 hours per week.
Anyways the work I do cannot be measured by lines of code, I cannot even imagine to be paid by the hour. Sometimes I work in my car while I wait for a stop light to turn green thinking about the data structures/algorithms I will use or at home reading articles on storage allocation techniques or discussing work related problems with coworkers while playin pool and sipping beer etc. How could this be calculated on an hourly basis?
I am sure that if I were spending significantly more than 40 hours in my office, then I would not get enough rest and recreatinal activities and I am sure that it would result in decrease of my work efficency. I think the time spent in the office is mainly justified by the fact that there is 'team work' and that we provide coverage to the users of our tools; and the same time I know about employes who work from home most of the time.
When I hear someone working 60-70 hours I cannot help thinking that their 'hourly' output would be 2x more if they were not forcing themselves to work more than 40 hours. Maybe I am wrong here, at least I still need 8+ hours of sleep at nights and if I do not get it on weekdays I get more on the weekends...
Mat
Raising children not only became more expensive but stopped being an "investment" from the parents point of view. What I mean is that in the past having many children added to the safety of the parent: the chances were bigger that someone will be able to cater for the elderly. Today there is insurance, medicare, savings, etc. and the society expects much less catering from the offsprings, and what is needed can be provided by 1 or 2 child. So everyone is busy to insure their own future which pushes out the age when they start family etc., with relation to the other causes as well of course.
Matyas
I do not see any breakthrough in this new technology. (Not everything new worth a patent, see later.) The patent text is unnecesarily complicated, I guess it is so to hide that it is something quite obvious.
However I do not blame the patent holder but the authorities who issued the patent. Their conduct encourages the appearence of these stupid patents and lawsuits. Is there any way to sue the patent office over their actions instead? I am convinced that what they do cannot conform to the intention of the law and simply hurts technological advancement, competition etc.
Can *I* sue the patent office claiming that I might suffer due to the stupid patents they issue?
(Ok everyone can err but their level of negligence/incompetence seems to be well over the mark recently.)
As for what I think should worth a patent: I suggest that an idea should be patentable if the problem were investigated/documented previously (by others also) and so the solution puts an end to an already existing discussion. So if sg just falls immediately out by applications of prior art under a new environment then it should not be patentable. Examples for this would be like using
the internet for shopping using your credit card on-line etc. These are new concepts since on-line shopping was not possible before the internet was "invented" but it is clearly just extending already existing ideas to the new territory.
The bottom line is that before filing for a patent the company should publish the problem first (I have scientific papers or such in mind.) And if they do not get answer (within a time frame) for their problem or their algorithm is superior to them (which is defined in the problem description like we want a system doing this and that as fast as possible as much automatized as possible etc.), then they can apply for a patent. Of course others could apply too. This method would rule out the current abuse of the system when one main point is to raise unreasonable high barriers for others doing something obvious which does not really need R&D.
Matyas
I loved the cartoon with Inspector Gadget. But here in the USA it is not shown at least as I am aware of it. I wonder whether they will use Gadget as a marketing vehicle? Matyas
This should have been moderated as Informative with a 2 at least.
Thanks for the info.
Matyas