What about Europe and all other nice countries that don't apply an idea of patent as regard software?
If you are referring to the EU, and the fact that the EU Parliament struck down a software patent directive a few years ago, you are probably wrong. The directive was voted down, but that does not mean that software patents are illegal in Europe/EU, it just means that there is no EU-wide legislation on the matter.
That was why the MEPs sponsored by big corporations helped bring down the directive, as it had been amended so much that it could have turned into an anti-software-patent directive, and thus make software patents illegal/invalid. Thus, they decided that no directive would be better than an anti-software-patent directive, as certain member countries (like Sweden, where I live) regard software patents as perfectly legitimate, and that would have changed if the amended directive had been passed.
IBM announces to that they believe Microsoft is in violation of several thousand of their patents, and it is time for them [Microsoft] to pay up.
Probably not, since I'm pretty sure Microsoft and IBM already have cross-licensing agreements in place that allow both parties to use each others' patents.
Apple didn't get sued on similar grounds by Sun --do they pay SUN? I thought mentioning UNIX when you use a BSD release, instead of Solaris, would have some kind of "lie label" attached.
Actually, Unix is a trademark of The Open Group, who allows systems to be called Unix when those systems have passed their certificantion programs. Code base is not pertinent to the question. Even Windows could become Unix if Microsoft would submit it for Unix certification at The Open Group.
IE was ripped from small business with minimal reward to the innovator.
Actually none IIRC. Spyglass sold IE to Microsoft for a share of the profits from IE, and Microsoft sneaked out of this deal by giving IE away for free. Spyglass didn't get a dime.
In short, yes, at least partly. SCO may have initiated the lawsuits themselves, but Microsoft saw an opportunity to use the suits to spread FUD, and thus started to finance it in various ways.
And have they publicized a list of where these infringements take place and what the patents are? Or are they pulling a SCO (again)?
They are pulling a SCO again. They do not want the (claimed) infringements to be mitigated, as that would destroy their patent FUD weapon that they use to coerce big companies into signing patent licenses for their use of free software. No, they want the infringements to remain, and will not reveal any specifics.
There is no pan-European software patent legislation, but individual countries are entitled to their own interpretations. Accoring to the European Patent Convention, software cannot be patented. But the European Patent Office has been disregarding the convention for quite a long time, since they make more money if software can also be patented. And certain EU member countries, like my own (Sweden) are very happy to follow the practices of the EPO. Thus, in e.g. Sweden, software patents are legal.
why in the hell have they been prattling on and on about the infringements and NOT telling us with specificity what's infringing?
Because they want FOSS to infringe, so that they in turn can FUD about how FOSS users owe them money. If they were specific, some of these infringements may disappear as developers route around them. In other cases, people might dig up prior art and start filing court challenges to those patents, especially with the recent Supreme Court decision in mind.
They don't want that. They want to be able to tell everyone how much FOSS infringes, but they don't want FOSS to be able to mitigate any infringements. Just like SCO.
They want to sue "Linux" for violating 235 patents, when in actuality, they should undertake roughly 235 SEPARATE lawsuits against the individual programmers whose code infringes.
Except that those FOSS users that they are targeting probably have deeper pockets than those individual developers. Microsoft is all about making money, so spending a lot of money on lawsuits against individuals with no sizeable wallet would be significantly less wise than coercing big corporations to pay up.
Nah.. the music companies (through the RIAA) go straight to lawsuits without trying to sell anyone a "bridge" license
Do they? I recall reading that they offer settlements (at about $10000-15000) to the target before filing suits, in essence saying "pay us, and we won't sue". This looks more or less exactly like what Microsoft is doing.
My question is: Can someone sue for copyright infringement (that's what they are supposedly doing here, right?) without having any copyright infringed?
DRM is most likely intended to stop sharing between friends
I'd rather say it's intended to stop format shifting, so that media companies can sell the same content to the same customer several times. One copy for the DVD-player, one for your iPod, one for your car, one for your cell phone, etc, etc, in absurdum.
My personal theory for a couple of years has simply been that when it gets cold out, the germs move to the warm areas.
Cold is caused by a virus, and it can't move on its own. One could even argue whether a virus is actually alive. It is just a strand of RNA, that when ingested into living cells make them produce more strands of virus RNA.
Care to elaborate? I hear this claim quite often, but nobody ever explains why this is the case (if it even is). I'm using an RPM-based distro (Fedora), so I wonder what I miss out on.
a Windows installer isn't required as you could just put a built executable in a ZIP file and run it like that. But can you not do that in Ubuntu, too (so long as the app is built for Ubuntu)?
Of course you can. That is exactly what Mozilla does with their Linux binaries of Firefox and Thunderbird. Of couse, I never tried them on Ubuntu, since I run Fedora, but there shouldn't be any difference.
Maybe a more appropriate definition of a patent troll is an entity that aquires a patent with no intent to distribute or license the right to produce goods from the patent, but rather with the sole purpose of extorting other companies who actually produce a product to satisfy a perceived need caused by the inactivity of the patent holder.
But to the extent they are enforced, they will categorically end the American software industry, and software will continue to be a business in Europe
That may be why the US government is lobbying for software and business method patents in Europe.
Europe, Asia, and... well basically every other civilized nation, who have soundly rejected this silly game and are by the way laughing their asses off at us.
The EU hasn't rejected the idea of software and business method patents. The parliament rejected the idea for the time being, but the commissioner for the internal market is still in favor, just like many ministers in the Council of Ministers. They are biding their time, and just waiting for a new opportunity to sneak it in. By the way, my own country, Sweden, views software patents as legitimate, and is an outspoken follower of the practice established by the EPO (the European Patent Office), one of the strongest proponents of software and business method patents in Europe (along with many american big companies like Microsoft).
What makes a patent troll? Does a company that develops a new technology but licenses it because it does not have the capital or market position to exploit the technology count as a patent troll? What about IBM? They produce products, but they license their patents for use by others in products that don't compete with IBM's products. Does that make IBM a patent troll?
No.
But this author has a point that distinguishing the bad guys from the good guys is not easy.
Actually, it is pretty easy. A patent troll is a company that licenses patents to other companies, but do not produce any products themselves. If you are sued by a patent troll for patent infringement, you do not have the option to countersue them for infringement of your patents, since they do not produce any products. And without products, the number of patents that can be possibly infringed are much lower, the only ones I can think of are business method patents.
Slashdot Mirror
I know, I didn't mean that cells eat viruses.
If you are referring to the EU, and the fact that the EU Parliament struck down a software patent directive a few years ago, you are probably wrong. The directive was voted down, but that does not mean that software patents are illegal in Europe/EU, it just means that there is no EU-wide legislation on the matter.
That was why the MEPs sponsored by big corporations helped bring down the directive, as it had been amended so much that it could have turned into an anti-software-patent directive, and thus make software patents illegal/invalid. Thus, they decided that no directive would be better than an anti-software-patent directive, as certain member countries (like Sweden, where I live) regard software patents as perfectly legitimate, and that would have changed if the amended directive had been passed.
Probably not, since I'm pretty sure Microsoft and IBM already have cross-licensing agreements in place that allow both parties to use each others' patents.
Actually, Unix is a trademark of The Open Group, who allows systems to be called Unix when those systems have passed their certificantion programs. Code base is not pertinent to the question. Even Windows could become Unix if Microsoft would submit it for Unix certification at The Open Group.
Actually none IIRC. Spyglass sold IE to Microsoft for a share of the profits from IE, and Microsoft sneaked out of this deal by giving IE away for free. Spyglass didn't get a dime.
In short, yes, at least partly. SCO may have initiated the lawsuits themselves, but Microsoft saw an opportunity to use the suits to spread FUD, and thus started to finance it in various ways.
You mean Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf? You may be more familiar with the name Baghdad Bob. :)
They are pulling a SCO again. They do not want the (claimed) infringements to be mitigated, as that would destroy their patent FUD weapon that they use to coerce big companies into signing patent licenses for their use of free software. No, they want the infringements to remain, and will not reveal any specifics.
Some of this was even admitted to in TFA.
There is no pan-European software patent legislation, but individual countries are entitled to their own interpretations. Accoring to the European Patent Convention, software cannot be patented. But the European Patent Office has been disregarding the convention for quite a long time, since they make more money if software can also be patented. And certain EU member countries, like my own (Sweden) are very happy to follow the practices of the EPO. Thus, in e.g. Sweden, software patents are legal.
Because they want FOSS to infringe, so that they in turn can FUD about how FOSS users owe them money. If they were specific, some of these infringements may disappear as developers route around them. In other cases, people might dig up prior art and start filing court challenges to those patents, especially with the recent Supreme Court decision in mind.
They don't want that. They want to be able to tell everyone how much FOSS infringes, but they don't want FOSS to be able to mitigate any infringements. Just like SCO.
Except that those FOSS users that they are targeting probably have deeper pockets than those individual developers. Microsoft is all about making money, so spending a lot of money on lawsuits against individuals with no sizeable wallet would be significantly less wise than coercing big corporations to pay up.
Do they? I recall reading that they offer settlements (at about $10000-15000) to the target before filing suits, in essence saying "pay us, and we won't sue". This looks more or less exactly like what Microsoft is doing.
Yeah, it used to be called copyright.
My question is: Can someone sue for copyright infringement (that's what they are supposedly doing here, right?) without having any copyright infringed?
So that you can become as stupid as they are?
I'd rather say it's intended to stop format shifting, so that media companies can sell the same content to the same customer several times. One copy for the DVD-player, one for your iPod, one for your car, one for your cell phone, etc, etc, in absurdum.
The media industry even admits this.
Cold is caused by a virus, and it can't move on its own. One could even argue whether a virus is actually alive. It is just a strand of RNA, that when ingested into living cells make them produce more strands of virus RNA.
What? Where? I've never seen any. The only Ubuntu promotion I've seen has been from its users.
Care to elaborate? I hear this claim quite often, but nobody ever explains why this is the case (if it even is). I'm using an RPM-based distro (Fedora), so I wonder what I miss out on.
Of course you can. That is exactly what Mozilla does with their Linux binaries of Firefox and Thunderbird. Of couse, I never tried them on Ubuntu, since I run Fedora, but there shouldn't be any difference.
Or Digital Content Encryption.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Slashdot user sdo1 had one that I liked: Digitally Constrained Entertainment. :)
That may be why the US government is lobbying for software and business method patents in Europe.
Europe, Asia, and... well basically every other civilized nation, who have soundly rejected this silly game and are by the way laughing their asses off at us.The EU hasn't rejected the idea of software and business method patents. The parliament rejected the idea for the time being, but the commissioner for the internal market is still in favor, just like many ministers in the Council of Ministers. They are biding their time, and just waiting for a new opportunity to sneak it in. By the way, my own country, Sweden, views software patents as legitimate, and is an outspoken follower of the practice established by the EPO (the European Patent Office), one of the strongest proponents of software and business method patents in Europe (along with many american big companies like Microsoft).
No.
But this author has a point that distinguishing the bad guys from the good guys is not easy.Actually, it is pretty easy. A patent troll is a company that licenses patents to other companies, but do not produce any products themselves. If you are sued by a patent troll for patent infringement, you do not have the option to countersue them for infringement of your patents, since they do not produce any products. And without products, the number of patents that can be possibly infringed are much lower, the only ones I can think of are business method patents.