I understand about the personal learning edition being just that. The problem is, I don't have a desire to waste my time making something cool that I can't show my friends without haveing a lame watermark on it.
Not that I want everything for free. How can I motivate myself to use this version to learn, knowing the whole time that if I come up with something cool, I'll have to completely redo all the work over again in a licensed version just to get rid of the lame watermark.
Perhaps the licensed version came with a tool to convert the lame personal edition created projects to the licensed version without the watermark??? Kind of a differed payment type thing. There isn't much difference between, I paid my money then learned or learned then paid my money... They get there money either way and I get all my work.
But if it's on the internet it has to be true! No need for any fact-checking! I can't remember the last time I actually had to "consider the source!" That was so like, yesterday!
...Linux is going to hit the headlines like never before......I predict that the small slowdown in Linux installations over the last months will reverse into an explosion when this happens...
This is actually a really good point. Linux is already hitting the headlines like never before. With all this SCO noise, I don't think there is anyone left that hasn't heard of Linux! There's no such thing as bad press!
I have to agree, once this is over there will be a huge leap forward for Linux.
Actually, I think it's the RIAA itself doing that. I think there was an article on here awhile back about them doing this sorta thing. I'd provide a link but I don't feel like searching for it right now.
Interesting though, this happened 3 times while I was trying to get a copy of In Da Club so I could learn what little guitar part there was. For the 3 files that were bad I got insanely good bandwidth. Something like 100+KB/s. Someone is putting out some major horsepower to try to slow this P2P thing down!!
That's what I do. In fact, just yesterday a friend told me about this cool band 50 cent. I downloaded one of their songs of Kazaa and played it. The first 30 seconds were pretty cool but then it changed to this crappy static noise beat thing with high pitched squeals. Boy that song sucked! I'm glad I didn't waste my money on the whole CD!!
Remember, SCO has said that they intend on floating the idea the the GPL is invalid. So, in SCO's mind, the GPL does not amount to a hill of beans.
SCOs argument for the GPL being invalid is that it violates copyright law when infact it does not. Infact, the GPL IS the very terms and conditions the original author is providing to allow others to copy, modify and redistribute his original copyrighted works.
If SCO has identified proprietary code within Linux (which they say they have), they must take steps to have it removed. To purposely leave that code within the Linux codebase and not adhere to the GPL is a WILLFUL VIOLATION of the United States Copyright Law.
...gives the author the sole right to make copies of his work.
What?!? What you are telling me is that if it were not for copyright law I would have no rights over my own works? (to copy or modify or anything else?)
That's not what copyright law provides. It provides protection for the works of the original author so no one else can copy, reproduce, profit and/or claim it as their own. The fair-use clause provides the public with the ability to copy and use portions of copyrighted works for specific and limited uses.
... This is a point that I think is very important and I don't see it mentioned here too often. Copyright law provides certain protection to the author of copyrighted works. The copyrighted works cannot be used beyond the normal "fair use" provided for by copyright law without the "express writtten permission" of the author.
The GPL provides this "express written permission" by the author and outlines the terms and conditions under which the permissions are granted. If the terms are not agreed to then the permissions are not granted. Any other use is in violation of the GPL "contract" and also copyright law!
Let's assume that Linux in fact DOES contain SCO code. There are two options. Remember that Linux existed and SCO code would have been added. SCO has two choices: 1) release their additions under the provisions of the GPL and be in compliance. 2) actively move to identify and remove the IP from the Linux code base and prosecute whoever was responsible for breaching SCO's intelectual property.
They cannot leave their IP in Linux and not release it under the GPL let alone try to license it. That is a violation of the GPL as well as a violation of the original author's (Linus's) copyright on Linux itself.
I agree with your point. In my original post I did mention that I was playing Devil's Advocate. But in reality these EULA's are exactly that. License Agreements. Permissive or restrictive, they are terms set forth by the original author/owner of the software. GPL is used a little differently but it is still a license agreement.
Microsoft has every right to restrict your use of their software however they see fit. Even to the absurd if they so choose. I don't see how it could be good for business but hey, that's their choice. It's their software.
Without the EULA I/we have absolutely no rights whatsoever to use their software. I cannot just grab a copy of their software and run it. I have to give them money and license it from them according to their terms. One of their terms happens to be the ability to change their terms. Hmmm... ok, but if I want to use the software I have to agree to that. My other choice is not to use their software.
Now the legality of interfearing with someone else's (3rd party) software is a different issue. But they can choose to not allow their software run on a system concurrently with someone else's. I think that would be foolish of them but they have the right to dictate how people use their software. It is still owned by Microsoft after all.
Yes they do have some pretty absurd terms in the agreements. However, I'm not quite sure about ruling implicit licensing agreements invalid at this point because we happen to rely on them so much.
Legal minimum, since open source code is published it is protected by copyright. If I don't agree w/ the GPL, under fair-use, I can atleast modify, compile and run a binary however I want in the privacy of my own environment. The GPL happens to be more permissive but it is still restrictive as I still cannot modify and sell (read license) my own binary for profit without releasing my code under the same GPL.
Legal minimum, Microsoft does not even publish there code so there are no rights to do anything with it. They license it to you for money in binary form and tell you the conditions of the license, nothing more.
But the GPL is granting rights, not restricting them.
Good point but you forget, Microsoft is granting rights, terms and conditions for you to use their software that they are licensing to you. If you do not agree then you have no rights to use their software. They can then change these terms and conditions because you previously agreed they could do so by accepting the previous license agreement. You will now need to also agree to the new terms to continue using their updated/security patched software.
They prevent you from, for example, using your software to create a word processor.
If you agreed to a previous agreement that they have the right to change the terms then they very well can change the terms to include this restriction. If you do not agree then you must stop using their software.
You are probably correct. I was debating wether or not to use the GPL as an example to make my point then realized that there was probably a more important point to be made. Athough I don't think I actually drew that out.
If we can declare these types of implicitly agreed to licenses (binding without a signature) invalid then that would set a bigger precident for delcaring something just as binding like the GPL invalid.
If I can say blindly clicking "I Agree" even though I do not (regardless if I understand the license terms) does not bind me to the terms of this license because there is no physical or electronic signature then the same case can be made for the GPL or other implicit licenses.
If we are to accept these implicit licenses such as GPL then we should adhere to all of them. If M$ has terms none of us agree to then none of us should be using their product. If no one uses their product, they go out of business or change their terms of use. We don't have to use M$. Even though Joe Average may not be familiar with Linux and Open Source, most people have heard of Apple.
the fact that no one ever reads them will make a good case for them being invalid - it shows that sticking a bunch of text between a user and using a product they just bought is not an effective means of establishing a binding, legal agreement.
Its not that people don't read it because people do. The terms are known to most if not by reading the license itself then by reading articles like this. People, myself included, just don't always agree with some of the absurd claims. The problem is there isn't much choice in alternatives so they use it anyway.
Just playing devils advocate here but by the same token, if M$ (or maybe even SCO) decided to hijack some GPL'ed code and claim the license invalid because they don't agree to it, there would be a major uproar in the OS community.
Hmmm... I don't agree to their terms so I'm going to use the software anyway just for spite! Maybe I'll let some of my intelectual property find its way into Linux and charge $ for it because I don't agree with the GPL.
Declaring it invalid because you don't agree but still want to use the software is not the answer. How about instead, finding an open alternative.
The main thrust is that he's betting on the fact that Copyright law trumps whatever provisions are in the GPL, so IBM's GPL defense doesn't hold water
Copyright law does not trump provisions in the GPL. This is a point that I think is very important and I don't see it mentioned here too often. Copyright law provides certain protection to the author of copyrighted works. The copyrighted works cannot be used beyond the normal "fair use" provided for by copyright law without the "express writtten permission" of the author.
The GPL provides this "express written permission" by the author and outlines the terms and conditions under which the permissions are granted. If the terms are not agreed to then the permissions are not granted. Any other use is in violation of the GPL "contract" and also copyright law!
Let's assume that Linux in fact DOES contain SCO code. There are two options. Remember that Linux existed and SCO code would have been added. SCO has two choices: 1) release their additions under the provisions of the GPL and be in compliance. 2) actively move to identify and remove the IP from the Linux code base and prosecute whoever was responsible for breaching SCO's intelectual property.
They cannot leave their IP in Linux and not release it under the GPL let alone try to license it. That is a violation of the GPL as well as a violation of the original author's (Linus's) copyright on Linux itself.
Re:It's not necessarily the breakup that saddens m
on
Masters of Doom
·
· Score: 1
Obviously you have never seen the movie "Gigli".
I've been hearing about how badly that movie sucked, I'm gonna have to go see it just so I can experience the suck first um... hand... J-Lo is in that, right??
because there is legally no such thing as "copyleft"
Technically this is correct. There is no "copyleft" concept in the lawbooks.
However, legally there is a such thing as "copyleft". It is provided for by the GPL and other free software licenses. These are legal and binding license agreements set by the licensor and agreed to by the licensee. Regardless of copyright.
Simply put:
I the author give permission to you the recipient to copy and modify (beyond that allowed by law since the works are mine and I have say over how my works are handled) the works I created and own provided you follow the the rules I have set. If you do not agree to these terms, you have no rights or permission by me the author to circumvent normal copyright laws.
The most anoying part for me is the cryptic configs and scripts. I still haven't mastered the XFree86 config yet and boy is the system FooBar'ed if I mess something up in there! The docs suck and the Howtos and mini-Howtos are just as cryptic as the comments in the scripts.
Really cool books, say something like "XFree86 for Dummies", would be a great help to the adoption of Linux. A 2-3 page Howto does not go into enough detail for those of us that would like to know how it works, why it works and get a _detailed_ explanation of the configs.
The REAL reason they aren't showing code is either they don't have any solid proof, or they want to wait as long as possible to spread a bunch of FUD.
Actually, they are not showing because they do not want the IP removed. They know no one wants to buy their crap, that's why they are resorting to extortion. They know once it is identified (if it even exists) it will be removed and there will be nothing for them to license.
Fortunately, they have to prove the kernel contains their IP. If someone actually buys a license without a shred of proof this IP exists then come see me! I can give you a great deal on this bridge I have!
Even with an NDA, someone heavily involved with the kernel development will need to verify their claims and the code will still be removed. This is the biggest flaw in their plan.
Your sense of humor has cost me the second monitor this week. You will be hearing from my layers soon. I am however willing to settle this matter out of court for the cost of 2 Bounty paper towel squares and a bottle of windex to remove the Mountain Dew from my screen.
So wait, you're saying that the real advantage of patents is that it makes people re-invent the wheel?
No, you've missed the point. The real advantage, which was the intended purpose of patents in the first place, is that the inventor is granted a temporary monopoly on the invention. The alternative technologies that result are a fortunate side effect.
People re-invent the wheel all the time, with or without patents. We have a choice of car we drive, computer, stereo, list, goes, on,... Some inovated based on competition, some as alternative technology.
Patents exist for the sole purpose of protecting the inventor. Which spurs inovation and competition. Say, company A invests a butt load of money and invents a new technology. The bigger more powerful company B with no investment takes that unprotected technology, markets it and drives company A out of business. Two bad things happen, 1) B becomes a permanent monopoly since there is no longer competition. 2) no one wants to inovate anything else if company B is going to legally take it from them.
With patents, if B wants to compete, 1) license the technology and hope they have a better marketing department (nothing says they can't license it and be the dominant supplier), or 2) inovate a better, stronger, faster alternative.
In our open source world, we are trying to do the same thing, only we justify it calling it the GPL. We want to open the technology to the public but we can't just start spewing code out into the public domain. How fast do you think M$ would snatch that up? So we license it to the public calling it a GPL but it's still "our" code! (or FSF if we've signed it over, but it's still owned by someone)
There are no individual inventors tinkering in their garages without corporate sponsorship anymore, except maybe Dean Kamen.
I thought we all did that. Except we skip the part about making money from our invention and instead, protect it from corporate abuse with the GPL... at least on the software side of things:)
The vast majority of patents are held by coroporations. The inventions of individual inventors are owned by corporations because of an employment agreement
Unfortunately, this is very true. People (I'm guilty as well) forget that you don't "have" to sign that contract with your employer. You can negotiate, and if they want you bad enough, you can get whatever you like put in or taken out of that contract.
or are sold to a corporation for a pittance for fear that the corporation will win any legal battle owing to their superior financial resources, regardless of the merit of their claims.
True and justified fear that IMHO stems from the lack of technical expertise in the USPTO and Justice system.
Individual inventors already are out of business. Make patents non-transferrable and make ip agreements that assign ownership invention to corporations illegal and they'll be back in business.
I wouldn't say make that illegal. Just watch what you sign. Don't sign away your IP before you even invent it. Perhaps there should be some sort of prenuptual agreement made with your employer before you take a job.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I understand about the personal learning edition being just that. The problem is, I don't have a desire to waste my time making something cool that I can't show my friends without haveing a lame watermark on it.
Not that I want everything for free. How can I motivate myself to use this version to learn, knowing the whole time that if I come up with something cool, I'll have to completely redo all the work over again in a licensed version just to get rid of the lame watermark.
Perhaps the licensed version came with a tool to convert the lame personal edition created projects to the licensed version without the watermark??? Kind of a differed payment type thing. There isn't much difference between, I paid my money then learned or learned then paid my money... They get there money either way and I get all my work.
But if it's on the internet it has to be true! No need for any fact-checking! I can't remember the last time I actually had to "consider the source!" That was so like, yesterday!
We experimented with a similar display from Dimension Technologies, Inc.. Here's how it works if you are interested.
It's pretty cool but you don't have much room to move around and we'd get headaches after about half an hour of using it.
...Linux is going to hit the headlines like never before... ...I predict that the small slowdown in Linux installations over the last months will reverse into an explosion when this happens...
This is actually a really good point. Linux is already hitting the headlines like never before. With all this SCO noise, I don't think there is anyone left that hasn't heard of Linux! There's no such thing as bad press!
I have to agree, once this is over there will be a huge leap forward for Linux.
Sadly, it costs a lot of money to exercise free speech in America.
Your sig alone deserves +1 insightful!
We'll never know since we can't download his stuff to sample it. Who cares!
Actually, I think it's the RIAA itself doing that. I think there was an article on here awhile back about them doing this sorta thing. I'd provide a link but I don't feel like searching for it right now.
Interesting though, this happened 3 times while I was trying to get a copy of In Da Club so I could learn what little guitar part there was. For the 3 files that were bad I got insanely good bandwidth. Something like 100+KB/s. Someone is putting out some major horsepower to try to slow this P2P thing down!!
That's what I do. In fact, just yesterday a friend told me about this cool band 50 cent. I downloaded one of their songs of Kazaa and played it. The first 30 seconds were pretty cool but then it changed to this crappy static noise beat thing with high pitched squeals. Boy that song sucked! I'm glad I didn't waste my money on the whole CD!!
Remember, SCO has said that they intend on floating the idea the the GPL is invalid. So, in SCO's mind, the GPL does not amount to a hill of beans.
SCOs argument for the GPL being invalid is that it violates copyright law when infact it does not. Infact, the GPL IS the very terms and conditions the original author is providing to allow others to copy, modify and redistribute his original copyrighted works.
If SCO has identified proprietary code within Linux (which they say they have), they must take steps to have it removed. To purposely leave that code within the Linux codebase and not adhere to the GPL is a WILLFUL VIOLATION of the United States Copyright Law.
...gives the author the sole right to make copies of his work.
What?!? What you are telling me is that if it were not for copyright law I would have no rights over my own works? (to copy or modify or anything else?)
That's not what copyright law provides. It provides protection for the works of the original author so no one else can copy, reproduce, profit and/or claim it as their own. The fair-use clause provides the public with the ability to copy and use portions of copyrighted works for specific and limited uses.
I think you need to have another look at the law.
... This is a point that I think is very important and I don't see it mentioned here too often. Copyright law provides certain protection to the author of copyrighted works. The copyrighted works cannot be used beyond the normal "fair use" provided for by copyright law without the "express writtten permission" of the author.
The GPL provides this "express written permission" by the author and outlines the terms and conditions under which the permissions are granted. If the terms are not agreed to then the permissions are not granted. Any other use is in violation of the GPL "contract" and also copyright law!
Let's assume that Linux in fact DOES contain SCO code. There are two options. Remember that Linux existed and SCO code would have been added. SCO has two choices: 1) release their additions under the provisions of the GPL and be in compliance. 2) actively move to identify and remove the IP from the Linux code base and prosecute whoever was responsible for breaching SCO's intelectual property.
They cannot leave their IP in Linux and not release it under the GPL let alone try to license it. That is a violation of the GPL as well as a violation of the original author's (Linus's) copyright on Linux itself.
I agree with your point. In my original post I did mention that I was playing Devil's Advocate. But in reality these EULA's are exactly that. License Agreements. Permissive or restrictive, they are terms set forth by the original author/owner of the software. GPL is used a little differently but it is still a license agreement.
Microsoft has every right to restrict your use of their software however they see fit. Even to the absurd if they so choose. I don't see how it could be good for business but hey, that's their choice. It's their software.
Without the EULA I/we have absolutely no rights whatsoever to use their software. I cannot just grab a copy of their software and run it. I have to give them money and license it from them according to their terms. One of their terms happens to be the ability to change their terms. Hmmm... ok, but if I want to use the software I have to agree to that. My other choice is not to use their software.
Now the legality of interfearing with someone else's (3rd party) software is a different issue. But they can choose to not allow their software run on a system concurrently with someone else's. I think that would be foolish of them but they have the right to dictate how people use their software. It is still owned by Microsoft after all.
Yes they do have some pretty absurd terms in the agreements. However, I'm not quite sure about ruling implicit licensing agreements invalid at this point because we happen to rely on them so much.
Legal minimum, since open source code is published it is protected by copyright. If I don't agree w/ the GPL, under fair-use, I can atleast modify, compile and run a binary however I want in the privacy of my own environment. The GPL happens to be more permissive but it is still restrictive as I still cannot modify and sell (read license) my own binary for profit without releasing my code under the same GPL.
Legal minimum, Microsoft does not even publish there code so there are no rights to do anything with it. They license it to you for money in binary form and tell you the conditions of the license, nothing more.
But the GPL is granting rights, not restricting them.
Good point but you forget, Microsoft is granting rights, terms and conditions for you to use their software that they are licensing to you. If you do not agree then you have no rights to use their software. They can then change these terms and conditions because you previously agreed they could do so by accepting the previous license agreement. You will now need to also agree to the new terms to continue using their updated/security patched software.
They prevent you from, for example, using your software to create a word processor.
If you agreed to a previous agreement that they have the right to change the terms then they very well can change the terms to include this restriction. If you do not agree then you must stop using their software.
Or you could use an alternative.
You are probably correct. I was debating wether or not to use the GPL as an example to make my point then realized that there was probably a more important point to be made. Athough I don't think I actually drew that out.
If we can declare these types of implicitly agreed to licenses (binding without a signature) invalid then that would set a bigger precident for delcaring something just as binding like the GPL invalid.
If I can say blindly clicking "I Agree" even though I do not (regardless if I understand the license terms) does not bind me to the terms of this license because there is no physical or electronic signature then the same case can be made for the GPL or other implicit licenses.
If we are to accept these implicit licenses such as GPL then we should adhere to all of them. If M$ has terms none of us agree to then none of us should be using their product. If no one uses their product, they go out of business or change their terms of use. We don't have to use M$. Even though Joe Average may not be familiar with Linux and Open Source, most people have heard of Apple.
the fact that no one ever reads them will make a good case for them being invalid - it shows that sticking a bunch of text between a user and using a product they just bought is not an effective means of establishing a binding, legal agreement.
Its not that people don't read it because people do. The terms are known to most if not by reading the license itself then by reading articles like this. People, myself included, just don't always agree with some of the absurd claims. The problem is there isn't much choice in alternatives so they use it anyway.
Just playing devils advocate here but by the same token, if M$ (or maybe even SCO) decided to hijack some GPL'ed code and claim the license invalid because they don't agree to it, there would be a major uproar in the OS community.
Hmmm... I don't agree to their terms so I'm going to use the software anyway just for spite! Maybe I'll let some of my intelectual property find its way into Linux and charge $ for it because I don't agree with the GPL.
Declaring it invalid because you don't agree but still want to use the software is not the answer. How about instead, finding an open alternative.
The main thrust is that he's betting on the fact that Copyright law trumps whatever provisions are in the GPL, so IBM's GPL defense doesn't hold water
Copyright law does not trump provisions in the GPL. This is a point that I think is very important and I don't see it mentioned here too often. Copyright law provides certain protection to the author of copyrighted works. The copyrighted works cannot be used beyond the normal "fair use" provided for by copyright law without the "express writtten permission" of the author.
The GPL provides this "express written permission" by the author and outlines the terms and conditions under which the permissions are granted. If the terms are not agreed to then the permissions are not granted. Any other use is in violation of the GPL "contract" and also copyright law!
Let's assume that Linux in fact DOES contain SCO code. There are two options. Remember that Linux existed and SCO code would have been added. SCO has two choices: 1) release their additions under the provisions of the GPL and be in compliance. 2) actively move to identify and remove the IP from the Linux code base and prosecute whoever was responsible for breaching SCO's intelectual property.
They cannot leave their IP in Linux and not release it under the GPL let alone try to license it. That is a violation of the GPL as well as a violation of the original author's (Linus's) copyright on Linux itself.
Obviously you have never seen the movie "Gigli" .
I've been hearing about how badly that movie sucked, I'm gonna have to go see it just so I can experience the suck first um... hand... J-Lo is in that, right??
because there is legally no such thing as "copyleft"
Technically this is correct. There is no "copyleft" concept in the lawbooks.
However, legally there is a such thing as "copyleft". It is provided for by the GPL and other free software licenses. These are legal and binding license agreements set by the licensor and agreed to by the licensee. Regardless of copyright.
Simply put:
I the author give permission to you the recipient to copy and modify (beyond that allowed by law since the works are mine and I have say over how my works are handled) the works I created and own provided you follow the the rules I have set. If you do not agree to these terms, you have no rights or permission by me the author to circumvent normal copyright laws.
apt-get install lsof
o f.tar.gz
./configure linux
or
wget ftp://lsof.itap.purdue.edu/pub/tools/unix/lsof/ls
tar zxvf lsof.tar.gz
cd lsof_*
tar xvf lsof*tar
cd lsof*_src
make
su
make install
Ahh yes... That's quite intuitive! Even my Gram will soon be able to use Linux!
Look out Microsoft! Linux is busting into the mainstream!
The most anoying part for me is the cryptic configs and scripts. I still haven't mastered the XFree86 config yet and boy is the system FooBar'ed if I mess something up in there! The docs suck and the Howtos and mini-Howtos are just as cryptic as the comments in the scripts.
Really cool books, say something like "XFree86 for Dummies", would be a great help to the adoption of Linux. A 2-3 page Howto does not go into enough detail for those of us that would like to know how it works, why it works and get a _detailed_ explanation of the configs.
The REAL reason they aren't showing code is either they don't have any solid proof, or they want to wait as long as possible to spread a bunch of FUD.
Actually, they are not showing because they do not want the IP removed. They know no one wants to buy their crap, that's why they are resorting to extortion. They know once it is identified (if it even exists) it will be removed and there will be nothing for them to license.
Fortunately, they have to prove the kernel contains their IP. If someone actually buys a license without a shred of proof this IP exists then come see me! I can give you a great deal on this bridge I have!
Even with an NDA, someone heavily involved with the kernel development will need to verify their claims and the code will still be removed. This is the biggest flaw in their plan.
Dear Mr. brooks,
Your sense of humor has cost me the second monitor this week. You will be hearing from my layers soon. I am however willing to settle this matter out of court for the cost of 2 Bounty paper towel squares and a bottle of windex to remove the Mountain Dew from my screen.
Respectfully,
J
I don't think the article includes all the details, however Microsoft's Security Bulletin does.
...If the file was embedded in a page the vulnerability could be exploited when a user visited the Web page...
So wait, you're saying that the real advantage of patents is that it makes people re-invent the wheel?
... Some inovated based on competition, some as alternative technology.
No, you've missed the point. The real advantage, which was the intended purpose of patents in the first place, is that the inventor is granted a temporary monopoly on the invention. The alternative technologies that result are a fortunate side effect.
People re-invent the wheel all the time, with or without patents. We have a choice of car we drive, computer, stereo, list, goes, on,
Patents exist for the sole purpose of protecting the inventor. Which spurs inovation and competition. Say, company A invests a butt load of money and invents a new technology. The bigger more powerful company B with no investment takes that unprotected technology, markets it and drives company A out of business. Two bad things happen, 1) B becomes a permanent monopoly since there is no longer competition. 2) no one wants to inovate anything else if company B is going to legally take it from them.
With patents, if B wants to compete, 1) license the technology and hope they have a better marketing department (nothing says they can't license it and be the dominant supplier), or 2) inovate a better, stronger, faster alternative.
In our open source world, we are trying to do the same thing, only we justify it calling it the GPL. We want to open the technology to the public but we can't just start spewing code out into the public domain. How fast do you think M$ would snatch that up? So we license it to the public calling it a GPL but it's still "our" code! (or FSF if we've signed it over, but it's still owned by someone)
There are no individual inventors tinkering in their garages without corporate sponsorship anymore, except maybe Dean Kamen.
:)
:-)
I thought we all did that. Except we skip the part about making money from our invention and instead, protect it from corporate abuse with the GPL... at least on the software side of things
The vast majority of patents are held by coroporations. The inventions of individual inventors are owned by corporations because of an employment agreement
Unfortunately, this is very true. People (I'm guilty as well) forget that you don't "have" to sign that contract with your employer. You can negotiate, and if they want you bad enough, you can get whatever you like put in or taken out of that contract.
or are sold to a corporation for a pittance for fear that the corporation will win any legal battle owing to their superior financial resources, regardless of the merit of their claims.
True and justified fear that IMHO stems from the lack of technical expertise in the USPTO and Justice system.
Individual inventors already are out of business. Make patents non-transferrable and make ip agreements that assign ownership invention to corporations illegal and they'll be back in business.
I wouldn't say make that illegal. Just watch what you sign. Don't sign away your IP before you even invent it. Perhaps there should be some sort of prenuptual agreement made with your employer before you take a job.