Microsoft need to be specific; what are the patent numbers, which countries are they valid in, and what is the licence fee that Microsoft would like from an individual user ?
Without that essential information, Microsoft are behaving in a commercially-inappropriate way. Intimidating and destructive to creativity.
I need the chance to way either that the patent does not apply where I live; or that there is prior art; or that I will do something in a different way. Or to find a patent of mine (or of my employer's) that they would like to cross-licence. I also need to know when the patent expires.
They will have to indicate that they will not sue any individual software developers, period, before I would venture within a thousand miles of that site.
IBM doesn't seem to have any problem with DB2, Websphere, or Lotus Notes, running on Linux.
Oracle doesn't seem to have any problem with Oracle.
If Oracle managed to build some GPL code into their database (and ship it) in such a way that they might become obligated to ship the source code for Oracle, then I believe they have the alternative of ceasing to ship their product, reworking it without the GPL part (presumably by employing their own programmers to write a replacement in a 'cleanroom' fashion from specification), and then resuming shipments. A small commercial upset, because of the delay and embarrassment, but not a commercial disaster.
If you want to keep your code proprietary, by all means keep it proprietary. If you prefer to share it, by all means share it. Different strokes for different folks, and we can get along just fine.
However, he does not control all the developers in the world; business software existed before Microsoft was incorporated; and businesses have a legitimate requirement to go about their business with or without him.
If he won't interoperate, we'll move along without him.
The article suggests that if the Internet Service Providers were to levy a fee (suggesting $3/month or something) and pass it on to the Big Four then all would be sweetness and light.
Well, if the ISPs were to levy a fee and pass it on to my employer (who is a large solutions vendor, doesn't do a lot of commercial music) so that he could pay my salary, I expect he would be pleased, too.
However, this rather misses the point. Big Four need to produce goods and services that people want to buy, and they need to sell them (as in, employ salesmen to sell, spend money on advertising, and accept the hurt when a prospective purchaser says 'no'). And if you just hand them my money on a plate, then that essential piece of the business process is completely absent.
There's also my mother-in-law. She has Broadband, but is explicit that she does not want to download music; she would willingly trade the complexity of the modern Internet experience (having just had a reinstall becuase Windows Genuine Advantage could not see the holographic sticker on the side of her box and thought she was a pirate), for the simpler days of a decade ago, where email worked, and web sites were for news-and-views rather than marketing-on-steroids.
Scientists need to be able to access the work of those who have gone before, collaborate with their contemporaries, and publish their works so that others may build on them.
In fact, many scientists are paid according as how many references their publications get.
In this sphere, being obstructive like saying 'file sharing is illegal' is not going to allow progress to happen.
So, I understand the point about the commercial music sellers. But please understand that commercial music is a luxury; I might spend spare money on it, or I might not.
But please figure that not all human endeavours are helped by locking down the Internet so that it can't be used.
This has got to be a cross-licence thing. It's too easy (now) for prior art to surface which will invalidate the IBM patents.
Quite apart from this, Amazon supply a lot of books to IBM. The pair should be 'commercial friends', not competitors. Amazon don't do a lot of commercial solution providing and outsourcing.
You might as well say 'Personal Computers could derail the typewriter business'.
So what if people choose to spend their money on something else ? All the typewriters that are going to be sold have already been sold. Nowadays, a typewriter development and manufacturing business is not viable. Intelligent corporations try something else.
Copyright law is fine... well, actually, I would rather that it had been left the way that the Berne Convention had it about 20 years ago, and we should have spent our efforts understanding what it was, rather than changing it.
But the owners of commercial content... Star Wars DVDs, if you like... are going round intimidating people away from doing things that they have a perfect right to do, such as putting recordings of them singing songs they have written themselves on their own web sites for distribution to anyone in the world who cares to take them.
There should be some sanction against a cartel intimidaring someone into paying when no money is due. Is there any such sanction ? Jail time for fraud, maybe ?
If I was implementing air traffic control software under contract to someone who had some air traffic to control, then yes, I probably would open-source it.
I wouldn't allow 'community' to alter the codebase directly; but I would have a 'reader comment' process; and if someone wanted to use my software to make an open-source air-traffic-simulation game, that would be fine by me.
Really, the software has no commercial value in itself. You need an airport and some planes to control, before there's any value.
Well, it should; and if you proposed to manufacture, market, or import the hardware, then you should negotiate a patent licence before doing so on a commercial basis.
I don't think you need a patent licence to develop the hardware, or to import samples, or to prototype a manufacturing process. But, not being a lawyer, I could be wrong here.
'Software patents' are likely to turn 'programming' into a purely commercial endeavour.
That's likely to make it hard to teach the next generation how to program computers; that will be 'education', and I will not be teaching anyone if there is any chance that someone will slap a patent law suit on me. (Nor will I be paying for a patent licence).
And if the next generation don't know how, there will be no-one to fix the bugs after the current generation retires.
Well, the idea is supposed to be "you have a patent, I have a patent, let's get together and develop a product".
Whether that works for software is anyone's guess. I rather think not. But then, I have no influence with the US congress, so what I say does not really carry much weight.
It's not entirely clear that major corporations would want to, or would be able to, halt development and distribution of OSS.
Even Microsoft seem to be warming to the idea of running Linux virtual machines under Windows.
And loads of major corporations use OSS in their internal business processes. Think of all those Linksys routers with their GPL microcode. Millions in use throughout the USA.
I think a US patent gives exclusive right to 'manufacture' (in the US), 'import' (into the US), and 'market' (within the US) the patented item, or an item made using the patented process.
So as part of the commercialisation process for the open-source product, the commercialiser will seek a patent licence from the patent licence holder ?
Is there an intent to commercialise it ? If so, how will it be commercialised ?
Slashdot Mirror
Selling a PC with Windows is a bit like selling a typewriter with a ribbon. Last century's market.
Without that essential information, Microsoft are behaving in a commercially-inappropriate way. Intimidating and destructive to creativity.
I need the chance to way either that the patent does not apply where I live; or that there is prior art; or that I will do something in a different way. Or to find a patent of mine (or of my employer's) that they would like to cross-licence. I also need to know when the patent expires.
They will have to indicate that they will not sue any individual software developers, period, before I would venture within a thousand miles of that site.
So whose computers does it apply to ? Only those belonging to the rich and powerful ?
If you're going about business on the Internet, go about it with an adequately-configured system. Keep your own fences in order, like I do mine.
Or they can ship with OS/2, Serenity Systems sell them nowadays. Not IBM. It's unkillable :-)
Or they can write their own operating system, or get out of the Personal Computer business and into the Games Console business.
Plenty of choices.
IBM doesn't seem to have any problem with DB2, Websphere, or Lotus Notes, running on Linux.
Oracle doesn't seem to have any problem with Oracle.
If Oracle managed to build some GPL code into their database (and ship it) in such a way that they might become obligated to ship the source code for Oracle, then I believe they have the alternative of ceasing to ship their product, reworking it without the GPL part (presumably by employing their own programmers to write a replacement in a 'cleanroom' fashion from specification), and then resuming shipments. A small commercial upset, because of the delay and embarrassment, but not a commercial disaster.
If you want to keep your code proprietary, by all means keep it proprietary. If you prefer to share it, by all means share it. Different strokes for different folks, and we can get along just fine.
However, he does not control all the developers in the world; business software existed before Microsoft was incorporated; and businesses have a legitimate requirement to go about their business with or without him.
If he won't interoperate, we'll move along without him.
Well, if the ISPs were to levy a fee and pass it on to my employer (who is a large solutions vendor, doesn't do a lot of commercial music) so that he could pay my salary, I expect he would be pleased, too.
However, this rather misses the point. Big Four need to produce goods and services that people want to buy, and they need to sell them (as in, employ salesmen to sell, spend money on advertising, and accept the hurt when a prospective purchaser says 'no'). And if you just hand them my money on a plate, then that essential piece of the business process is completely absent.
There's also my mother-in-law. She has Broadband, but is explicit that she does not want to download music; she would willingly trade the complexity of the modern Internet experience (having just had a reinstall becuase Windows Genuine Advantage could not see the holographic sticker on the side of her box and thought she was a pirate), for the simpler days of a decade ago, where email worked, and web sites were for news-and-views rather than marketing-on-steroids.
Would she have an opt-out ?
As far as I know, Microsoft Windows doesn't even run on the Sony Playstation.
Linux does, though.
Scientists need to be able to access the work of those who have gone before, collaborate with their contemporaries, and publish their works so that others may build on them.
In fact, many scientists are paid according as how many references their publications get.
In this sphere, being obstructive like saying 'file sharing is illegal' is not going to allow progress to happen.
So, I understand the point about the commercial music sellers. But please understand that commercial music is a luxury; I might spend spare money on it, or I might not.
But please figure that not all human endeavours are helped by locking down the Internet so that it can't be used.
Quite apart from this, Amazon supply a lot of books to IBM. The pair should be 'commercial friends', not competitors. Amazon don't do a lot of commercial solution providing and outsourcing.
So what if people choose to spend their money on something else ? All the typewriters that are going to be sold have already been sold. Nowadays, a typewriter development and manufacturing business is not viable. Intelligent corporations try something else.
It's called 'progress'.
But the owners of commercial content ... Star Wars DVDs, if you like ... are going round intimidating people away from doing things that they have a perfect right to do, such as putting recordings of them singing songs they have written themselves on their own web sites for distribution to anyone in the world who cares to take them.
There should be some sanction against a cartel intimidaring someone into paying when no money is due. Is there any such sanction ? Jail time for fraud, maybe ?
Torrent here . Enjoy.
If I was implementing air traffic control software under contract to someone who had some air traffic to control, then yes, I probably would open-source it.
I wouldn't allow 'community' to alter the codebase directly; but I would have a 'reader comment' process; and if someone wanted to use my software to make an open-source air-traffic-simulation game, that would be fine by me.
Really, the software has no commercial value in itself. You need an airport and some planes to control, before there's any value.
Open-source software is expensive if you want a commercial support contract (because you are asking a professional to spend a lot of time learning).
Closed-source software doesn't have the function that you want, and you cannot fix it to add the funcion that you want.
You pays your money and you takes your choice. You can always stick to pencil-and-paper, and not use this 'software' stuff at all, if you prefer.
You can get an IBM pSeries box with AIX, or without (the implication being that you will put a RedHat or SuSE Linux on, but it's up to you).
If you want an IBM maintenance contract, then a year's maintenance for AIX is cheaper than a year's maintenance for Linux.
If you don't want an IBM maintenance contract, then you should go for the Linux.
Well, it should; and if you proposed to manufacture, market, or import the hardware, then you should negotiate a patent licence before doing so on a commercial basis.
I don't think you need a patent licence to develop the hardware, or to import samples, or to prototype a manufacturing process. But, not being a lawyer, I could be wrong here.
That's likely to make it hard to teach the next generation how to program computers; that will be 'education', and I will not be teaching anyone if there is any chance that someone will slap a patent law suit on me. (Nor will I be paying for a patent licence).
And if the next generation don't know how, there will be no-one to fix the bugs after the current generation retires.
And we'll lose it.
Whether that works for software is anyone's guess. I rather think not. But then, I have no influence with the US congress, so what I say does not really carry much weight.
You mean "stuff patented in the US but not in China can be manufactured and marketed in China with no obligation to the US patent holder" ?
Sure it can. If the US inventor had wanted a Chinese patent, he should have bought one in Beijing.
Windows doesn't run on an IBM zSeries mainframe. Linux does.
Even Microsoft seem to be warming to the idea of running Linux virtual machines under Windows.
And loads of major corporations use OSS in their internal business processes. Think of all those Linksys routers with their GPL microcode. Millions in use throughout the USA.
Do correct me if I am wrong.
Is there an intent to commercialise it ? If so, how will it be commercialised ?