I may be naive, but it would actually be nice to have a CEO which focused on more ethical tactics, and actually tried to create products that were compliant.
I would much rather have a Microsoft that would support real open standards, instead of a dying Microsoft that will make everyone using MS products stuck at crappy binary blob formats.
Far from every software project is backed by a capital. By licensing, you automatically put a price on your product.
That's not an option in my opinion.
Okay, point taken, but I still think there is a much higher risk of "overlapping" innovations in software. Like tool bars, progress bars, menu layouts, encoding algorithms, input systems etc.
Then make your implementation better. If you patent your idea, but you're a crappy programmer or only intend to support a single platform, why shouldn't more talented or ambitious people have a chance to use your idea? Or maybe even improve it! That's innovation. I can't really acknowledge the concept of "owning intelligence".
I believe that a patent system is necessary. But it should not cover software in any form, because it just doesn't apply to that domain.
If everyone keeps patenting single features which can't stand alone as individual products, but depend on other (potentially patented) features, we end up in a situation where every company is in a mexican stance against each other. It's also depressing to see so many resources being thrown away on lawyers who are the only real winners in this. Use those money on developers instead, and implement each others ideas to create great product for the users - US.
In the end, a single good idea is worth nothing if you don't have the resources to develop the software. You can patent it, and then no one can develop the products, but is that really what we want?
Patents are not free. At least not in my country. And you have to pay lawyers to research whether or not your invention has been patented in another form first. Don't get me started on the price of an international patent.
If we ignore the rest of the patent system and focus on software patents, take this case: You invent a great never-seen-before feature which - if added to existing word processing features - will make an MS Word/OpenOffice Writer killer. You go out and patent it, and then you hire a couple of developers and implement your new word processor. It will not take long before the lawyers from one of the big corporations find another feature in your word processor which they own the patent for. You can now choose between paying them big bucks, or give away your patent.
I just can't see how the patent system - in its current form - protects the innovator. It's more like paying protection money to the mafia.
You're mixing copyright law and patent law.
And I don't see MS getting stopped. They probably earn more by ignoring patents, and just paying up when they get sued.
The independent developer would get destroyed by a case like this though. It's rather depressing and extremely counterproductive. Let the ideas be free for gods sake, and copyright the implementations if you feel like it!
Am I getting this wrong, or have they actually removed the possibility of using hooks? Or are they just talking about creating a special hook interface for the security software vendors?
Anyway, both cases would be obnoxious; removing hooks to improve security would break a lot of software, and creating a special hook interface for security software would be idiotic! Why leave a backdoor wide open?!
It's like Greenpeace whining about too many whales in the ocean...
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. Wrong formulation :).
I may be naive, but it would actually be nice to have a CEO which focused on more ethical tactics, and actually tried to create products that were compliant. I would much rather have a Microsoft that would support real open standards, instead of a dying Microsoft that will make everyone using MS products stuck at crappy binary blob formats.
Far from every software project is backed by a capital. By licensing, you automatically put a price on your product. That's not an option in my opinion.
Okay, point taken, but I still think there is a much higher risk of "overlapping" innovations in software. Like tool bars, progress bars, menu layouts, encoding algorithms, input systems etc.
Then make your implementation better. If you patent your idea, but you're a crappy programmer or only intend to support a single platform, why shouldn't more talented or ambitious people have a chance to use your idea? Or maybe even improve it! That's innovation. I can't really acknowledge the concept of "owning intelligence".
I believe that a patent system is necessary. But it should not cover software in any form, because it just doesn't apply to that domain. If everyone keeps patenting single features which can't stand alone as individual products, but depend on other (potentially patented) features, we end up in a situation where every company is in a mexican stance against each other. It's also depressing to see so many resources being thrown away on lawyers who are the only real winners in this. Use those money on developers instead, and implement each others ideas to create great product for the users - US. In the end, a single good idea is worth nothing if you don't have the resources to develop the software. You can patent it, and then no one can develop the products, but is that really what we want?
Patents are not free. At least not in my country. And you have to pay lawyers to research whether or not your invention has been patented in another form first. Don't get me started on the price of an international patent. If we ignore the rest of the patent system and focus on software patents, take this case: You invent a great never-seen-before feature which - if added to existing word processing features - will make an MS Word/OpenOffice Writer killer. You go out and patent it, and then you hire a couple of developers and implement your new word processor. It will not take long before the lawyers from one of the big corporations find another feature in your word processor which they own the patent for. You can now choose between paying them big bucks, or give away your patent. I just can't see how the patent system - in its current form - protects the innovator. It's more like paying protection money to the mafia.
You're mixing copyright law and patent law. And I don't see MS getting stopped. They probably earn more by ignoring patents, and just paying up when they get sued. The independent developer would get destroyed by a case like this though. It's rather depressing and extremely counterproductive. Let the ideas be free for gods sake, and copyright the implementations if you feel like it!
In Soviet Russia, our new masochist overlords welcomes YOU!
I could easily imagine the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donate a load of money into a project like this, if it turns out to be effective.
The world needs no more than three jokes, repeated over and over again in eternity!
Am I getting this wrong, or have they actually removed the possibility of using hooks? Or are they just talking about creating a special hook interface for the security software vendors? Anyway, both cases would be obnoxious; removing hooks to improve security would break a lot of software, and creating a special hook interface for security software would be idiotic! Why leave a backdoor wide open?! It's like Greenpeace whining about too many whales in the ocean...