ezroller Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=...fset=30&rows=45 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooYah Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 I thought anon had decided to take down the the download section, as well. Stallman is a rable rouser :lol:He said "rable rouser" :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theYinYeti Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 Anyone else alarmed by this? You should beYes. Let's hope those software patents won't be accepted in Europe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aru Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 Yes, sure I'm preety worried too. Btw, yesterday I closed all my web sites and put instead a page[1] against the software patents in europe as requested by HispaLinux[2], you might want to join this protest. [1] http://proinnova.hispalinux.es/campanyas/m...patentessw.html [2] http://www.hispalinux.es Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 OK, so who actually read it? Seriously ... the first site seems to contain a whole load of people who don't understand the issue. Its nothing to do with SCO, this is about limiting what is patentable, not copyright. I have a feeling some people haven't grasped the issues This is either life or death to open source. End of story. The EU (well a part of the beurocracy since the other half is against it) are attempting to allow the patent of just about any mathematical formula or 'computer method'. This includes EVERYTHING ... Some germans have already patented scrollbars ... (im not sure if they intend to use it or theyre making a point). If the resolution goes through then it will be allowable to patent very broad definitions of 'computer derived work'. Its important not to confuse this with copyright. The idea that this is some socialist plot just isn't the case, if this resolution is passed YOU will be paying licencing fees for every application that uses scrollbars. Theirs nothing to stop anyone patenting the idea of a panel or icons either or bulletin board for that matter. The reason they are forced to do this protest is noone actually listens to what is being passed. This isn't anything to do with IP or copywright, its about stopping the limits on what is patentable in Information Technology terms. This lacks a physcial control so for instance you might be able to patent a certain type of tape drive but not the idea of storing data on magnetic tape. This resolution seeks to unblock that limit for software allowing for general patents on wholesale concepts. 'One click shopping' is the touted example but consider, its not copyright or trademark they are talking about, what they want to do is patent the process. You can copyright a compression algorithm BUT this seeks to make the IDEA of a compression algorithm PATENTABLE. In other words programs pass from being copywrite material to patent material. The concept of a Disk Operating System has yet to be patented, hey its up for grabs!! This is pure madness being driven by buerocrats who have no idea what they are talking about. The EU patent office has already been semi-legally granting these patents using back doors to grant them. I don't quite see how anyone who understands software can support this. Its like the wright Bros patented the idea of a aeroplane. Our aerospace indistry would be 25 years behind if that had happened but it couldn't becuase although the actual design was patentable the concept wasn't. Its the lack of tangibility that makes this so scary for software. The idea you can patent the idea of icons, mouse cursors or scrollbars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 Its not just about software. Its what is patentable in general. There is a canadian agribusiness compny that has patented a variety of yellow pepper. One of the variaties grown commonly. They didn't "invent it" but in principle it is open to them to do this. On a more serious note one of the motivating factors behind genetically modified foods is so that the seed supplier can control the market by stopping farmers keeping their own seed from the current crop rather than buying afresh. As things stand a lot of everyday things are up for grabs and in principle can be patented even although there is no obvious progenitor. Another agribusiness has taken out a patent on basmati rice. The fact it has been grown for hundreds of years does'nt matter. nobody has patented the rights to that type of rice so it was open to them to do do. In this country someone took out a patent on chips with salt and vinegar (thats french fries to you yanks). The idea was to highlight how ridiculous the whole thing has become. The ironic thing about it is that some of the companies behind this are not averse to exploiting other peoples ideas and claiming them as their own. The whole thing is quite nasty and is not about fair comppetition butb more to try and stop it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero0w Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 I like to comment more on this but I am a bit busy, nevertheless I feel urge to drop a line (maybe a few more :wink: ): 1) Copyright vs Patent Copyright protects the EXACT form of expression, while Patent protects an idea in general. For example you can copyright what you have written and posted in this forum - your message as your own. When others need to use an exact copy of it/quote it they will have to ask for your copyright permission (though I doubt if anyone will really do that :P ). However, if you can have a patent on the idea in your message, any other people who thought the same CANNOT express their opinion, even in different wordings, unless you have granted them the use of your "patent" on that idea. See what's the difference here? With copyright, same ideas can still be expressed - but in a different form. Convergence and coincidence of creation/invention is allowed if each party comes up with the same idea in their different forms. In the world of art, everybody can draw a dog on his/her own - we all know what a dog looks like, but still each of us will come up with our unique style and shape of drawing. So copyright would probably be appropriate to protect your own drawing while others are still allowed to draw the same object in a different manner. Imagine "a dog drawing" is patentable, and you can see where we are heading. This imposes much stricter limitation to the artists and most creative personnels out there. They can no longer use ANY "dog drawing" in comics or anime without paying patent license. That's why in the creative media copyright is preferred over patent. Otherwise no one will be able to determine whether they are breaking the law or not when creating their own artwork - and it impairs the motive (and enthusiasm) of any kind of art creation. In the software world, programming work used to be regarded as a matter of intelligence effort. By the same token, one can see if programming code/algorithm is patentable, then it will also prevent others to create and develop because it controls ideas - whatever variable names/expression/programming language you use you can still violate a patent. The LZW compression algorithm used in GIF format was one of the best example (though the LZW patent expired in US recently). Many people stopped using it and switched to other format. 2) What's going to happen if Software Patent is enforceable? Well, I would not imagine every junk patent owners are going out there to sue. But I believe one of the possibly and likely outcome will be for Microsoft to kill MS Office document compatibility in any non-MS Office product. MS knows the file format and it knows how to protect it. Even the reverse engineering/filtering effort of OpenOffice.org developers could violate the patent MS could have applied on its document format. This could strike a blow to the OpenOffice.org project, and its prospect in the future. There are a lot other implications in social and innovation aspect but my time's up, I'll post it later.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 Hey, im right with you. I think this is another of those stealth bills that they were hoping to pass off. On the other thread I joked about patenting a redial button for a phone ... but it isn't a joke... someone could! The people pro this bill have pushed it as an IP issue and defending peoples IP and at the same time hinted that anyone against it is against property ownership and thus an anarchist. They have also deliberately clouded the issue by comparing it to copywright. This isn't about originality its about which patent lawyer has the idea of patenting something noone else has patented becuase its too ridiculous. To me its all important, Basmati rice and chips with salt and vinegar. Both of these show how blatently stupid it is but I was keeping to software more because its mandrakeusers.org. This is a case of pure madness, has anyone patented the wrist watch yet??? You can be sure their a good deal of corporate leverage on this from companies who have 'dodgy' patents already. There are plently of examples already and this bill seeks to get the EU patent office out of trouble for granting stupid patents over the last few years. Ahh I'm going to do a POLL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iphitus Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 I patent MandrakeUsers.org I'm gonna sue you admins and all who use it unless you pay me!! James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 "With copyright, same ideas can still be expressed - but in a different form. Convergence and coincidence of creation/invention is allowed if each party comes up with the same idea in their different forms. In the world of art, everybody can draw a dog on his/her own - we all know what a dog looks like, but still each of us will come up with our unique style and shape of drawing. So copyright would probably be appropriate to protect your own drawing while others are still allowed to draw the same object in a different manner. "By the same token, one can see if programming code/algorithm is patentable, then it will also prevent others to create and develop because it controls ideas - whatever variable names/expression/programming language you use you can still violate a patent." Thats a lovely summing up of a cpmplex issue. With Microsoft et al its about stifling competition at any cost. The potential knock on effect is potentially horrendous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 I patent MandrakeUsers.org I'm gonna sue you admins and all who use it unless you pay me!! [p.s. Not picking on you but it makes a good example] You can't that's the whole point. You will need about 100,000 US to patent it. Then it needs European and US patents and probably given your common sense attitude down-under you won't be able to patent it in Austrialia. Besides: Thats copyright not patent. If Paul wants he could copyright it. All you have to do is state that you reserve copyright and date it. Patent would be the idea have having a bulletin board for support (under the new EU ideas) ... So you wouldn't patent Mandrake users but EVERY support bulletin board. Every free board would have to pay you royalties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glitz Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 The whole problem with patents is that you can get a patent for virtually anything. The only criteria is that someone else hasn't patented it already. Whether the patent is enforcible or not is not even considered in a patent application. There are many patents out there that would not hold up in court. Specifically the ones that deal with prior art. You can patent something that's been in use for many years but good luck trying to enforce that patent in court. However, it's the "going to court" bit that is prohibitive. Patents (if they are allowed) should be much more rigurously tested before being granted so that only those patents which have a hope of standing up in court are actually granted. By the way, I am against software patents. Glitz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zenhues Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 The site for Easy Urpmi is protesting too. I installed the 9.2 RC1 this morning, then went to the site to get urpmi mirrors, only to find it is down. It is usually my first step after installing mandrake, so it is a bummer that it is not there today. I will appreciate it a bit more. I get more use out of that page than out of the entire mandrake club. They have people talking, so I guess that is a good thing. Thanks, Rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezroller Posted August 28, 2003 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 these sites all have a link to thier main site, this is just the page you see first!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted August 28, 2003 Report Share Posted August 28, 2003 Can I get a patent on this thread? :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.