| |||||||||||||
Questions that need answeringQuestions that need answeringPosted Dec 6, 2006 17:15 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: Questions that need answering by NigelK Parent article: Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
Publishing that list of patents would be very unwise: should anyone stumble across that list, they'd be liable for triple damages for wilful infringement in the US should they use those algorithms again. (This is the same reason why it is generally a bad idea to look at software patents at all --- well, that and that their turgidity is liable to dissolve your brain).
As far as I know, the FSF *doesn't* baulk at the thought of enforcing the GPL: it just starts out quietly, sending polite letters that tend to get the problem solved. (Some *very* large companies have backed down at this, so it's not a size-of-company thing at all.)
I find it really rather surprising that you don't already know this: both these facts have been widely publicised. Perhaps you're just a troll.
(Log in to post comments)
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 18:17 UTC (Wed) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] If those 27 patents are invalid, then all the criticism (especially levelled by Groklaw) directed towards Novell recently will have been validated. Also, there's no possible danger resulting from reading invalid patents. Of course, that would put Pamela Jones in a tight spot as it would show that OSRM was blowing smoke and spreading FUD whilst she was working for them.
If all or some of those patents are valid, then Pamela Jones especially has some explaining to do.
That OSRM data has become very important to our understanding of this issue. It's time to publish that data.
But, of course, no one could accuse Jones of hypocrisy. No wonder Jones is trying to use scare tactics to convince people it would be a bad idea (or even just a "very unwise" one) to publish that data.
So, let's sort this out once and for all, and publish the numbers of those 27 Microsoft patents.
As for the FSF - it's very easy to attribute all sorts of deeds to them when no one else can verify it. I'd like to see some proof of dealings with Novell and Microsoft rather than them publically acting as if the GPL2 never existed and that GPL3 would fix the world's problems. Until then, I think these questions should be asked, and asked frequently.
Nigel Kneale.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 18:33 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] > If those 27 patents are invalid, then all the criticism (especially levelled by Groklaw) directed towards Novell recently will have been validated. Also, there's no possible danger resulting from reading invalid patents. Of course, that would put Pamela Jones in a tight spot as it would show that OSRM was blowing smoke and spreading FUD whilst she was working for them.
The only way those patents will become "invalid" is if they are challenged; either in court or through the administrative reveiw process. Either way, it takes a fair amount of time and money.
> So, let's sort this out once and for all, and publish the numbers of those 27 Microsoft patents.
This means that *every* user and distributer of Linux will be potentially liable for treble damages immediately, whether or not the patent is "valid." It is this very reason that corporate lawyers everywhere tell their R&D departments to not do patent searches, as if they're later found to be infringing, it's enough for it to be considered "willful" and kick in said treble damages.
You are demonstrating a distinct lack of knowledge in how the Patent system really works; you are confusing "moral" and "legal".
You are also letting your dislike of Pamela Jones cloud your judgement.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 19:04 UTC (Wed) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] With the FSF actively trying to reshape the FLOSS community in their own image (to the point of saying that "open software" is dead), and with Groklaw becoming an FSF mouthpiece (to the point of berating coders of high-profile projects because they don't share her beliefs - first it was the Linux kernel devs, now it's the OpenOffice devs [didn't you know Sun backs Novell's OOo efforts?], who knows who's going to be targeted next), I think the time has come to closely examine what the FSF and Groklaw's Jones have done and ask questions as to why they were done that way.
FLOSS is based on the many-eyeballs principle - let's point a few at the FSF and Groklaw. Having faith in them "doing the right thing" isn't going to be enough.
Nigel Kneale.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 19:27 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] And you are proposing to do this by exposing developers to treble damages and by spending a lot of money for useless quest ? Sorry - it's pretty bad approach IMNSHO... Yes, U.S. has totally screwed up laws as far as software patents are concerned - that does not mean you can ignore them in your quest to "closely examine" something... And if you don't understand these laws (and you showed that you don't understand them) then probably it's not a good idea for you to "closely examine" any body's legal work at all.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 20:38 UTC (Wed) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] The FSF hasn't changed its goals ever, as far as I know, it has always been about the four freedoms. Their approach to enforcement of copyright has proven to be sound. Software patents are a very ugly problem and patents in general have become a problem in other industries. The patent problem should be fixed at the administrative level, FSF doesn't have the authority to do that. However, the FSF is very vocal about the software patent problem. If you have a few million extra dollars you might be able to help out with one of the more clear cut and simple patent cases, if you have tens of millions you might be able to help out a little more but not much. Would you care to help?
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 21:21 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] I like your phrasing. `Targeted', oh yeah, because as everyone knows assoon as PJ criticises a project, all its developers and users desert it and it immediately collapses.
As happened with that ex-project, the Linux kernel (everyone switched en
(sheesh.)
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 20:39 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] Read a bit about how the patent system work, or just go back to playing with Dan Lyons on his blog.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 21:18 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] I don't see why anyone has `explaining' to do if it should turn out thatsome or all free software is covered by patents. It is widely known that *all* nontrivial software is covered by a myriad of overlapping patents, and that it's essentially impossible to license them all (many demand royalties: many demand *percentage of profits* royalties, which mean that you can't license more than a few of them). Most of these patents are of course covering extremely trivial stuff, or trivial combinations of nontrivial stuff, but *nobody* has the money to pay to get them all invalidated.
As for the FSF: yes, their current and previous staff *may* all be engaged
As for your anti-PJ stuff, I can't be bothered to engage in debate with
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 7, 2006 10:56 UTC (Thu) by ronaldcole (guest, #1462) [Link] Of course, this assumes that the patents are valid *AND* that Linux source code actually infringes them *AND* that such infringement is willful as evidenced by not immediately removing the infringing code upon it's identification.
It's probably time for some of the famous Groklaw community to research Microsoft's patents and deFUD this situation to the point where Ballmer starts throwing office *DESKS*!
|
|||||||||||||