| |||||||||||||
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpretedTaken out of context and grossly misinterpretedPosted Aug 13, 2010 16:30 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)In reply to: Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted by vblum Parent article: Oracle sues Google over use of Java in Android (ars technica)
Google did not want a GPL'ed VM because they want the Android platform to support all types of apps and not just free and open source ones that are GPL compatible. They have avoided GPL as much as possible except for the kernel and kept it shielded away from the apps. Note that the classpath exception is not there for Java ME and this is what Google would have wanted. They very likely tried to negotiate a licensing deal with Sun for special exceptions and when that failed, gone about reimplementing things from scratch in-order to get a permissively licensed VM for Android. Google's choice has clear and obvious reasons behind it. Sun likely was unhappy but was not willing to become a patent aggressor. Oracle cares more about the bottom line and gone after Google for extracting some settlement and a profit.
(Log in to post comments)
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 13, 2010 17:05 UTC (Fri) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]
Good point. Hope you'll make it over at Groklaw when the time comes. Hard to see how Google would compete with the iPhone AppStore otherwise, I suppose that is the point?
[Well, they could have chosen C to base all apps on. Fortran too, which I would prefer.]
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 13, 2010 17:09 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Hope you'll make it over at Groklaw when the time comes. I stay away from Groklaw and several different users have in recent months sent me examples of Groklaw's censorship, plus the founder of the Hercules project wrote about it on his blog. So it's not a fair, neutral discussion platform. I much prefer this one, plus Slashdot, and some smaller ones occasionally.
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 13, 2010 18:09 UTC (Fri) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]
I couldn't agree more about LWN.
That said ... I have many anonymous comments at GL, including some outrightly against what PJ was stating at the time.
(No, I don't think she's always completely right either. Including in the Hercules discussion, where I unsuccessfully tried to build some kind of a bridge between the parties, IIRC. I thought the Hercules people were not given nearly enough credit for their apparently honest intentions, and that was really a shame, too. Despite the fact that I think they were naive to rely on some kind of expectation which IBM never promised, or needed to promise.)
However, I have always been treated with respect, and with well thought-through answers. To my knowledge, none of my comments was ever censored.
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 13, 2010 18:17 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] I have piles of screenshots showing the censorship that takes place on Groklaw and haven't decided yet if, when and how to use them, but I reserve the option for sure. I thought the Hercules people were not given nearly enough credit for their apparently honest intentions, and that was really a shame, too. Despite the fact that I think they were naive to rely on some kind of expectation which IBM never promised, or needed to promise. I disagree completely that TurboHercules asked for something that IBM never needed to promise, and not only do I disagree with you but apparently also the European Commission. We talk about an antitrust case. IBM has a mainframe monopoly and the European Commission's investigations wouldn't have been opened if TurboHercules's request for fair and reasonable licensing terms for z/OS (to run that proprietary system in emulation) had been out of line. They weren't being naive. Look at where they are now: there's a formal antitrust probe that's been opened and I believe its outcome will be that IBM will be required to license z/OS on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to such vendors as TurboHercules. The patent part is a different story. IBM tries to make that front and center. But that's not what started it, and it's important to consider that IBM asserted an IP (=patent) infringement even though that's unrelated to the z/OS licensing question. Should Hercules infringe those patents (which would have to be proven), then it will infringe them whether you run z/OS or z/Linux or any other operating system in emulation.
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 13, 2010 21:34 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
IBM did NOT assert a patent infringement.
TurboHercules ASKED for a list of ALL patents that covered Hercules, and IBM gave it to them.
YOU then started screaming about "big bad IBM".
But all IBM did was respond - TRUTHFULLY - to a request for information. The fact that a pledged patent covered what Hercules did is just a fact. So IBM listed it as one of the patents that covered Hercules! To do otherwise would have meant IBM being fraudulent.
Cheers,
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 14, 2010 4:25 UTC (Sat) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Wol, you spread IBM-aligned disinformation just like you do on Groklaw, and I have to debunk it to show to people just how wrong your claims are. I don't know why you do so: whether it's an inability to adjust your position to the facts, unconditional loyalty to PJ, or whatever. But the reasonable people here deserve truthful information. IBM did NOT assert a patent infringement. IBM wrote: "First, you state that Turbo "implements the instruction set of IBM mainframes on Intel-based servers". We think that mimicking IBM's proprietary, 64-bit System z architecture requires IBM intellectual property", and since TurboHercules didn't have a license to any "IBM intellectual property", the only logical interpretation is that it is an infringement assertion. Furthermore, what you claim runs counter to IBM's public statements, in which IBM uses an aggressive patent holder rhetoric, likening TurboHercules to product pirates and copycats. TurboHercules ASKED for a list of ALL patents that covered Hercules, and IBM gave it to them. This is what TurboHercules really wrote -- it's definitely not a request for a list of all patents: "We also were surprised at the suggestion that our TurboHercules product - which merely relies on Hercules open source emulation software to run z/OS on Intel-based servers - might infringe certain IBM intellectual property. Hercules has been widely used in the development community, as well as within IBM itself, over the past ten years. Prior to receiving your letter, we were not aware of any claim that Hercules might infringe IBM's intellectual property. If you believe that the Hercules open source project infringes any IBM intellectual property, please identify it so we can investigate that claim." Note that this was the second letter TH sent to IBM. In the first one they hadn't asked about anything like this and IBM just asserted an infringement. You can't ignore or deny the chronology of the events: IBM asserted an "IP" (=patent) infringement out of the blue/Blue. Only then TH asked to specify. Shouldn't be too hard to understand, unless one doesn't want to understand. The fact that a pledged patent covered what Hercules did is just a fact. So IBM listed it as one of the patents that covered Hercules! To do otherwise would have meant IBM being fraudulent. You are so wrong, it's just amazing. IBM itself said in its letter that the patent list was "non-exhaustive", in other words: it was going to be incomplete anyway. You are doubly wrong because IBM could have added a footnote to point out that those patents cover some mainframe-related technology but are not relevant in this case since the 11-year-old Hercules emulator is open source and thus covered by the pledge. You are three times wrong because after the betrayal of the pledge was made public, IBM never said affirmatively that it wouldn't asssert those patents against TurboHercules. IBM issued various statements but never said unequivocally that it was a mistake to have listed those patents (or to have listed them without pointing out that they are irrelevant in an open source context). My interpretation that they never retracted the assertion of the pledged patents is consistent with how the world's two leading financial papers, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, commented on IBM's reaction. What you hold against it are misrepresentations made by PJ, known for unconditional loyalty to IBM (but other than that, no detail is known about her professional background, nor has she ever appeared in public at any industry event, suggesting strongly she must have something to hide). PJ even quoted in her article from an IBM speech about patent assertion that was totally unrelated to the pledge, only to confuse you and others.
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 15, 2010 22:05 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
What a beautifully misleading reply :-)
Yes, TH didn't request "a list of patents", true. But they requested a list of IBM's IP which Hercules might infringe. THAT INCLUDES PATENTS! So why the surprise when the list of IP they asked for includes a bunch of patents?
And by the way, I'm a native ENGLISH speaker (which I guess you're not). Seeing as we don't seem to agree on the meaning of "infringe" I would also assume my interpretation carries more weight that yours :-) But "to infringe" means "to cross the border". You may or may not give me permission to quote your words, but that is irrelevant as to whether me quoting you "infringes your copyrights". It does. End of. If I have permission, that infringement is hunky-dory and irrelevant. Hercules infringes IBM's patents. End of. The fact that IBM couldn't give a monkeys about Hercules' infringement is IBM's business. The fact that IBM DOES give a monkeys about TURBOHercules' infringement is also IBM's business.
I notice you point out that Hercules is covered by the pledge. Too right, it is. But what you are being extremely disingenuous about (or you're being paid to be blind to) is the fact that Hercules IS NOT TurboHercules. If you made all your points about *Hercules* then I'd be on your side against IBM, but your problem is that any such argument of yours would be a waste of hot air. TURBOHercules is not FLOSS, it's not a project. It's a commercial business. And if IBM says "bugger off we don't want anything to do with you", that's IBM's prerogative. WHY SHOULD IBM have to do business with TurboHercules. I'd love to force you to do business with me, too! I'd charge £1000/hr for sitting by the pool sunbathing. Lovely business :-)
If you want to *force* other people to do business with you, don't be surprised when other people force you to do business with them. And don't complain when you personally come off a lot worse in the exchange!
Cheers,
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 15, 2010 22:58 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Yes, TH didn't request "a list of patents", true. But they requested a list of IBM's IP which Hercules might infringe. THAT INCLUDES PATENTS! So why the surprise when the list of IP they asked for includes a bunch of patents? As I pointed out, they were surprised when IBM said they infringed IP, and that assertion came out of the blue/Blue. The patent list was a clarification, which doesn't make it any better. But "to infringe" means "to cross the border". You may or may not give me permission to quote your words, but that is irrelevant as to whether me quoting you "infringes your copyrights". It does. End of. If I have permission, that infringement is hunky-dory and irrelevant. So now the IBM apologists start to redefine the meaning of plain English? That's a sign of desperation I guess. Merriam-Webster: "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another (infringe a patent)" => note that it clearly says "violates", so does the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "infringe". There can be another meaning but both dictionaries clearly use patents as an example of the definition I gave, that is, "violate." But what you are being extremely disingenuous about (or you're being paid to be blind to) As someone who just tried to mislead people here as to the meaning of a plain English word, debunked by me with a simple quote from a leading dictionary, do you think you're in a position to speculate about someone being paid to be blind to a fact? the fact that Hercules IS NOT TurboHercules. If you made all your points about *Hercules* then I'd be on your side against IBM, but your problem is that any such argument of yours would be a waste of hot air. TURBOHercules is not FLOSS, it's not a project. It's a commercial business. TurboHercules's software is 100% the Hercules open source program. 100%. So by your "logic", IBM's patent pledge then wouldn't cover companies like Red Hat. IBM's patent pledge does not contain any language that excludes companies just because they're companies. The distinction you try to make is hostile to the notions of Free Software and of Open Source as defined by the FSF and the OSI. Both absolutely support the idea of companies redistributing free and open source software. So you're either anti-FOSS or you may have to ask yourself the question you asked me and which I quoted further above, about being paid to be blind to something.
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 19, 2010 0:16 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Merriam-Webster? *AMERICAN* Heritage Dictionary?
I thought I said I spoke ENGLISH! Do you really expect me to pay any attention to that foreign rubbish! :-) (As indeed, you ought to know if were a regular on this site - you've just got to look at my membership number, both here and on Groklaw, to know I've been around a LOOOONNGGGG time!)
And what on earth does the software TurboHercules may care to use have to with the fact that TURBOHERCULES IS NOT HERCULES.
But Turbohercules probably isn't *selling* Hercules (I'm not sure what the licence is, but if it's the GPL they CAN'T sell Hercules). I stand by my point that TURBOHERCULES the company and HERCULES the project are not the same thing. And if IBM chooses not to care about Hercules, but does choose to care about TurboHercules, then that's up to them.
As for IBM and RedHat, RedHat hasn't been a spoilt brat demanding that IBM play with them. And oh yes - you may speak some other language entirely, but I thought (I can't be bothered to check) the pledge said IBM wouldn't ASSERT any of those patents against any FLOSS PROJECT. Speaking ENGLISH, as I do, "assert" in my legal understanding means "take action over". Which IBM hasn't done! And "project" does NOT mean the same thing as "company", either.
So IBM is perfectly free to take action against TURBOHercules, because TurboHercules is not covered by the pledge. But they HAVEN'T taken action, therefore even if the pledge applied, they haven't broken it!
Cheers,
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 19, 2010 1:15 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > I stand by my point that TURBOHERCULES the company and HERCULES the project are not the same thing. Yeh, and Red Hat (a company) is not the same as Red Hat's GNU/Linux distro (software). Does that mean you're fine with patent holders suing Red Hat? ...since you would only object if patent holders sued Red Hat's GNU/Linux distro. I don't see the logic of the distinction. As for your opinion of your language abilities, someone with a user ID as low as yours should be aware that communities like this one respect doers more than talkers. For the definition of a legal term, I'd immediately rely on someone who did influential anti-swpat lobbying, and who wrote many well-received articles on the topic, over someone who relies on all caps to articulate his point.
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 22, 2010 22:41 UTC (Sun) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]
Well, I have an even lower UID, for what that's worth...
and, of course, I also have an opinion.
If the code TH is shipping is *the GPL or otherwise FLOSS licensed Hercules*, and IBM has covenanted not to take action about that code, then IBM really doesn't have much manoeuvering room here; since it's legal to make money selling (or giving away, however you choose to look at it) GPLd code, and since patents apply to *code*, not to activities (as trademark infringement action would, for example), then there really *is* the distinction coriordan seems boggled by in play here, so far as I can see.
The code either infringes IBM's patents or not, *as it sits*.
IBM either cares to take action, or chooses not to.
Neither of those decisions really has any handles onto which Turbo's sales of the program and support services can grab, so far as I can see.
Am I missing something?
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 23, 2010 5:52 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] If the code TH is shipping is *the GPL or otherwise FLOSS licensed Hercules* It is. It's under the Q Public License (well, it's an old project that today might choose some other license). That license is recognized by the FSF and the OSI. and IBM has covenanted not to take action about that code, With respect to the 500 patents IBM pledged in January 2005, the pledge said: (quote IBM pledge) The pledge will benefit any Open Source Software. Open Source Software is any computer software program whose source code is published and available for inspection and use by anyone, and is made available under a license agreement that permits recipients to copy, modify and distribute the programs source code without payment of fees or royalties. All licenses certified by opensource.org and listed on their website as of 01/11/2005 are Open Source Software licenses for the purpose of this pledge. (end quote IBM pledge) Concerning the last sentence, the Q Public License was listed on opensource.org (OSI website) as an approved license at the time. Of the 106 patents (plus 67 patent applications) IBM listed in its threat letter to TurboHercules, 2 were part of that pledge. since it's legal to make money selling (or giving away, however you choose to look at it) GPLd code The position on gnu.org is clear: it's not selling that's illegal; it's just that those licenses require the free-of-charge availability. So if you make it available to the public for free, you comply with the license, and if someone pays you for whatever reason, he pays. Red Hat's Enterprise Linux subscription is one of countless examples. You can also get the code on FOSS terms. patents apply to *code*, not to activities (as trademark infringement action would, for example) I just commented elsewhere on this page on what you wrote about those different IPRs and I think there's a misconception here. I quoted from §35 U.S.C. 271 and patent infringement includes a whole list of activities.
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 23, 2010 9:44 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] There are two issues at stake here, really. The first is that IBM has told TurboHercules (the company) that no, they're not going to license z/OS to people who don't happen to have IBM mainframe hardware sitting in their basement, and the second is that IBM has told TurboHercules that incidentally there are 100-odd patents that Hercules (the software) seems to be infringing, as in »the software does certain things in a way that IBM has patented«, so if they keep on being obnoxious about z/OS licensing there is worse stuff that they might have to deal with. (Of course one would otherwise associate this kind of behaviour with much more unsavoury characters – often with Italian-sounding surnames –, but this is big business for you, after all. It is clear that people are queuing at TurboHercules's door to be able to get rid of their mainframes in order to emulate them on PC-class hardware, so obviously the survival of IBM is at stake here.) The first issue is primarily what the EU is looking into, i.e., should IBM be allowed to keep a competitor (of sorts) out of its monopoly market. The second issue is essentially petty posturing on IBM's part, i.e., they own the ball, they make the rules, and if you don't like that they will pick up their ball and leave. IBM's open-source patent pledge doesn't really enter into it since only a minuscule fraction of the patents IBM is using against TurboHercules are actually covered by the open-source patent pledge. IBM could remove them from the TurboHercules issue and still have loads of other patents to assert. This isn't exactly a PR win, but IBM is so big and complicated that the people behind the open-source patent pledge may never have even met the people behind the IBM-vs-TurboHercules business in the hallway. (The second issue also interests the EU but the first is more important.)
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 23, 2010 9:59 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] I agree with you in many respects. In terms of the description of customers queuing at TurboHercules's door, it's a funny metaphor, but there certainly is some pretty significant pent-up demand for alternatives in the market. Let's not forget that those who will benefit from more competition aren't just those who ultimately choose non-IBM hardware: it will also put those who want to buy from IBM in a much better position concerning IBM's official pricing policy and discounts granted in individual negotiations. The PCMs (plug compatible mainframes) had exactly that effect for a few decades. Now emulation can play that important role. You are right that monopoly abuse for the purpose of preserving the monopoly is the antitrust angle to focus on. Back in April I already wrote a blog posting entitled "The pledged patents are important in one way and unimportant in another", arguing just like you that 2 out of 106 patents (+67 applications) are a tiny fraction, but from an open source point of view the question of whether IBM honored the letter and the spirit of the pledge is nevertheless an issue, even if not at the heart of the antitrust case. Also, both aspects actually show how little benefit those pledges offer: they don't cover enough patents and companies will ultimately try to find excuses, like IBM did in very unconvincing ways, as to why they allegedly don't apply.
By the way, IBM plays the "patent pledge"/"patent commons" window dressing game also in other contexts than open source (interoperability; cleantech).
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 19, 2010 2:40 UTC (Thu) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] > if it's the GPL they CAN'T sell HerculesOf course it's okay to sell free software. The GPL has no restrictions against charging for software licensed under it. I'm surprised someone who's been around so long could get this basic point wrong... PS: you use too much emphasis in your messages, it makes them hard to read.
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 19, 2010 20:33 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Oh, come on. TH asks IBM for "IP it might infringe", IBM responds "this is our IP in what you use, you don't have a license so we think you infringe", and TH cries foul?!
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 20, 2010 3:07 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Oh, come on. TH asks IBM for "IP it might infringe", IBM responds "this is our IP in what you use, you don't have a license so we think you infringe", and TH cries foul?! This is just another attempt to mislead people by an utterly selective recital of fact. But a half-truth is -- if intentional -- a whole lie. So to make it clear with a simple analogy: if someone stands in front of you and tells you "oh and by the way, I don't like what you're doing and I have a weapon with which I can kill you whenever I want", this is a threat even though the weapon isn't shown. If you're surprised and ask for what kind of weapon, and the other person then waves a gun around, then you didn't just ask to see the gun: you asked for a gun with which you were already threatened. Or to put it this way: a threat is a threat is a threat. IBM made a threat. The patent list was version 2.0 of the threat, a more elaborate version of what was previously sent as version 1.0. The second letter from IBM with version 2.0 of the threat was much clearer. That's why it was the one I published initially. Anyone could see in that letter that there was a history. That history is that before the threat was specified, it was made in an unspecific way (even more malicious I would argue). I knew that history, and that's why I felt it was right to show version 2.0 of the treat. So what about IBM's first letter? Tell us what you think of threat v1.0.
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 19, 2010 20:37 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] If I infringe on your rights is one thing, if you decide not to go after the matter is something else. Sure, in a sense if you knowingly let it pass, you are (implicitly) giving me permission, and it (sort of) ceases to be an infringement. Nobody is trying to twist the meaning of plain English here (except perhaps you are misunderstanding).
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 20, 2010 3:24 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Basically, what you tried to argue here is that entering any house is "trespassing", even if you're invited. Do you seriously expect people to follow that kind of reasoning? If I infringe on your rights is one thing, if you decide not to go after the matter is something else. That's not the key point Wol made (see below). But what are you trying to argue for or against here? Are you saying that it's fine to threaten FOSS projects/companies with patents, restricting their functionality and the freedom of their developers and users? Threatening is fine as long as the threat is so powerful that the aggressor achieves his objective and the case never has to go to court? A lot of people are too focused on the question of whether such a matter goes to court or not. The fewest patent issues ever go to court. In most cases the patent holders already win just by threatening before they go to court. It's a very dangerous path (in general and for FOSS purposes in particular) to try to whitewash patent threats. For any patent aggressor, even the most malicious one, going to court is a last resort only. Everything an aggressor wants to achieve with a patent, no matter how destructive and bad, can be achieved without a lawsuit unless the defendant tries his luck in court. Limiting the negative effects of patents only to what happens in those rare court cases doesn't reflect reality. Nobody is trying to twist the meaning of plain English here (except perhaps you are misunderstanding). Wrong. Wol argued that "to infringe" means only "to cross a border" and that the term can apply EVEN IF someone has a permission. In other words, he argued it doesn't necessarily mean a violation. However, in the context of IP law, an "infringement" is undoubtedly always a violation that is not permitted. A permitted use would be considered a licensed use of a patent. An IBM-sponsored organization, the Open Invention Network, also supports my definition of the term in its Patent Agreement: 1.1 [...] the license granted herein includes the right to engage in activities that in the absence of this Agreement would constitute [...] contributory infringement (or infringement under any other analogous legal doctrine in the applicable jurisdiction) This makes it clear: something would constitute an infringement absent a license. So if you have a license, there's no infringement. It's really remarkable how unreasonably some people argue in those debates, forcing people like me to defend -- over and over again -- their reasonable and accurate explanations against totally out-of-line absurdities that are just meant to mislead the audience.
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 22, 2010 22:47 UTC (Sun) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]
Well, once again, there's a lot of (I think intentional) fuzz in the definition of "Intellectual Property" and how one can infringe it, and that's what's coming into play here.
If a piece of code infringes a patent, it does so *by virtue of its design or implementation*, and it does so whether anyone's using it or not, whether anyone's selling it or not, and even whether anyone's distributing it or not: if I write it for myself, and never give it away, it *still* infringes patents, if any exist in my jurisdiction on the topics of the implementation.
Copyright, on the other hand, is a question of *distribution*, rather than mere existence, and trademark violation requires *actual commercial activity*, as much as trademark owners would often like for that not to be true.
See my earlier comment reply for the implications of this in this case.
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 23, 2010 5:40 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] You talk about a difference between those IPRs that I actually can't see. "Infringement" is defined by §35 U.S.C. 271. and accordingly, an infringer is "whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention". The word "makes" in this context doesn't mean that just coming up with an idea that's patented is already an infringement (sort of a mind crime); it's about building something that would be marketable. The word "uses" would relate to the execution of a program. In Germany (where I live), only commercial use is an infringement; in the US it may be broader. At any rate, if you write a computer program and without authorization paste material that someone else created, this would also be an act of infringement; and it would especially be an infringement to then use such a program. Also, the software in question would be infringing material. If you look at Oracle's filing, they demand the destruction of all such infringing material; they don't only stop distribution. Please cite references for the claim that patent infringement requires distribution or use to a lesser degree than copyright infringement. Wikipedia actually says that downloading copyrighted music without authorization is an infringement. So it doesn't look to me like copyright gives more flexibility in terms of what one can do. Of the IPRs you mentioned, the only one where I can see that commercial activity plays a key role is trademark law, although the definition of commercial activity is probably broader than you like. Apart from all of the above, I can't see how what you wrote would support Wol's absurd claim that "to infringe" in case of a patent doesn't mean "to violate".
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 16, 2010 11:52 UTC (Mon) by shmget (subscriber, #58347) [Link]
"If you want to *force* other people to do business with you, don't be surprised when other people force you to do business with them."
- Ever hear of the concept of bundling ?
Conditioning the sale of product A to the sale of product B is called bundling and is illegal, at least in TurboHercules Jurisdiction. (see CODE DE LA CONSOMMATION, Article L122-1
That same anti-bundling law is the law that allow consumers in TurboHercules's jurisdiction to get reimbursed the of Microsoft tax.
- Ever heard of Amdahl ? There are 40+ years of precedent for IBM being 'forced' to stop engaging in abuse of dominant position.
"WHY SHOULD IBM have to do business with TurboHercules."
To take a car analogy: it is like if GM owned Exxon, Shell, Texaco and BP, and stipulated that You could not buy gasoline in any of their gas station unless you drive a GM car.
The whole patent things is irrelevant to TurboHercules situation, at least in its jurisdiction: EPC, Article 52(1)(c) explicitly exclude from patentability "schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers"
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 16, 2010 13:18 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] You made good points but let me add legal precision to some of them. Conditioning the sale of product A to the sale of product B is called bundling and is illegal, at least in TurboHercules Jurisdiction. (see CODE DE LA CONSOMMATION, Article L122-1 Under the presumably corresponding Article 102 TFEU, it's illegal if it unfairly disadvantages customers, and the requirement for that article to be applicable is a dominant market position. IBM has a mainframe monopoly, and a monopoly is the ultimate form of market dominance. By contrast, it would be much harder to claim that Apple has a dominant market position. he whole patent things is irrelevant to TurboHercules situation, at least in its jurisdiction: EPC, Article 52(1)(c) explicitly exclude from patentability "schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers" This is transposed in the national law of TurboHercule jurisdiction in the article L611-10(2)(c) of the "Code de la propriété intellectuelle" You are right that software patents can often be invalidated in the EU on the grounds of patentable subject matter and the exclusion you correctly cited. Unfortunately, there are ever more court decisions in different parts of Europe that uphold them. Nevertheless, it's true that tying (bundling) is at the heart of the TurboHercules matter and it's just IBM trying to portray it as a patent issue, with some aggressive rhetoric that is no substitute for facts.
Who's a native of what Posted Aug 16, 2010 12:18 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > I'm a native ENGLISH speaker Congratulations. There must be soooo much we could learn from you. Hey, can you point me to a good reference about when to capitalise the non-initial letters in a word?
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 14, 2010 4:27 UTC (Sat) by jmalcolm (guest, #8876) [Link]
Florian,
I am not sure if Groklaw censors or not but please do not say that they do, that you have a ton of proof, and that you are not going to produce this proof (even though you reserve the right to do so).
Leaving me to accept your interpretation of your evidence without sharing it is really just FUD. One of the things I love about this site is the lack of FUD and hyperbole. If you are not choosing to execute your option to share the evidence then it would be better not to mention it all. If you find it impossible to stay silent about what you feel are abuses then perhaps you should consider sharing the evidence.
Never pull a gun you are not prepared to shoot.
Thanks.
Groklaw's censorship Posted Aug 14, 2010 4:31 UTC (Sat) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Leaving me to accept your interpretation of your evidence without sharing it is really just FUD. OK, so here you have a blog posting by a well-respected open source project maintainer who can tell you about it: http://ibmvshercules.com/2010/04/15/booted-from-groklaw/ I can guarantee that I have a lot more material. But to prove that a site censors, one piece of credible evidence is enough.
Groklaw's censorship Posted Aug 15, 2010 22:24 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Ah ... Jay Maynard.
Another "defend TURBOHercules to the death" supporter :-(
Seriously, if you people can't tell the difference between an Open Source Project called Hercules, and a commercial business called TurboHercules, do you really expect us to take you seriously?
Really. At the end of the day, all IBM wants, I would guess, is for this rubbish to go away. They had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (officially at least) to do with Hercules. They would *like* to have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (officially AND unofficially) to do with TurboHercules, and the sooner the TWO of them buzz off and leave IBM alone, the happier IBM will be.
Cheers,
Groklaw's censorship Posted Aug 15, 2010 23:05 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Ah ... Jay Maynard. Another "defend TURBOHercules to the death" supporter :-( For all I know he's not at all involved with TurboHercules, but TurboHercules uses 100% the Hercules open source program, whose maintainer he is. Seriously, if you people can't tell the difference between an Open Source Project called Hercules, and a commercial business called TurboHercules, I don't know what your professional background is, but among many other things, I was an adviser to the CEO of MySQL AB for three years and a shareholder of that company from the year it was founded (2001) until the sale to Sun in early 2008. So I know what an open source company and an open source project are. And I know that both free software and open source are concepts that absolutely include companies as potential contributors, users and (re)distributors of FOSS programs. As such, they're part of the ecosystem as a FOSS project. Really. At the end of the day, all IBM wants, I would guess, is for this rubbish to go away. They had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (officially at least) to do with Hercules. They would *like* to have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (officially AND unofficially) to do with TurboHercules, and the sooner the TWO of them buzz off and leave IBM alone, the happier IBM will be.That's what you say. The European Commission, after careful analysis, has decided to launch two parallel probes of IBM's conduct, in both cases related to IBM's suspected abuse of a monopoly. Apparently the regulators don't do your bidding.
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 15, 2010 22:18 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
What do you mean by "censor"?
Groklaw is PJ's personal blog, and yes she does censor. And how! And I've been censored! (Mostly though, I've had my knuckles rapped instead).
Thing is, if you HAVE evidence, and you SHOW evidence, that's fine by PJ. She might not like it, but she has the intellectual honesty to fight her corner with facts, and if you fight yours with facts she'll respect it.
But if you come up with allegations like "I have lots of evidence" and don't show, you'll get short shrift. The "Blepp briefcase" school of evidence. Yep, I'm sure Florian has loads of evidence. I don't doubt him a moment. But when he shows his evidence I'm sure it'll just be a load of irrelevant, ad hominem, or otherwise unfounded crap that PJ deleted.
Oh - and as for Florian's assertion that "PJ has never been seen at major events" - there's quite a lot of evidence out there (from people OTHER than PJ) that they've met her - at major events - and she's a real person. Florian's new to this, but when PJ gets death threats, and people start dying mysteriously (read back - you'll find - iirc - two or three strange deaths in this saga! And at least one that looked like murder.) I don't blame her for her low profile. I may only be an amateur psychologist, but I've seen more than enough to understand that she has *justifiable* reasons to fear for her safety.
Cheers,
Proof for Groklaw censorship now published Posted Nov 19, 2010 16:49 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] I didn't bluff. Here's a mountain of evidence: http://www.scribd.com/doc/43344245/10-11-19-Groklaw-Censorship-Evidence
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 14, 2010 15:49 UTC (Sat) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Please do show your evidence for bias and/or censorship, or shut up.
Please respect the moderator's request to abandon that sub-subissue Posted Aug 14, 2010 16:02 UTC (Sat) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Please respect the moderator's request to stop discussing that type of matter here: http://lwn.net/Articles/400244/
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 13, 2010 18:18 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
The android apps are far more easier to develop and much smaller than equivalent apps would have been in C or Fortran. Google's technical choices have been correct. Meego and competing platforms have a uphill battle in their hands.
Taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted Posted Aug 13, 2010 19:42 UTC (Fri) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]
umm ... just to make sure, I was not being quite serious.
|
|||||||||||||