| |||||||||||||
Banning SW patents disables patent system?Banning SW patents disables patent system?Posted Nov 14, 2010 22:34 UTC (Sun) by Zack (guest, #37335)In reply to: Banning SW patents disables patent system? by FlorianMueller Parent article: Red Hat's Secret Patent Deal and the Fate of JBoss Developers (Gigaom)
> Unfortunately, Zack, the comment of yours I'm responding to is consistent in quality with several others you posted here in reply to what I wrote.
Of course I might be wrong in aspects of my account. But *everyone* who doesn't agree with your theories about how inevitable software patents are is somehow either wrong, uninformed, not knowledgeable or disingenious. And this includes but is not limited to the EFF, the FSF, RedHat legal, Eben Moglen, GrokLaw ...
It's not hard to imagine someone applying Occam's raisor at some point. And that's without taking into account your machiavellian writing.
(Log in to post comments)
Banning SW patents disables patent system? Posted Nov 15, 2010 4:57 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] But *everyone* who doesn't agree with your theories about how inevitable software patents are is somehow either wrong, uninformed, not knowledgeable or disingenious. No, there are people with whom it's possible to have disagreements but on a reasonable and logical basis. However, you, Zack, have repeatedly made aggressive statements that aren't backed up by logic and facts, such as claiming that I said/implied things without any basis for it. Also, the way you expressed your ideas of how a political decision can be brought about, it's clear you have neither operated in a political environment at a reasonably high level nor have the knowledge and judgment to grasp how those things work even without having been there. If I called your suggestions for how to do away with software patents naive, I would be very diplomatic. And this includes but is not limited to the EFF, the FSF, RedHat legal, Eben Moglen, GrokLaw ... I had only one public disagreement with the EFF ever: on the bnetd case. However, I reacted very favorably to the Defensive Patent License outlined by a former EFF staff attorney, and the EFF itself is about many things other than indirectly supporting computer game piracy. With the FSF there are certain problems: their radical views on IP are counterproductive in politics, they play favorites with their major sponsors, and I criticize them for calls to spam Larry Ellison's email account or encourage people to write to the USPTO instead of coordinating an organized and competent response. All of those things are bad no matter how good the vision of free software is. Concerning Red Hat, I just told the facts about their former deputy general counsel Mark Webbink's push to keep the EU software patent directive alive, and the very topic of the article here (their non-openness about their patent settlements) is also something for which they deserve to be criticized. One can also -- as I do -- point out that their business model is too parasitic to work for a large part of an industry. There are other things like that, but those are all unrelated to Linux itself. Those are issues with one company's business model, leadership, and lobbying. Eben Moglen is indeed a major problem. I still haven't seen any problem he's ever solved for FOSS, but I've seen some he's contributed to. GroklXX has demonstrably lied on some key issues and if you look at its very recent comments on Google's answer to Oracle's amended complaint, those are so ridiculously off base that they either shill for Google or they write like they've never seen a defense to a patent infringement complaint before that one. t's not hard to imagine someone applying Occam's raisor at some point. That's not an excuse for you making false allegations and expressing absurd views. If you want to apply Occam's razor, LWN provides a feature that enables you to turn off all of my comments so you don't have to read them. If you really mean the things you write about me, then it doesn't make sense that you aren't using that feature. Now that you know it exists, you could search for it and activate it.
Banning SW patents disables patent system? Posted Nov 15, 2010 14:38 UTC (Mon) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]
>No, there are people with whom it's possible to have disagreements but on a reasonable and logical basis. you have repeatedly made aggressive statements that aren't backed up by logic and facts, such as claiming that I said/implied things without any basis for it.
-The advance of software patents can't be changed because of the political climate.
and everything else is (in your opinion, which you usually fail to state) either dogma, belief or impractical. The logical basis you start from is not reasonable or logical; it's circular.
As for repeatedly aggressive statements. Personally I find drowning threads in large texts repeatedly and having the last post in every subthread aggressive. So I take it as personal preference and feel in no way does it influence being reasonable or logical.
As for claiming you said things without any factual basis for it, I take it you are referring to the "industries would collapse" I mentioned earlier. It's not verbatim the "collateral damage of mind-boggling proportions" you mentioned, but not the product of a "wild imagination" by a long stretch.
The message you were trying to convey, which was "doing away with software patents would do collateral damage of mind-boggling proportions so it's futile to even try", is still plain assertion. Maybe politicians believe that. Maybe patent holders believe that. Maybe even you believe that. But that doesn't make it true. How would that work ? How did it manage to work at all before ? I mean, if software patents were abolished tomorrow, who would really suffer but for a few german luxury car manufacturers ?
It's not your message I object to, as you claim, but the assertions you present as fact time and again. You present the current interest holders' view as a given and reason from there, instead of trying to analyze deeper and try and make a case for changing the current regime.
Banning SW patents disables patent system? Posted Nov 15, 2010 17:27 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
All of my references to collateral damages where in the context of the scope of patentability. It was about doing away with software patents but simultaneously doing away with even more patents. Here's a quote from a comment on this same subthread: "Even if it could do away with software patents in a way that wouldn't do collateral damage, the movement wouldn't be able to achieve that."
I meant collateral damage in terms of patents not being granted, and it's another question whether that's good or bad for those other industries because those industries want patent protection. Right or wrong, that's their position and politicians won't abolish software patents at the cost of doing away with so many other patents.
The circular logic that you imply (advance of software patents => political climate => advance of software patents) is not even remotely an accurate summar of what I said. I've made it sufficiently clear all the time that there isn't serious resistance to software patents by businesses, but there are companies of all sizes supporting them. There's nothing circular about that.
As for the middle-aged closed-source IT entrepreneurs with beards, bellies and glasses, that is a quote from what a staffer of the largest group in the European Parliament said and I use it as an example of whose resistance is missing. That's independent of the consideration how likely it is that this would happen. If I tell you that you need a spacecraft traveling at the speed of light to get to a given solar system in four years, it doesn't mean that I necessarily think you or anyone else can build that spacecraft. Still it can be correct to state this requirement, even if it's hypothetical.
The middle-aged closed-source IT entrepreneurs with beards, bellies and glasses would be fighting against software patents if those were a pressing problem for the economy.
Banning SW patents disables patent system? Posted Nov 17, 2010 10:32 UTC (Wed) by Randakar (guest, #27808) [Link]
Those industries need to be weaned off their addiction to patents.
Patents don't work. They have never achieved their objectives.
Software patents are just a particularly nasty example of why they don't work. Focusing on abolishing just them is all very nice for programmers, but in reality society needs to get rid of the entire patent system.
In that context I believe the "collateral damage" is actually desireable. If the net effect of this is that nothing can be patented, so much the better.
Banning SW patents disables patent system? Posted Nov 15, 2010 20:40 UTC (Mon) by jra (subscriber, #55261) [Link]
FlorianMueller wrote:
> Eben Moglen is indeed a major problem. I still haven't seen any problem
Eben has tirelessly worked pro-bono on behalf of Free Software projects for longer than you've been around in this community. He has solved many major issues for the Samba project, and was instrumental in the FSF and EU vs. Microsoft case that opened up all Microsoft network protocols for Free Software to implement.
Florian, you really aren't fit to shine Eben's shoes.
Jeremy.
Banning SW patents disables patent system? Posted Nov 15, 2010 20:53 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Eben has tirelessly worked pro-bono on behalf of Free Software projects He talks a lot about pro-bono work but he operates the Moglen Ravicher law firm, which charges clients. The SFLC only advises non-commercial developers, but companies are the ones who have the biggest legal issues and he charges them. He says that his firm donates its profits to the SFLC, but he can define pretty arbitrarily what's a profit and what's simply paid to the lawyers working on the cases, such as him, for their work. There was a lot of money involved with the antitrust efforts you described, particularly a lot of IBM money, and Eben Moglen has directly and indirectly received money from IBM on many occasions. I wouldn't call that pro-bono, even though I do believe that interoperability is worth fighting for. Interestingly, Eben and the others who fought for the cause when it helped Samba (such as ECIS) don't seem to care about interoperability in general. I don't see the fighting against IBM now -- well, IBM is known to fund them. So don't describe such guns-for-hire as idealists.
Banning SW patents disables patent system? Posted Nov 15, 2010 21:03 UTC (Mon) by jra (subscriber, #55261) [Link]
> So don't describe such guns-for-hire as idealists.
For someone who claims to be a member of this community you don't seem to have any history here. You certainly have no memories of it.
In the early 1990's Eben spent his own money to fly around the country to represent Samba to corporations who were violating our copyright, and got them to stop. This was well before "Open Source" existed, or Linux was a gleam in IBMs eye. In addition he has negotiated many agreements between the Samba project and corporations who were using our code in ways that may have violated the GPL, if he had not been there to arbitrate between us.
I know several other occasions where he has done similar things for other Free Software projects. Eben has never charged us for any of this work.
Please take your untruths about Eben elsewhere. There are people here who have memories going back a lot longer than you.
Jeremy.
Banning SW patents disables patent system? Posted Nov 15, 2010 21:09 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
You say "[i]n the early 1990's". According to Eben Moglen's own representation of the facts, he started practicing "free software law" in 1993.
Anyway, that was a long time ago, and you described it as if he was still doing mostly pro-bono work. That's why I mentioned his Moglen Ravicher firm. Also, the SFLC itself isn't the kind of charity as which he describes it. It has very substantial resources (contributed by large corporations) and I heard it takes cuts of the deals (such as settlements) it negotiates, which is also unusual for a charity.
Banning SW patents disables patent system? Posted Nov 15, 2010 21:18 UTC (Mon) by jra (subscriber, #55261) [Link]
Last time I checked, 1993 was "in the early 1990's". Samba was started in 1991, and started to get traction in 1992.
> Anyway, that was a long time ago, and you described it as if he was still
Is this an apology I hear for attempting to attack Eben's good name because someone who knows him well and has *actual facts* about his behavior just gave you a smack down ? If so, it isn't a very good one. I'd work on your politeness if I were you.
Jeremy.
Banning SW patents disables patent system? Posted Nov 15, 2010 21:24 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
Your "actual facts" relate to the early 1990's. I presented facts that concern the current modus operandi of the SFLC and the Moglen Ravicher law firm. I never criticized him for what he did in the early 1990's because I'm simply unaware of what he did then. I have criticized him only in recent years. That's why I believe that the facts I presented are the more relevant ones at this stage, and I don't see how something he did 17 years ago could possibly disprove what's known about his current modus operandi.
Banning SW patents disables patent system? Posted Nov 15, 2010 21:29 UTC (Mon) by jra (subscriber, #55261) [Link]
*sigh*. That would be a "no" on the apology then. Shame :-(.
Never mind Florian, I'm sure you'll reply to this message and having the last word will mean "You win ! You win !" the argument.
Your employers really should take a close look at your modus operandi. By employing someone like yourself they're really wasting their money.
Honey catches more flies than vinegar every time.
Bye from me.
Jeremy.
Banning SW patents disables patent system? Posted Nov 15, 2010 21:35 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Unlike you, I don't have employers. Apart from having corrected you on that detail, I'm absolutely fine with ending the subthread right here and letting people look at the facts that were presented.
|
|||||||||||||