tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2609740152885450457..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Refusing Proprietary TechnologyVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89795657269709014342010-05-19T18:10:31.057+01:002010-05-19T18:10:31.057+01:00So, I read the Register article.
The first thing ...So, I read the Register article.<br /><br />The first thing I notice is that it's from 2004 and I don't recall hearing of any government (state, city or otherwise) being sued by anyone as a result of using Linux since then. Inference: Ballmer was overstating the case. Second inference: people get <i>way</i> too excited about what he says about IP issues. <br /><br />Part of my goal for these articles (however imperfectly met) was to try and get away from that excitement about who is or is not right/wrong/telling the truth/talking smack about the likelyhood of litigation over IP and how ethically righteous/reprehensible that may or may not be. I want to think about the impact on users of having or not having or having and then losing (by choice or otherwise) proprietary technology in products.<br /><br />I don't have a personal stake in either camp: as a user I use and enjoy FOSS systems, I use and enjoy paid-for closed-source systems. As a programmer I very much prefer to have access to the source of the tools and libraries I use, for practical reasons, but I don't feel that my values have been outraged if I don't. <br /><br />I also looked at the "portable applications" article. That seems like a very, very wierd claim to me, and one with clear prior art. It's a fine example of the sort of thing that brings technology patents into disrepute. I'm not sure I understand what it has to do with my article. My stance is that the law is what it is, and is being interpreted how it is, and technologists are responding how they do. I want to understand, however much sense that does or does not make, what are the implications for users.keithbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14314542307822401015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-7409212982856719832010-05-12T01:07:04.679+01:002010-05-12T01:07:04.679+01:00While I hope "Anonymous" doesn't was...While I hope "Anonymous" doesn't waste any more precious seconds reading links, others might care to add this one to their reading list....<br /><br />http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/60912?source=NWWNLE_nlt_microsoft_2010-05-11<br /><br />...and for this idiot, identify the non-obvious inventive step.<br /><br />For example, Knoppix has been a live CD since 2000 (when 16MB USB sticks were rare and expensive) and many Linux distros (to name one set of applications) have been bootable from a USB stick for years <br /><br />The idea seems to have been proposed by IBM<br /><br />http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-fireboot.html<br /><br />and then there is<br /><br />http://www.research.ibm.com/WearableComputing/SoulPad/soulpad.htmlGentoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05063939954837162413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37252554538612605712010-05-11T13:31:09.288+01:002010-05-11T13:31:09.288+01:00Unwisely I just wasted 10 minutes reading the stor...Unwisely I just wasted 10 minutes reading the stories behind those links.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84543145275966572212010-05-11T12:04:32.189+01:002010-05-11T12:04:32.189+01:00And thirdly...
http://www.enterpriseirregulars.co...And thirdly...<br /><br />http://www.enterpriseirregulars.com/17600/the-problem-with-software-patents/Gentoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05063939954837162413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-75886866925685289472010-05-11T00:41:04.149+01:002010-05-11T00:41:04.149+01:00Sorry for the second post, however...
"A stu...Sorry for the second post, however...<br /><br />"A study carried out by Dan Ravicher for Open Source Risk Management in 2004 identified 283 patents that had been granted but not yet validated in court any of which could potentially be used to support a patent claim against the Linux kernel."<br /><br />..is just lazy<br /><br />Now consider reading these...<br /><br />http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/18/ballmer_linux_lawsuits/<br /><br />http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070517083516872#c572488Gentoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05063939954837162413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72097705738253452132010-05-11T00:31:31.424+01:002010-05-11T00:31:31.424+01:00"Although FOSS solutions are zero-cost the ch..."Although FOSS solutions are zero-cost the choice to incorporate OS software in a solution incurs the risk that the technology in question has already infringed someone’s intellectual property rights, even inadvertently. By using that technology, an organization could become party to the infringement. Even if open source technology is provided free of charge, it is still very much a case of “caveat emptor”."<br /><br />Yes, but the point is, that this "caveat emptor" unlike "market ouvert", where at least you can rely on daylight for title to pass, has the potential to catch everybody. One of the growth industries in the shark infested custard that is software patents, is the so called submarine patent, which is only revealed when there's someone to sue (cf $4million table stake to defend). It's never about product or market protection.<br /><br />And, of course, as the vast majority of the readers of this blog will know, given the "triple damages for willful infringement" one is wiser to code in ignorance rather than honesty. <br /><br />This is most recently evidenced (IMHO) by Apple's plans to present a patent pool to assert there is no such thing as a royalty free video codec. (No evidence presented, mind you, are they learning from others?)<br /><br />The BBC developed Dirac and Schrodinger which they assert were developed specifically to avoid the existing IP minefield, so perhaps Apple will either sue them (and they did so rush to put iPlayer on the iPhone when it had a market share of 0.001% + BBC Execs) or, joy, Dirac/Schrodinger will become the web standards. (My Dirac enabled video playback software is just waiting for some content...)<br /><br />While at one level that the fantastic Linux exponent, Nokia, are slapping some back; causes my heart to skip a beat, at another level will someone tell what's in it for anybody not in the legal profession?<br /><br />PS Hopefully this post will help refute the canard often put about that FOSSers only complain about one proprietary organisation. <br /><br />PPS It's just an unnecessary flame to assert "quasi-religious" it adds nothing to the debate.Gentoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05063939954837162413noreply@blogger.com