tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7059336114257423790..comments2024-03-28T11:16:43.146+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Removable Features of Operating SystemsVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-38338316452634029792010-05-09T00:54:05.054+01:002010-05-09T00:54:05.054+01:00Dear anonymous,
I hope that by noticing that &qu...Dear anonymous, <br /><br />I hope that by noticing that "1% of the software industry" appears in a campaign against software patents, you do not conclude that 99% is for it. <br /><br />Would a petition against war signed by 500 thousand UK citizens mean that 99% of the UK population approve going to war?<br /><br />Cheers,<br />MarkoMarko Loparicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84313434499944663162010-05-07T12:00:07.937+01:002010-05-07T12:00:07.937+01:00LOL. Have you not read the meego agreement.
MS w...LOL. Have you not read the meego agreement.<br /><br />MS will have to price talk about FAT patent with Nokia and Intel for all of meego. Yes every device maker to use Meego and every distribution with a Meego core. If not cheep enough face a possible all out patent war with Nokia and Intel. Sorry both have the patents to nuke MS out of existance. Same with any other possible patent attacker.<br /><br />The IP use against Linux is already lost. Meego is an distribution built to Linux standard base specs and directly run by the Linux foundation. All that is left with these IP threats against Linux is the kicking and screaming.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-7985650373017717212010-05-06T14:32:01.482+01:002010-05-06T14:32:01.482+01:00Further to the earlier poster, I looked at:
http:...Further to the earlier poster, I looked at:<br /><br />http://www.economic-majority.com/testimony/index.en.php<br /><br />Based on the figures from the web site, the "economic majority" appears to speak for approx 1% of the software industry. <br /><br />Even the two main UK political parties would be embarrassed by that definition of "majority"!<br /><br />(Sorry to drag politics into this, but hey, we are having an election today in the UK)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-71380997368490419662010-05-06T13:15:15.068+01:002010-05-06T13:15:15.068+01:00The question of whether software patents are possi...<i>The question of whether software patents are possible, valid or desirable</i>.<br /><br />I am glad to see the cat putting the debate in this terms. As someone with computer science degree, I've found it painful to see (in other posts) bright and open-minded legists defending something that in my proximity is so clearly seen as contrary to the public interest.<br /><br />I would like to observe that -- though perhaps the open source advocates are the most noted opponents of software patents -- software patents are also very harmful for propietary software as well. Indeed many companies (mostly small and medium) are actively involved in the fight against them. A google search gives me this<br /><br />http://www.economic-majority.com/testimony/index.en.php<br /><br />Many companies appearing there actually develop 100% proprietary software.<br /><br />Thanks a lot for the informative and cheerful blog!<br />MarkoMarko Loparicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-11264512830378401622010-05-05T09:49:24.767+01:002010-05-05T09:49:24.767+01:00First in the thread, EdT drops the startling remar...First in the thread, EdT drops the startling remark that the BGH (Supreme Court in Germany) thinks that the BPatG (Germany's Federal Patents Court) misunderstood the claim. I say startling because the BPatG judges are so-called "technical" judges, who ought to be far better at grasping abstruse technical features than the supreme court judges. This case is hot on the heels of the olanzapine case, where the District Court in Duesseldorf, handling infringement, was so sure that the BPatG had got validity wrong that, notwithstanding the BPatG's having found the asserted claims to be inalid, the judge in Duesseldorf still enjoined the infringer.<br /><br />No wonder everybody appeals BPatG judgements to the BGH. No wonder they then wait 5 years in the queue. Question to EdT: is the relationship in Germany between the BPatG and the BGH in any way like that in the USA, between the Federal Circuit and SCOTUS?MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-38898689759609254452010-05-04T16:35:07.274+01:002010-05-04T16:35:07.274+01:00I agree with the other commenters, a rather confus...I agree with the other commenters, a rather confused article.<br /><br />Historically a bit suspect, for example, the FSF was originally strongly against copyright as the law had developed (which is why they advocated copyleft).<br /><br />Also, the article starts off on removable features, but somehow gets onto Linux having poor support for power conservations. Whether or not this is technically accurate (see other commenters), there is no suggestion that Linux did have this feature, but it has since been removed (so how does this relate to the earlier stuff in the article?). There is also no explanation why Linux does not have good power-saving facilities - maybe this has nothing to do with IP at all. <br /><br />So there is a complete disconnect to the final sentence, about the potential cost of IP licencees being a barrier to saving the plaent.<br /><br />Incidentally, I think that you'll find that the Nordic countries, very good on Linux and open source, have also filed a very large number of patents on wind turbines, etc (which they are also very good at) - another barrier to saving the planet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-43754413185473343312010-05-04T10:33:10.383+01:002010-05-04T10:33:10.383+01:00It is long established that intellectual property ...<i>It is long established that intellectual property law applies to computer software.</i><br /><br />Uh, this and the following discussion on patent law applicability seems odd. What about the blog posts here on IPKat about the Symbian patent case? The IPOs own guidance? Since when is 2 years "long"? Indeed, isn't there still an EPO review to be made (what's the status of that)? Also, on the other side of pond, there is the recent Bilski case on which a ruling is awaited?<br /><br />So it's maybe not correct to say that it is well established that patents apply to software, if the author meant that. They acknowledge later in the piece there is confusion, but then why lead with such a strong assertion?<br /><br />Also, a lot of the problems the author assumes are common with power management are now much improved. Suspend/resume has gotten quite reliable on hardware I own in the last few years.<br /><br />With regard to ACPI, the people who wrote and maintain the Linux ACPI implementation are Intel - the same people who designed ACPI. The ACPI implementation is even shared with other OSes. The problems often are with the ACPI implementation but with the *BIOS* data supplied with hardware by manufacturers - where it's wrong and not well-formed by the ACPI spec, but it just happens to work out with Windows. Windows being all that manufacturers ever fully test and will spend effort in fixing their own bugs for. <br /><br />I.e. a lot of the work done was/is implementing compatibility with *bugs* made by the *manufacturer* in the *hardware*.<br /><br />Still, it's nice to see articles that try to straddle the technology and patent/copyright law worlds, particularly with regard to Free Software. Thanks! ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-68992485605735959822010-05-04T10:21:30.721+01:002010-05-04T10:21:30.721+01:00I got rather lost somewhere near the middle of thi...I got rather lost somewhere near the middle of this post. It starts off looking at removable software features, but ends with whether patents are destroying the planet. I didn't follow the transition.TJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-55248264719683802412010-05-04T09:52:14.685+01:002010-05-04T09:52:14.685+01:00I was unclear as to the purpose of this article - ...I was unclear as to the purpose of this article - was it about removable features of operating systems or a description of the author's opinion of the deficiencies of Linux? Leaving aside the importance of freedom, I wonder if the author has refreshed his knowledge recently?<br /><br />For example I do not know where the author got his description of the solution to the Tom-Tom problem (VFAT) but it clearly wasn't from the horse's mouth. The actual solution is described here:<br /><br />http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/26/313<br /><br />with an FAQ here <br /><br />http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/26/314<br /><br />and here's a quote from FAQ A8: "...this new patch allows all the filenames allowed by the VFAT format."<br /><br />The article discussing power management referenced by the author (why the particular quote was selected was unclear to me) is well worth a read, as it shows how top to bottom, FLOSS is working to reduce the computing carbon footprint. <br /><br />It was unfortunate then that the discussion of ACPI was so out of date. In addition to the initiatives described in the article (and fortunately invisible to the end user), here is the core project <br /><br />http://www.lesswatts.org/index.php<br /><br />The author asserts "getting [hibernation] to work reliably is probably still beyond the capability of the average user. Even when it works, users may find that their wireless network is inactive after resuming after suspension"<br /><br />While the statement could be criticised on many grounds, the one I prefer is "evidence to the contrary" <br /><br />There is no doubt that FLOSS distros have the open ended problem that there is no pre-knowledge of the hardware to be used. However whenever manufacturers release with a Linux based distro everything works out of the box, my trusty Acer Aspire One (AAO) for example. <br /><br />Moreover, unlike the use and upgrade by throwing away culture of proprietary software, there is a continual desire to "reduce, re-use, recycle" by ensuring that all improvements in the software apply to all versions of any hardware. Another discussion could be about the carbon footprint of the landfill of perfectly usable hardware, (but only if you install FLOSS). Everything continually gets better and easier. <br /><br />The FLOSS model has only ever been about free as in speech not free as in beer, so, as with changing a washer in your tap, you might choose to do it yourself or pay to have a plumber do it. <br /><br />Similarly when you discover your otherwise more than adequate hardware in no longer supported by your favourite "pay once then pay again and again" software company, you might choose to see how difficult it actually is to install a distro (there's lots of help out there, e.g.,<br />http://www.linuxnewbieguide.org/ or http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/ThinkWiki) or you could pay to have someone set you going.<br /><br />I was also curious as to why the author picked "Mid-2008" in his closing peroration, as for example "Linpus" on my AAO is based on Red Hat. More generally, "mid 2008" is a long time ago in FLOSS terms: the openSUSE distro has released three versions, Fedora (Red Hat) four, since then. The 2.6 series Linux has changed from version 25 to version 34 with many many changes relating to power management including the "tickless kernel" (don't ask unless you really want answer)<br /><br />My answer to the closing question posed is that it is moot.Gentoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05063939954837162413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-41680456986738955582010-05-04T08:27:27.774+01:002010-05-04T08:27:27.774+01:00Interestingly, and probably not coincidentally, th...Interestingly, and probably not coincidentally, the German Federal Court of Justice recently overturned the decision of the Patent Court which revoked the German part of Microsoft's EP patent 618 540 relating to FAT. The full written decision is not yet available but in the <a href="http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=Aktuell&Sort=12288&Seite=4&nr=51702&linked=pm&Blank=1" rel="nofollow">press release</a> it was indicated that the BGH was of the opinion, after receiving expert advice, that the BPatG had misunderstood the claim.<br /><br />EdTAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com