Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

122 comments

Eat my ass you shitheads! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32749994)

I fart in your general direction, Slashtards! Eat from my unwiped asshole!

Re:Eat my ass you shitheads! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32750036)

one day mario woke up and decided to take a shit because hey he's mario. so mario went up to yoshi and said "yoshi i want you to be my shitter" and since yoshi was mario's bitch he opened his mouth. mario pulled down his stained briefs and began to shit in yoshi's mouth. yoshi was forbidden to express any emotions but at this moment he was feeling very aroused.

mario's face turned red as he grunted and strained to push his log of shit out of his ass. he farted and little shit particles flew into yoshi's eyes. yoshi's eyes teared up, not from the pain of the shit particles nor from the paint-peeling stench coming from mario's unwashed ass, but from the sheer ecstasy of being mario's shitter. mario noticed this and began to grunt harder, teasing the horny beast.

mario noticed that yoshi was fiddling around with his dino-wiener, which had become quite erect. "stop that this instant" commanded mario, noticing his own 2-incher was growing hard as well. yoshi whined and reluctantly lowered his hands. with a final grunt and a smelly fart, mario's log of shit finally dropped from his ass into yoshi's mouth.

mario turned around and watched as yoshi chewed the shit log. "eat it bitch. eat it all" said mario. yoshi pretended he hated doing this so much but his throbbing wiener and moans of joy told mario otherwise. "swallow it" ordered mario but yoshi didn't want to swallow it yet. he wanted to savor the shit. "SWALLOW IT RIGHT NOW" screamed mario as he began wang-slapping yoshi across the face.

mario, hands on his hips, thrust his pelvis from side to side across yoshi's face, punishing the naughty dinosaur. "YOU DO WHAT MARIO TELLS YOU" he screamed. after about fourty wang-slaps his wiener started to become sore so he stopped. by now the shit log had gone down yoshi's throat. "eggulate" he ordered. yoshi strained and produced an egg. inside this egg contained what was previously his shit log. mario walked over to his shelf and placed it with the others. he had hundreds possibly thousands of these shit-eggs. he planned to use these against bowser the next time he kidnapped peach.

now there was only one thing left to do.

mario bent over and pointed his ass at yoshi who immediately knew what to do. he began to use his tongue to clean mario's shitty ass. mario couldn't hold it back. his peener let loose with some "italian ranch dressing." this brought yoshi to an orgasm as well. with both their wieners pleasantly limp and tingling they continued with the cleaning process. "don't forget to thorougly clean the dingleberries from the hairs" mario advised. yoshi obeyed his master. ten minutes later mario decided he was clean and put his clothes back on. now it was luigi's turn with yoshi.

"yo luigi i got him warned up for you" mario called as he walked out of the yoshi room. luigi walked in past him with a sly smile under his mustache and carrying an apple and a hot wheels car. "hello yoshi guess what time it is again" he said in a low voice as he locked the door behind him. mario walked out into the kitchen ignoring yoshi's squeals of pain and joy, and poured himself a bowl of cereal. unfortunately he had forgotten to purchase milk, but he could improvise. he took out his wiener and peed into his cheerios.

mario sat down in front of the tv and began to eat his cheerios and pee while periodically scratching his balls. "hey these cheerios and pee aren't half bad" mario said out loud and contemplated having another bowl before he realized that he was all out of pee. luigi had now returned, panting and sweating. "yo luigi let me borrow some of your pee" said mario as he pointed the bowl at luigi's crotch. "gee mario i don't know what you would want with my pee but sure" said luigi as he unzipped his overalls.

luigi filled mario's bowl but still had some more pee left in him. he took this opportunity to mark his territory around the house. first he peed on his side of the couch then he peed on his chair at the dining table. he only had a little pee left so he had to make this last one count. he looked around the room and spotted his brother. he ran up and peed on mario, marking him as his own. "no one else can have you!!" shouted luigi. mario "accidentally" got some of luigi's pee in his mouth.

mario and luigi finished eating their cheerios with pee and decided to go for a walk in the park. they hooked yoshi up to his leash and took turns raping him during the walk to the park. by the time they arrived at the park all three of them were tuckered out and decided to just shit in the shade of the big oak tree. it seemed like today was going to be another peaceful day. however no one seemed to notice the eyes peering at them from inside the nearby bushes.

mario heard a rustle in the bushes. "who's there" he called out but there was no answer. "i'm warning you. you better show yourself. i got a dick and i know how to use it" he threatened while thrusting and pointing at his dick. luigi and yoshi were now getting into position too, thrusting and pointing at their own dicks. "you got till the count of three to come out" said mario. "one" mario and luigi unzipped their overalls. "two" they pulled out their quivering dicks. "THREE"

mario, luigi, and yoshi all leaped into the bushes, thrusting their dicks around. no one had any idea whether or not they were dicking the person in the bushes or just each other. there were many shouts and the occasional giggle. this went on for ten minutes before mario took charge and threw everyone out of the bushes. mario stepped out too and looked at the pile of sweat, semen, and shit covered bodies in front of him.

mario looked down at the man in front of him with a look of disgust on his face. "nevermind guys it's just that fat faggot wario" he said as luigi stood up and straightened his hat. "hey fuck you mario" said wario, wiping a bit of feces out of his mustache. "i'm not the one who goes around raping people." mario smirked as he watched the lump in wario's crotch start to grow larger.

wario shifted his legs to try and hide the growing bulge but it was too late. luigi and yoshi had already noticed and were smirking as well. yoshi's wiener twitched. wario eyed it with apprehension, the bulge growing a little more rapidly now. wario was sweating, his heart beating rapidly. yoshi licked his lips. suddenly a gust of wind blew wario's hat off behind him. "aren't you going to bend over and pick it up wario" asked mario with an evil grin.

wario turned around and bent over to pick up his hat. he gave his ass a little shake as he did so and yoshi couldn't hold back anymore. he ran forward and shoved his now fully erect peener straight into wario's ass, ripping a hole through his overalls and underwear. wario gasped and tried to resist at first. "don't fight it" said mario in a soothing voice "just relax and enjoy it. i have trained yoshi well" at this point a large group of toads had gathered to the scene.

the toads closed in and formed a circle around the two fuckers. after any particularly deep thrusts by yoshi the toads would erupt with cheers. the toads started becoming aroused and began rubbing themselves. yoshi began thrusting harder and faster while wario had his 8-incher out and was stroking it. this pleased the toads who began throwing coins at the two in between stroking their own peeners. mario and luigi were quickly pocketing all the coins they could.

^^^^ me too ^^^^^ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32750020)

when you're done eating his ass, mine needs a good rimming.

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32750034)

Wrong site for 'commentary' on this important issue. Excellent headline though - I'm sure the organization "hates" freedom.

Isn't the owner of that blog associated to the 'twitter' guy that used to troll slashdot with 60 different accounts?

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32750122)

http://ubuntu-virginia.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?s=9ab5d0b9fe408661ad3f39da16b2e376&p=7635884&postcount=24 [ubuntuforums.org]

Techrights=BoycottNovell, they just rebranded. Hey, it worked for Blackwater...

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32750378)

What did they rebadge to? Liberty Consulting Services LLC? :D

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32750276)

Could somebody wipe the slobber off Roy's chin, please. He's gone full retard again.

speaking of knuth (3, Interesting)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750044)

Where is today's huge breakthrough announcement?

Re:speaking of knuth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32750088)

He's about to announce the Segway 2 later today.

Re:speaking of knuth (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32750090)

not happening til 5:30 pacific time

Re:speaking of knuth (1)

Chrutil (732561) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750658)

Come on - someone with mod points mod parent informative please - the only reply that gives the answer has 0 points?

Re:speaking of knuth (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32750114)

His big announcement was he got his first boner in 15 years at the sight of his wife being gangbanged by a dozen big, black cocks.

Re:speaking of knuth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32755982)

I'm thinking more along the lines of "Slashdot AC gets a life -- Nahhhh, just kidding."

LaTeX 3 (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750190)

...will be released with support for HTML5?

Re:speaking of knuth (5, Funny)

LordKronos (470910) | about 4 years ago | (#32752596)

From his wiki page:
"At the TUG 2010 Conference, Knuth announced an XML-based successor to TeX, titled "iTeX", which would support features such as arbitrarily scaled irrational units, 3D printing, animation, and stereographic sound."

Re:speaking of knuth (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 4 years ago | (#32755638)

LOL nice try.
But seriously, the XML-based successor to TeX which would support features such as arbitrarily scaled irrational units, 3D printing, animation, and stereographic sound is gonna be called knuth/TeX.

somehow i cant (2, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750072)

imagine donald, with all the work hes put into latex and the public opinions hes made related to open source and copyright law, will take this laying down.

the "if you dont follow the community we'll just do it ourselves" threat is very real.

Re:somehow i cant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32750206)

Maybe his announcement this evening is that he denounces the IEEE?

Nice point. (3, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750258)

Donald Knuth, and many of the other top names from IEEE, have name-brand power comparable to the IEEE itself. A split is not entirely impossible. If that happens (and in all seriousness, I expect the announcement to be at least a threat of a split) and the rival has reasonable policies and ethics, it will likely capture a fair chunk of the income and PR of the IEEE. (Hell, I've seen arXiv mentioned more in the popular press than the IEEE.) That could cause a serious disturbance in the Force, not to mention a serious disturbance in boardrooms, where there's a heavy reliance on political leverage to get things done. It's extremely difficult to manipulate crusaders - it can be done, but the RIAA and MPAA don't have that kind of Machiavellian skill.

Re:Nice point. (1)

lakeland (218447) | about 4 years ago | (#32753456)

Given that ACM continue to oppose software patents, that seems an easy place to start.

Re:somehow i cant (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750292)

somehow i cant imagine donald, with all the work hes put into latex and the public opinions hes made related to open source and copyright law, will take this laying down.

1) Donald Knuth doesn't work on LaTeX. He works on TeX.
2) The IEEE has never been against software patents. So why do you suddenly think this statement is going to be some sort of tipping point?

Re:somehow i cant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32750374)

Is he going to join up with the guy that works on MeX, and try integrating the project (TeX-MeX)?

Re:somehow i cant (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750488)

1) The announcement will be at the TeX convention, but TeX isn't due for a major release, LaTeX is.
2) This explains everything [xkcd.com] .

Re:somehow i cant (1)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750566)

tex, not latex.

The top 10 Bilski losers (besides Bilski & War (3, Interesting)

FlorianMueller (801981) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750098)

The IEEE may consider itself and its most influential members to be among those who gain from the Bilski ruling and software patents, but here's my top ten list of losers [blogspot.com] :
  1. 1. The free software and open source communities [blogspot.com]
  2. 2. Software patent abolitionists [blogspot.com]
  3. 3. Small and medium-sized companies who can't or don't want to play the patent game [blogspot.com]
  4. 4. The proponents of bogus treatments: Linux Foundation, Open Invention Network etc. [blogspot.com]
  5. 5. The Patent Absurdity movie [blogspot.com]
  6. 6. Red Hat [blogspot.com]
  7. 7. Google's foray into new markets (Android, WebM) [blogspot.com]
  8. 8.Salesforce.com (Marc Benioff) [blogspot.com]
  9. 9. The "captive court" theory [blogspot.com]
  10. 10. IBM's open source credibility [blogspot.com]

It was kind of surprising to see on Twitter that not only open source advocates such as Steven Vaughan-Nichols and Brian Proffitt considered that list a good summary but also ACT, a lobby organization that supports software patents all the way (we lobbied against each other several times). But ACT pointed out that they didn't agree with all I wrote. That didn't surprise me.

Re:The top 10 Bilski losers (besides Bilski & (3, Insightful)

jgrahn (181062) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750380)

The IEEE may consider itself and its most influential members to be among those who gain from the Bilski ruling and software patents, but here's my top ten list of losers:
1. The free software and open source communities
2. Software patent abolitionists
3. Small and medium-sized companies who can't or don't want to play the patent game
4. The proponents of bogus treatments: Linux Foundation, Open Invention Network etc.
5. The Patent Absurdity movie
6. Red Hat
7. Google's foray into new markets (Android, WebM)
8.Salesforce.com (Marc Benioff)
9. The "captive court" theory
10. IBM's open source credibility

You forgot us normal programmers, free software guys or not. Who wants to come up with a neat design, get himself or his company into trouble for it, and be forced to go back and tear out that neat design again?

Muller lies. (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#32751274)

You forgot us normal programmers, free software guys or not. Who wants to come up with a neat design, get himself or his company into trouble for it, and be forced to go back and tear out that neat design again?

That's because Mueller doesn't give 2 shits about normal programmers, or free software, except when it's convenient for him. Remember, he tried to pull a McBride on Oracle [cnet.com] to get them to cave into the crybaby former owner of MySql (the money lost in delaying the Oracle rescue of Sun is that much money that won't be available for supporting programmers)

Major database players, including HP and IBM, have already reportedly taken advantage of the delay to win over customers from Sun.

In the meantime, Sun continues its downward spiral. Late Tuesday, the company confirmed that it would lay off another 3,000 employees, about 10 percent of its total workforce, over the next year. This latest round is in addition to 6,000 jobs cuts announced almost a year ago as part of the company's restructuring plan.

That's 3,000 people who lost jobs in part because of assholes like Nueller/Muller.

and he's now trying to pull a McBride on IBM on behalf of his buddies at Turbo Hercules [slushdot.com] .

And also he wants to "expose" groklaw because they exposed the Turbo Hercules FUD for what it was [slushdot.com] .

3,000 jobs. This is not someone who cares about programmers. This is someone who cares about being a lobbyist - and you can be sure he's looking out for #1.

Re:Muller lies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32751630)

Although I haven't followed the background stories on the lobbying, Muller and others, I have to say partially attributing 3000 lost jobs from the ranks of financially troubled company when purchased by the well know financial shrewd to lobbyists is slightly over-the-top.

Re:Muller lies. (1)

tomhudson (43916) | about 4 years ago | (#32752306)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10379870-38.html [cnet.com]

It was a total of over 9,000 jobs. Only 3,000 were attributed to the delay - and in the final analysis, the EU agreed, the claims by Mueller etc., were bullshit.

PJ Lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32751828)

Maybe you shouldn't trust PJ so much. She censors Groklaw so that people can't hold an honest debate there. How, you ask? By vanishing and silently editing people's posts.

By "vanishing" I mean that your post will *appear* to exist when you visit Groklaw. But nobody else will see it. I have verified this via proxies. Oh, and you might say "she only does that to trolls!" Not true. She does it to people she disagrees with. Marbux, AllParadox and one former Groklaw moderator have all parted ways due to this issue. Incidentally, I have logs and screenshots documenting this. I sent them to Florian, incidentally, because I find PJ's actions dishonest.

Silently editing posts should be more obvious, but it's still quite insidious. One of her supporters wrote something potentially libelous. She deleted the libelous part and *vanished* the reply pointing that out... Quite a bit of whitewash for a supposedly open site, no? Oh, and if your account is deleted, your name is stripped from all your comments. So you don't get attribution any more (ever wonder why some people sign their posts? yeah...)

Normal practice on any of the many forums I have administered (as well as many others I have used), is for the mods to write [EDITED] or [SCRUBBED] or something of the sort to indicate the removal of such things. Not to whitewash the lot of it.

True, it's her site and her rules. She even reserves the right to do that (even while claiming that posters own their own posts). And claims to have found a lawyer telling her it's legally okay. I can accept all of that as true. But it's pretty damned insidious.

Yes, I admit that it happened to me. I called her out for advancing some theories in support of IBM that she excoriated SCO for, specifically introducing inadmissible parol evidence in support of her theory of what IBM's pledge was, when the four corners of the contract were pretty damned clear ("for the purposes of this license" any OSI-approved license was good enough--even the QPL). And I linked the the article where she had a field day ripping SCO apart for doing the same thing. Am I supporting SCO? Of course not. I'm calling her out for hypocrisy (pretending to believe strongly in standing by any contracts you make... until she thinks the contract was a bad idea and wants to say they should be allowed to weasel out of it).

> This is someone who cares about being a lobbyist - and you can be sure he's looking out for #1.

This is somebody who led the fight against Software Patents in the EU, with a lot more success than PJ has managed in the US. Why is it okay for IBM to FUD a Red Hat-like company built around an open source license (at least according to OSI... which IBM, at least, thinks of as open source), just because their software is QPL? True, they may have worded everything carefully enough to avoid allowing TH to go for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, but there's no way to interpret that letter that doesn't imply that IBM wants them to quietly go out of business. And IBM was the one who raised the specter of infringement (in letter #2). We saw letters #3 & #4 first, so many people have been confused, but letters #1 & #2 make it clear who came up with infringement. And you may not have noticed, but the tune changed from approximately "TH got what they asked for" to "TH somehow goaded IBM into making a mistake by mentioning that pledge, causing IBM to throw in some of those patents."

Don't believe the FUD. PJ isn't above it. I used to support her. I've written quite a bit supporting her in the past. But that doesn't mean I'll stand by someone when they do all the things they once condemned. What is a good person, after all? Is it not someone who *does good*? Yet too often, we have evil excused because it's done by "good people." That's unreasonable.

Re:PJ Lies (2, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | about 4 years ago | (#32752806)

Maybe you shouldn't trust PJ so much. She censors Groklaw so that people can't hold an honest debate there. How, you ask? By vanishing and silently editing people's posts.

By "vanishing" I mean that your post will *appear* to exist when you visit Groklaw. But nobody else will see it. I have verified this via proxies. Oh, and you might say "she only does that to trolls!" Not true. She does it to people she disagrees with. Marbux, AllParadox and one former Groklaw moderator have all parted ways due to this issue. Incidentally, I have logs and screenshots documenting this. I sent them to Florian, incidentally, because I find PJ's actions dishonest.

If she's only had a falling out with 3 people in 7 years, that's not that bad.

This is an old story, from since 2004:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_S/threadview?m=te&bn=2942&tid=181845&mid=-1&tof=-1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1 [yahoo.com]

The "I've verified this via proxies" is really a non-issue - other people have since pointed out that other content management systems have similar capabilities. I'll be writing a HOW-TO so that anyone can implement it, because it's a good "circuit breaker" or "fire break" for some use cases. Let everyone take a breather and reflect a bit ...

That being said, I'm willing to look at the evidence - but it has to be in context.

Silently editing posts should be more obvious, but it's still quite insidious. One of her supporters wrote something potentially libelous. She deleted the libelous part and *vanished* the reply pointing that out... Quite a bit of whitewash for a supposedly open site, no? Oh, and if your account is deleted, your name is stripped from all your comments. So you don't get attribution any more (ever wonder why some people sign their posts? yeah...)

You said it yourself - "potentially libelous". It's the same here on slashdot - for example: if you make a death threat to the president, it WILL be removed (it's been done in the past) and any post pointing that out will also be removed. slashdot has no choice - there's a specific law just for dealing with death threats to the president.

Normal practice on any of the many forums I have administered (as well as many others I have used), is for the mods to write [EDITED] or [SCRUBBED] or something of the sort to indicate the removal of such things. Not to whitewash the lot of it.

Maybe you should get better forum software :-) Okay, that was a bit of a joke ... but seriously, sometimes it's better for EVERYONE if the post is totally removed. For example, what do you think would happen if, instead of removing 10 of your posts, someone were to write "This post has been deleted because it conflicts with the site's policies"? People seeing that would think "troll" or "spammer". At that point, you'd probably wish they had just silently deleted them.

All I'm saying is that there's no ideal solution.

True, it's her site and her rules. She even reserves the right to do that (even while claiming that posters own their own posts). And claims to have found a lawyer telling her it's legally okay. I can accept all of that as true. But it's pretty damned insidious.

No need for a lawyer to tell her it's okay - it is. You might own your post, but you don't have a contractual or other right to require that someone else provide a platform for you to disseminate it. To the contrary. the only right you have is to use your own resources to get your message out.

Now, if you had signed a contract that said "posts written by $X will be hosted on site $Y for a period of $Z time in return for the following consideration $A under the following conditions $I, $J, $K", you might have an argument.

Deletion of comments is a delicate issue. There will always be someone's ox who gets barbecued. Sometimes it's possible to move on, sometimes not. Sometimes the moderator will be having a bad day, or be a bit jumpy ... it happens. Nobody gets it right 100% of the time. Usually the best way to handle it is for everyone involved to STFU for a month, then look at it again and ask "is it that important?" "Can we agree to disagree?"

Yes, I admit that it happened to me. I called her out for advancing some theories in support of IBM that she excoriated SCO for, specifically introducing inadmissible parol evidence in support of her theory of what IBM's pledge was, when the four corners of the contract were pretty damned clear ("for the purposes of this license" any OSI-approved license was good enough--even the QPL). And I linked the the article where she had a field day ripping SCO apart for doing the same thing. Am I supporting SCO? Of course not. I'm calling her out for hypocrisy (pretending to believe strongly in standing by any contracts you make... until she thinks the contract was a bad idea and wants to say they should be allowed to weasel out of it).

groklaw isn't a courtroom - it's fine to use parol evidence in an on-line debate :-) In real life, we allow a certain flexibility as a form of social lubricant. Now I don't know what the specifics of what you're talking about are, so not having seen the evidence, and not having the context, it's hard to say.

> This is someone who cares about being a lobbyist - and you can be sure he's looking out for #1.

This is somebody who led the fight against Software Patents in the EU, with a lot more success than PJ has managed in the US. Why is it okay for IBM to FUD a Red Hat-like company built around an open source license (at least according to OSI... which IBM, at least, thinks of as open source), just because their software is QPL? True, they may have worded everything carefully enough to avoid allowing TH to go for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, but there's no way to interpret that letter that doesn't imply that IBM wants them to quietly go out of business. And IBM was the one who raised the specter of infringement (in letter #2). We saw letters #3 & #4 first, so many people have been confused, but letters #1 & #2 make it clear who came up with infringement. And you may not have noticed, but the tune changed from approximately "TH got what they asked for" to "TH somehow goaded IBM into making a mistake by mentioning that pledge, causing IBM to throw in some of those patents."

The questions surrounding Turbo Hercules (if that's what you're referring to) have nothing to do with open source. Zero. Nada. The open source project Hercules has not, in 10 years, received ANY indication from IBM that IBM wants it to shut down.

Turbo Hercules, on the other hand, is in the same position as Psystar - they want IBM customers to violate IBM copyrights by running a copy of z/OS contrary to the license. Whether it was atop of Hercules or any other software is immaterial to the question of license violation. This isn't about patents, but about copyrights. It's true that the z/OS license says that it can be run on other hardware if the principle machine is down - but it still has to conform to the other license terms - in other words, it has to be hardware that is properly licensed (like older hardware that has is licensed to run an older copy).

Additionally, even if it were to be allowed to temporarily be run on non-licensed hardware, at one point there will be a need to run two copies - to copy the data from the non-licensed hardware back to the main machine - so the only way to be in compliance with copyright law throughout the whole process is to have only licensed hardware.

Turbo Hercules doesn't have a valid business case.

I've said it several times - Roger Bowler and Florian Muller need to apologize to Jay Maynard for helping confuse the issues. Both Bowler and Muller know that IBM has not done anything to threaten either Maynard or the Hercules project. This is strictly a contract issue between IBM and their customers.

The thing is, we need to respect ALL licenses if we want the GPL respected.

Don't believe the FUD. PJ isn't above it. I used to support her. I've written quite a bit supporting her in the past. But that doesn't mean I'll stand by someone when they do all the things they once condemned. What is a good person, after all? Is it not someone who *does good*? Yet too often, we have evil excused because it's done by "good people." That's unreasonable.

I've seen good people do some pretty rotten things. We all have the occasional brain fart - I'm certainly not immune. The thing is, if someone has generally done good, we are more tolerant of the occasional "uh-uh" than if it's an everyday occurrence for them. The problem is that so many people get so hung up, when they could benefit from stepping away from the keyboard and walking their dogs, or something equally distracting, to help put things into perspective.

Speaking of which, I have to go walk mine :-)

As for Florian Mueller/Muller, his activities are counter-productive.

Agree in part, disagree in part. (2, Interesting)

Xenographic (557057) | about 4 years ago | (#32753812)

You can read my submissions supporting Groklaw in the past (I have, what? Maybe 10 accepted SCO stories with Groklaw as a source? I don't remember any more.). I have trumpeted her site quite loudly for several years and cheered SCO's slow demise. I hope you're not going to lump me in with shills & astro-turfers. I honestly question how many of those there are, because PJ lumps *anyone* who disagrees with her in with them, or so it seems. I've also fought against Microsoft on OOXML and the rest and supported IBM's Rob Weir when discussing how much OOXML sucks ass (seriously, he's a good guy, his blog [robweir.com] also has some information on wine making, if you're into that). If I'm some kind of shill who hates Groklaw or IBM for no reason, well, I must have been replaced by a doppleganger recently. Here are a few [slashdot.org] links [slashdot.org] that go allllll the way back to 2004 [slashdot.org] , when hardly anybody knew who the hell Groklaw was and show me agreeing with and promoting the site. I've read her site daily since the RU days and remember when she had a hard time surviving a Slashdotting, before she moved to iBiblio. I think I contributed one or two of those early, hard-to-survive Slashdottings, for that matter.

That support is in the past, I'm afraid. PJ is a huge jerk, mostly in private, and you'll probably only see that if you disagree with her. I can give you her real email (it's close to the public email, pj@groklaw.net, which has more filtering), if you want me to prove that I've been in contact. I don't think it's a big deal to put that out here because she's more than capable of switching it if the spammers get hold of it.

She's had way more than three fallings-out [groklaw.net] , incidentally. But most of the people feel like they're the only ones. AllParadox is a good example because he wrote stories for Groklaw [google.com] once upon a time. It's not like he's some nobody who lurked for a little while. It's more like almost anyone who worked with her closely got driven out. Except for Mathfox, I guess.

There are quite a few people [blogspot.com] she's parted ways with. Heck, ESR may be next on that list for saying that she "jumped the shark" when she attacked his friend, Jay Maynard (who got booted from Groklaw, even though he has nothing to do with TurboHercules the company; even if he's a friend of some of the founders thereof). His crime? Saying he felt threatened when IBM called the QPL-licensed Hercules emulator an "infringing platform." He's not Darl McBride. He's not a party to the EU complaint. He's a guy who dresses up in a Tron outfit and writes an emulator, for crying out loud. We're not talking "conspirator" here. But PJ sees "conspiracy" everywhere these days. I can't blame her, after SCO, but I won't agree, either.

You can read AllParadox's account [yahoo.com] of his departure here, incidentally.

Sadly, now, apparently, anyone who refers to "AllParadox" risks having their post deleted. If past complaints by former Groklaw regulars are any guide, anyone who naively trys to re-post a deleted post, or innocently inquires of PJ about the problem, also risks having their Groklaw account deleted.

So the problem is that she's a huge jerk to anyone she disagrees with. Now, that's actually less of a problem than it might seem: she's right about 95% of the time. It's that last 5% that's a pain. I've been like that, too. But I came to the conclusion that I'd rather be wrong 5% of the time than an asshole 100% of the time. And I know: it's far easier to see mistakes when someone else is making them. You say that Florian's activities are counter-productive, well... what about PJ's? How many enemies does she have to make, exactly? Just how many people are on her enemies list, anyhow? I understand, say, O'Gara or Lyons... but some of them I just don't.

Whatever you say about Florian, he at least managed to be effective in stopping software patents in the EU. For all the mass-mailing of Patent Absurdity, what did we get? A mixed bag ruling from Supreme Court justices that think that it's possible to have a patent that's too abstract, but they won't give us any actual guidance on what standards we're supposed to use because about four and a half of them aren't willing to kill software patents, but they couldn't find a good test that wouldn't?

And the PJ thing isn't new. You can see that she's had similar problems with anyone who thinks that she's abusing her mod powers [linux-blog.org] for a long time now. Sadly, I knew. But I ignored it for years because I trusted PJ until I saw, first hand, how dishonestly she debates when she can edit your words out from under you, and leave people thinking that you weren't able to respond when you did... and she's the one who "didn't have time" to deal with your response. Oh, vanished threads? Those vanish *all replies.* So... she can reply to you and you'll see it, but no one else will.

> You said it yourself - "potentially libelous". It's the same here on slashdot - for example: if you make a death threat to the president, it WILL be removed (it's been done in the past) and any post pointing that out will also be removed. slashdot has no choice - there's a specific law just for dealing with death threats to the president.

That doesn't make it any less dishonest as a way to argue. And that doesn't prevent you from writing [SCRUBBED] to make everyone aware that you *made an edit* instead of silently removing the text. Using Slashdot as an example of deleting comments is a pretty good way to contrast the honest way versus the dishonest way of editing comments, though, so thank you for bringing it up.

Remember when the Scientologists got a comment deleted [slashdot.org] ? Posting a story discussing what was in it and why it got removed is a little bit different than silently editing (not deleting!) the comment and invisibly banning the people who reply...

> The "I've verified this via proxies" is really a non-issue - other people have since pointed out that other content management systems have similar capabilities. I'll be writing a HOW-TO so that anyone can implement it, because it's a good "circuit breaker" or "fire break" for some use cases. Let everyone take a breather and reflect a bit ...

Yes, invisible banning IS an effective way to deal with things like someone who calls you a list of racial epithets or who sends you pornographic mailbombs (been there, done that, but I *still* banned them the normal way). But doing that because someone disagrees with you and quotes your past words... is simply a dishonest way to argue. That's what this is about, really, people posting information and having it hidden because PJ thinks it's wrong... but doesn't "have time" to deal with it and actually post *why* ... Never mind that she manages to post almost 24/7.

The better way to handle this is to write [SCRUBBED] over the post if you don't delete the whole thing, or to write [DELETED] in place of the whole post. But Groklaw ONLY uses silent edits and vanishing that I've ever seen. That's just underhanded on a site where people expect to argue and be given a fair hearing based on the facts as they present them, rather than being swept under the rug if someone doesn't have time to disagree. I think PJ wrote something about if people think their words are so precious, they can post them elsewhere. But the weird thing is that she, in the past, has written about how she would never let anyone change her words and she was on quite a kick about how there was some legal conspiracy of parties unknown to undermine the rights of authors a while ago when they attacked Apple. Funny how she didn't lump Google Book Search into that, despite all the authors hating them. I think the whole idea is ludicrous, incidentally.

> The open source project Hercules has not, in 10 years, received ANY indication from IBM that IBM wants it to shut down.

And yet they called it an "infringing platform" (before TH or *anyone* else said a word about infringement) and said that they believe that anyone emulating it would "necessarily infringe" upon a huge list of patents. I think they want it to quietly continue on in commercial irrelevance. The reason they never cared before is because it never threatened any of their profits before.

Do I blame them? No. They're a company. They're out to make money. News at 11. But some people act like we can trust IBM to be a good guy forever and ever. I don't buy it. If they have to choose between open source and money, which will they choose? Money. Same with Google, incidentally. I personally think they're currently run by pretty decent guys, but will it remain that way forever? Maybe, but I doubt it. IBM was once the Big Bad and the inventor of FUD. The whole TH letter was classic IBM FUD: they wanted to scare them off without having to do anything legally. I know, that's how lawyers operate. I don't have to like it, though.

There are no "good" companies per se. There are companies whose financial interests align with ours and those who don't. From that, you can predict who will act as an enemy or an ally quiet easily. There are bad ones, though. Some will go a lot further in terms of screwing the people over who have the audacity to get between them and a penny, while others will show more restraint. But get between a businessman and money? You'd best hope you don't lose a limb.

> The thing is, we need to respect ALL licenses if we want the GPL respected.

Actually, I'm one of those who question the very foundation upon which the copyright licenses are founded: IP. I believe in freedom from IP. I'm not alone in that [gnu.org] . I believe that the GPL is good and necessary, but that doesn't mean I respect restrictive licenses of adhesion one bit. But I do respect freedom, which is why I would obey the GPL even if not forced to by law. In short, I respect licenses based on their morality, not their legality, and do my best to avoid ever dealing with the immoral licenses that ask me to sign away my firstborn son or refrain from disparaging Microsoft (seriously, that was a clause in the MS Agent EULA forbidding that).

> We all have the occasional brain fart - I'm certainly not immune. The thing is, if someone has generally done good, we are more tolerant of the occasional "uh-uh" than if it's an everyday occurrence for them. The problem is that so many people get so hung up, when they could benefit from stepping away from the keyboard and walking their dogs, or something equally distracting, to help put things into perspective.

I fully agree with you there. I honestly don't think that PJ is a bad person, for whatever that's worth. But I *have* heard people say that they're afraid to disagree with her. Afraid! She's got a lot of energy and she'll invest it into posting things towards a wide audience. I don't think we can have an open an honest debate when one of the big sites where that debate is taking place is being silently manipulated by someone who will blot out the words of anyone who disagrees with her, or make them an un-person by deleting their account. I see your linked story mentioned something about threads becoming "confused" if the member is banned. Really? Is it that confusing to have a [BANNED] tag below their name? We're not talking about a pokemon trading card game site where users get banned for calling each other f*gs. We're talking about a legal blog where people have their post silently hidden because they don't toe the party line.

Her current target is Florian. Maybe I don't believe that all of his methods are great, but he has a common goal with us: stopping software patents. Now answer me this: does attacking him as a "shill" help us more, or the proponents of software patents more? Like I said: it's easier to see mistakes when someone else is making them. I think attacking him is counter-productive. Arguing with his ideas and methods? Fair game. Personal attacks based on who he talks to on Twitter or Linked-In? Not so much.

Oh, and you wanted context? Here's the full text of one of the comments she invisibly deleted:

If where talking about ignoring facts, why did YOU not address the part where Red Hat is a CCIA member? Did you miss the link showing that [ccianet.org] ? First column, sixth entry, if you didn't see it. If the CCIA is just a Microsoft front, what are they doing there?

And when did we become all about guilt by association? I thought we gave that up, way back when PJ pointed out that, based on what IBM had said, it would be possible to write an article with the headline PJ secretly funded by SCO [groklaw.net] ! I honestly thought we were above that around here.

Formerly available here [groklaw.net] , but you should only see a blank page unless you're at the right IP. Ironically, she yelled at some other poor sod because she wanted them to stop posting that link. Thing is, that guy wasn't me and had NO clue why he got yelled at.

Maybe you disagree with that. That doesn't mean that I disagree with the CCIA, so much as I don't think being a CCIA member means that you hate open source (any more than I would think IEEE member Donald Knuth supports software patents: he said that he doesn't, after all). But I think you'll argue it fairly. Maybe people will mod me down. But you won't get kdawson or timothy or someone else to make my comment vanish just because you think I'm wrong. That's the difference between a site like this and Groklaw. Yes, there's a lot of bad information here. We're wrong probably way more than 5% of the time. But we don't have to be afraid to make mistakes. Instead, we can learn from them.

Re:Muller lies. (1)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | about 4 years ago | (#32755244)

Why not blame RMS for the 3000 jobs lost? He too opposed Oracle getting control of MySQL.

Re:The top 10 Bilski losers (besides Bilski & (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32752504)

You forgot us normal programmers, free software guys or not. Who wants to come up with a neat design, get himself or his company into trouble for it, and be forced to go back and tear out that neat design again?

Research - you're doing it wrong.

1) You read the literature (which apparently includes patents now)
2) You either come up with something better, work around any patents if you decide that is really what you want to do, or just do what is 'standard'
3) Profit! (Or at least don't reinvent the wheel)

Re:The top 10 Bilski losers (besides Bilski & (1)

azmodean+1 (1328653) | about 4 years ago | (#32756632)

There's a gigantic difference between, "keep up to date on practices and algorithms in your field" and "read every patent that might have something to do with your work".

My understanding is that in the programming industry, current best practice is the "ostrich strategy", where you don't look at patents at all because it means you limit your liability if something does come up, because real "due diligence" in this field is pretty much impossible. If there were an impeccably designed and maintained patent index to check, and if the patents were written in a straightforward manner, this might not be the case, but as it is having every engineer (or even enough of them for peer review to catch things) be aware of patents to a high enough degree to provide real protection against infringement is a prohibitive amount of work.

Also "a neat design" doesn't necessarily mean "reinventing the wheel". In most cases in programming that sort of thing is an elegant implementation of a known algorithm for your specific problem.

Who??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32750118)

IEEE: the governing body for Internet Explorer?????

Re:Who??? (1, Funny)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | about 4 years ago | (#32752124)

Are you the same idiot who didn't know who Knuth was yesterday?

No win, No loose (3, Interesting)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750144)

It appears that the case is: No one won, No one lost. Which is good for our copyleft cause, because for the first time in USA patent history, the judge questions the whole nasty patent troll system, and who knows, maybe there will some positive change? Or with other words: I have a dream, a world, without war.......and software patents.

Narrow restrictions but expansive patent system (2, Interesting)

FlorianMueller (801981) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750184)

I wish I could agree that the ruling is at least a draw, but unfortunately I can't. It clearly favors an expansive patent system, assuming that new technologies must fall within the scope of patentable subject matter unless there's legislation that sets limits (mentioned in this analysis [blogspot.com] , for an example). Such legislation is a long shot to say the least, given the lobbying power of all those favoring software patents.

Through my work on the NoSoftwarePatents campaign (which I founded and managed until 2005) I spent a lot of time with patent experts and policy-makers, so when I read a reasoning like the one in the Bilski case, I can tell when an expansive view prevails over a restrictive one. There's really nothing in the ruling (apart from minority opinions that don't really matter for the future) suggesting in any way that the Supreme Court might do away with software patents. In fact, the ruling made it clear that even straightforward business method patents aren't an endangered species for the time being, unless they're just too abstract, such as the Bilski application.

Tin-foil hat lobbyist Florian Mueller/Mueller (3, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#32751404)

Make no mistake about it folks - Muller/Mueller is a shill.

This is the same lobbyist who helped delay the Oracle rescue of Sun. The delay cost 3,000 additional jobs over and above the 6,000 that were originally slated [cnet.com] .

This is the same lobbyist who is trying to pull a Darl McBride on IBM for Turbo Hercules [slushdot.com] - and who "complained to the establishment" when slashdotters down-modded his bullsh*t.

This is the same lobbyist who is now threatening to "expose" groklaw [slushdot.com] because astroturfers got the boot.

His latest lie? He's now saying that I've claimed he's a Microsoft shill. I've never said anything one way or another on that topic. His tin-foil hat is too tight - or he can't keep his lies straight.

He's no friend of the community.

This court ruling was a win. To say this:

It clearly favors an expansive patent system, assuming that new technologies must fall within the scope of patentable subject matter unless there's legislation that sets limits

flies against reality.

So why does Mueller continue to lie and spread fud? It's what he does - he's a lobbyist. Not a programmer.

Re:Tin-foil hat lobbyist Florian Mueller/Mueller (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32753722)

You would be a lot more credible if you attacked him when the situation warrants it, and not when he writes a reasonable on-topic comment like here. Having looked at your horribly emotional "references", I can say that it's not Florian Muller that is brought down by your comment.

Re:Tin-foil hat lobbyist Florian Mueller/Mueller (1)

Xenographic (557057) | about 4 years ago | (#32753868)

> This court ruling was a win.

How so? The lower court wanted to force patents to be put through the "particular machine or transformation" test. The Supremes said, well, sure THIS patent is too abstract... but we're not sure about that test. So we'll make a narrow ruling and discourage people from using that test, which could be used to eliminate software patents wholesale, unless they can start convincing the courts to buy trivial "transformations" like the hard drives doing their thing.

In short, nobody got what they wanted, but we ended up with less than we started with. Seriously. Read Patently-O or one of the sites where they love patents. They hated the test imposed by the lower court, but they're somewhat relieved that this decision wasn't as bad as they feared it could be.

> So why does Mueller continue to lie and spread fud? It's what he does - he's a lobbyist. Not a programmer.

You mean like how he lobbied the EU against software patents? And he [nosoftwarepatents.com] did program a lot more in the C64 days [c64-wiki.de] , but he has credits [mobygames.com] in Warcraft II - Tides of Darkness, Diablo I and Starcraft I's German version, though it says something about translation so I'm not sure about the details.

Believe it or not, he's not out to destroy FOSS. Yes, PJ hates his guts. But that doesn't make him a bad person. She hates almost everyone who disagrees with her, after all.

Re:Tin-foil hat lobbyist Florian Mueller/Mueller (1)

tomhudson (43916) | about 4 years ago | (#32756316)

The court said that, at the very least, most "business methods" shouldn't be patentable. That's a big win.

So we'll make a narrow ruling

That's what courts do. They don't have a mandate to rule beyond the scope of the case before them. The people arguing their case (for either side) don't have the obligation of addressing anything outside the scope of their case either - that would be an unconstitutional burden. So it is what it is, and we got what we needed.

In short, nobody got what they wanted,

How so? Until the judgment came down, everyone was whining that the Supremes were going to say that business patents were ok. Now, because we didn't get 100% at the first kick at the can, this is a loss? That's just revisionist history.

When you get 80% of what you want, plus a wedge to get the other 20% at the next case - and you also get the chilling effect on software patents as a side effect - that's a big win.

Also, Muller's not against software patents [blogspot.com] . All the DPL does is create even more problems. It's stupid. Let me rephrase that - the Defensive Patent License is REALLY stupid. It's like trying to fix a site with too much flash by adding even more flash, or trying to clean up spaghetti code by adding even more spaghetti code.

It's the sort of "solution" that people who want to insert themselves into the process (read: lobbyists) love, but that doesn't solve the problem - it just perpetuates the patents race.

sesli chat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32751094)

It appears that the case is: No one won, No one lost. Which is good for our copyleft cause, because for the first time in USA patent history, the judge questions the whole nasty patent troll system, and who knows, maybe there will some positive change? Or with other words: I have a dream, a world, without war.......and software patents.

thank you very much perfect sharing i am coming everday

sesli chat [sesliyes.com]
sesli chat [seslimazi.com]

Re:No win, No loose (2, Insightful)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 3 years ago | (#32751158)

It appears that the case is: No one won, No one lost.

Wrong, the Supreme Court left the door to software patents open and as long as software patents are allowed individual programmers, open source projects, small businesses, on up to medium businesses loses. The only ones to win are the mega-corporations that have the resources, money, to patent everything they can which they can then cross-license to other mega-corporations.

Falcon

lol Roy (5, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750194)

Do people still take Roy seriously? Have people really fallen for his lame rebranding of his site?

As an aside this was amusing quote:

The disparity between these views of Knuth (creator of LaTeX, which is Free software)

Sorry, buddy, but Knuth created TeX. LaTeX was created by Leslie Lamport.

Re:lol Roy (3, Funny)

toastar (573882) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750362)

Pfft...

Everyone knows Dupont invented LaTeX... :P

Re:lol Roy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32751470)

...together with his colleague Dupond.

Re:lol Roy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32751120)

OH BIG DIFFERENCE i'll be sure to credit some her from now on, her contribution is so much more important.

we need to make sure that women are condescendingly applauded any time they contribute anything, to make sure that there are enough women in our profession and thus hopefully dating pool.

Re:lol Roy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32751342)

Leslie Lamport's a guy. And you're an unfunny moron. Just so we have that straight.

Re:lol Roy (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 3 years ago | (#32751314)

Can you elaborate on why I should not take Roy seriously? I've never heard of him before, and thus do not have an initial disregard for his thoughts the way I would for, say, Darl McBride.

Re:lol Roy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32751660)

Why don't you read his blog? Then you'll make up your own mind. Most intelligent people dismiss the guy after reading two or three articles. Just have paper and pen ready and count how many inaccuracies, exaggerations, personal attacks on members of the open source community, self-references and sob stories about RMS being 'daemonised' you find, and add them up when you're done.

Re:lol Roy (1)

jd (1658) | about 4 years ago | (#32752992)

RMS is not in command-line mode, so is indeed daemonized.

Re:lol Roy (1)

youngone (975102) | about 4 years ago | (#32752156)

How can you have disregard for the views of Darl McBride? A fine upstanding businessman. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

Re:lol Roy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32754406)

Listen buddy, if you want to be taken seriously, don't call people buddy. It makes you seem ignorant.

Tear up your membership cards (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750254)

Well, that's it; I'm going to have to cancel my long-standing IEEE membership. I encourage the rest of you to do the same.

Re:Tear up your membership cards (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750268)

Your canceling your membership based on a FUD story by Roy Schestowitz? You do realize that IEEE hasn't had a problem with software patents for pretty much forever, right?

Re:Tear up your membership cards (2, Informative)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750332)

the original source may be biased, but the press release cited is real and states IEEE-USA is pleased that software patents have been upheld.

Re:Tear up your membership cards (0, Redundant)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750340)

but the press release cited is real and states IEEE-USA is pleased that software patents have been upheld.

And that's news, how? IEEE has never been against software patents.

Re:Tear up your membership cards (2, Interesting)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750398)

It might not be news to you personally but there still may be a few people out there that need clued in.

If the PTO worked as it was supposed to, software patents would be far less of a problem.
However, that isn't the case and we have to deal with the highly non-ideal PTO and courts
that we actually have.

This is a classic case of the disconnect between theory and practice.

Re:Tear up your membership cards (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750352)

and to elaborate, not being against software patents and being for software patents are two very different things.

Re:Tear up your membership cards (0, Redundant)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750368)

and to elaborate, not being against software patents and being for software patents are two very different things.

Since when has IEEE not been for software patents? They even brag [ieee.org] about how they get cited in more patents than ACM.

Re:Tear up your membership cards (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750482)

Maybe they've always been dicks, but we haven't been reminded of it in at least a while, and IEEE has brought that back to our attention. ASCAP have been dicks for a while, but the recent call for donations against CC, EFF, and Public Knowledge has reminded us that they are dicks and has pissed us off.

Re:Tear up your membership cards (2, Insightful)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750400)

Please quit spamming this forum about this not being news.

You seem to be arguing that there is no such thing as a last straw, a tipping point. You seem to assume that everybody knows everything about IEEE's positions and history. You seem to believe that it's illogical for people to react to an organization doing something that they disagree with.

None of these are necessarily true. We're glad to hear that your opinion of IEEE was already so fully formed, but please let the rest of us react as we will.

Re:Tear up your membership cards (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750424)

Please quit spamming this forum about this not being news.

So pointing out facts to counter Roy's FUD is now spamming? Really?

Re:Tear up your membership cards (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750470)

I haven't seen one fact from you, although maybe I missed it. What I have seen is you replying to three or four posts, exclaiming that the news isn't news, and that the poster should just not have bothered. You even copied and pasted the same thing you wrote earlier into a new comment at least once.

Re:Tear up your membership cards (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750526)

I haven't seen one fact from you, although maybe I missed it.

Yeah, cause posting things from IEEE themselves on their stance to software patents clearly aren't facts.

What I have seen is you replying to three or four posts, exclaiming that the news isn't news, and that the poster should just not have bothered.

It isn't news. IEEE's stance on software patents is pretty well-known by anyone who has had any significant experience with them.

You even copied and pasted the same thing you wrote earlier into a new comment at least once.

No, I haven't. I posted the same link to IEEE twice, but that's not the same thing.

Re:Tear up your membership cards (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750532)

They aren't facts that contradict anything from TFA, which was your contention.

Basically your point is that nobody can have an opinion on this if they didn't have one a year ago, and my contention is that you can cram it.

Re:Tear up your membership cards (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750560)

Basically your point is that nobody can have an opinion on this if they didn't have one a year ago, and my contention is that you can cram it.

No, that's not my point at all. Lovely strawman though.

Re:Tear up your membership cards (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750636)

This is news. IEEE has made an announcement about how they feel about the Bilski decision. It isn't surprising for those well versed in the IEEE's stance on patents, but many are not well versed.

Re:Tear up your membership cards (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 3 years ago | (#32751214)

You do realize that IEEE hasn't had a problem with software patents for pretty much forever, right?

That is the problem, the IEEE does not disavow software patents. With software patents allowed all of those who do not have the big war chests to patent anything and everything loses. Only mega-corporations are safe.

Falcon

Re:Tear up your membership cards (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | about 4 years ago | (#32751728)

Mega corporations are mostly in favour of patents only because they still think they can get laws introduced to limit damages and prevent complete sales injunctions ... at which point it might really be in their favour. They really don't like paying 100's of millions of dollars every time the Texas jackpot falls again though.

At the moment only the patent trolls and the lawyers always benefit from patent law, they have nothing to fear from patent war chests ...

Re:Tear up your membership cards (1)

hax4bux (209237) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750312)

You go ahead, mine will remain intact.

I cancelled mine long ago (3, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750680)

When they started publisinhg so many papers on watermarking and other forms of DRM I realized that the IEEE is no longer an institute of Engineers.

It has become now an institute of the electronics industry.

I'm going to write the IEEE a letter from ieee.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32750296)

This is unacceptable.

Re:I'm going to write the IEEE a letter from ieee. (-1, Redundant)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750330)

Why is this only now unacceptable? IEEE has never been against software patents. In fact they brag [ieee.org] about the fact that "IEEE leads the pack as the top scientific-technical source of patents – 32% of all patent citations, versus just 10% for the number-two organization, ACM."

IEEE doesn't support Open access (2, Insightful)

ivoras (455934) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750310)

Any organization which is as openly against open access to scientific articles (journals, conference proceedings) yet continues to wave its clout as IEEE does deserves to die out in infamy.

Nothing new, just cancel membership (1)

rgrimm (89215) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750448)

The IEEE-USA, i.e., the United States branch of the IEEE, has in the past lobbied against visas for high-tech workers. They seem to like rather reactionary policies. I long dropped my membership for that very reason. The ACM and USENIX are much better anyway.

Who writes that crap blog? (4, Informative)

tlambert (566799) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750496)

Who writes that crap blog?

Here is the actual IEEE press release:

http://www.ieeeusa.org/communications/releases/2010/062910.asp [ieeeusa.org]

They basically complain that there's still no clear litmus test for patentability because the decision was to vague on the definition of what constitutes "too abstract".

-- Terry

Re:Who writes that crap blog? (2, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750538)

Who writes that crap blog?

Renowned internet troll and FOSS FUDster Roy Schestowitz. His blog used be called BoycottNovell but he renamed it in a lame attempt to get people to forget that.

Thanks... (1)

tlambert (566799) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750928)

Thanks...

Guess we all just got trolled...

-- Terry

Re:Who writes that crap blog? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#32751116)

You're just jealous that he is a better troll than you.

Re:Who writes that crap blog? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32753506)

I'm jealous too.

- troll8901 (AC as I'm at work and don't want to log in)

On the other hand (3, Informative)

colinrichardday (768814) | about 4 years ago | (#32752292)

Here is the part that precedes your quote

"We are generally pleased that the Supreme Court did not introduce rules that would limit the scope of ideas available for patent protection in our current information age," IEEE-USA Intellectual Property Committee Chair Keith Grzelak said.

IEEE a friend of the individual engineer? (3, Informative)

ScientiaPotentiaEst (1635927) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750550)

Like so many large established organizations, the IEEE seemingly no longer exists to represent their individual members - but more to increase the need for its own existence. Quite a few years ago, I wrote them to relinquish my membership. One particular objection I stated (among a couple of others) is their heavy promotion of professional certification (the exams of which they would administer, naturally).

It seems to me that they want to become a guild or "engineering bar association". Even were they to grandfather existing members, I oppose such additional gates. They are nothing but protectionist - increasing barriers to entry without adding much societal value. It is clear to me that their support of software patents continues this trend.

(PS: Lest it seem like I'm frightened of "missing the academic boat", I have a Master's degree in Computer Science with many supporting courses in Electrical Engineering and Space Dynamics - along with 30 years experience in developing e.g. guidance systems & firmware).

Re:IEEE a friend of the individual engineer? (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750602)

Thanks, you've given me some more fodder for my own cancellation letter.

Re:IEEE a friend of the individual engineer? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#32751552)

There already exists a system of professional licensing in the states. The IEEE doesn't have much to do with certification or licensing standards. Whether or not they want to get involved in this aea is an interesting question. A number of companies I've delt with tend to send their 'second string' engineers to IEEE conferences (they don't want competitors picking the brains of key people, let alone knowing who's working on what). The IEEE's membership standards aren't that great. And the state PE licensing boards know this.

How is this news for nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32750646)

How is this either news for nerds or stuff that matters? The source is a conspiracy theory site claiming that Microsoft influence in the IEEE is responsible for IEEE's being in favor of patents. Follow their link to their earlier Microsoft/IEEE story where they claim IEEE is helping "imprison young people". Look at the earlier blog entries there today, where it talks about how Microsoft has taken over running the school system in the US.

Or how about the rant there earlier today about Canada spending money to promote maternal health. They are against maternal health, because the Gates Foundation is for it. Therefore, spending on maternal health shows that Canada is under the influence of Gates.

Or yesterday, where Microsoft is teaming with Coca-Cola to destroy Africa. Go farther back and you'll find them claiming the Gates Foundation is running a eugenics program in Africa to weaken the brown races, so that the west can recolonize Africa. They claim Microsoft has editorial control over all mainstream media, and has control over the executive and legislative branches of several major world governments.

They are simply a classic conspiracy theory site, differing from the others only in that their conspiracies almost all involve Microsoft instead of the UN or secret societies (although they have made note of Microsoft people attending the Bilderberg meetings, and have said that Microsoft many UN organizations...)

There has never been ANYTHING on that site, in either its current form or under its old name (boycottnovell) that has simultaneously been truthful and not available from a better site.

PS: they have also noted the Slashdot consists mostly of Microsoft agents.

I never understood (1)

serbanp (139486) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750712)

what the heck IEEE has anything to do with software stuff. They should stick to circuits, devices, CAD and systems, where their strength really is. The Red/Yelllow/White and Violet Journals are still among the most prestigious publications in the electrical engineering field.

Patents as ex post facto (5, Informative)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750738)

I oppose patents, as currently implemented in the U.S., for the same reason I oppose our legal code: There are so many patents / laws, that no one can be confident that he's in full compliance.

This means that for all practical purposes, the patent system and the U.S. legal code are ex post facto systems: it's a big trap, just waiting for {well-funded patent attorney} / {prosecutor with an axe to grind} to come after you. In both systems this is compounded by the system permitting patent applications / laws to be so vaguely worded that they could easily cover implementations / situations never precisely anticipated by their author.

Also, in both systems, an innocent person can be bankrupted, or be forced to settle, simply because of the legal cost.

In summary, both of these systems are significant sources of injustice, enacted by a legislature with little self-control.

Re:Patents as ex post facto (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750814)

I oppose patents, as currently implemented in the U.S., for the same reason I oppose our legal code: There are so many patents / laws, that no one can be confident that he's in full compliance.

This means that for all practical purposes, the patent system and the U.S. legal code are ex post facto systems: it's a big trap, just waiting for {well-funded patent attorney} / {prosecutor with an axe to grind} to come after you.

That's not what "ex post facto" means. Furthermore, every patent is published, in a freely searchable database.

In summary, both of these systems are significant sources of injustice, enacted by a legislature with little self-control.

The first patent act was written in 1790, three years after the Constitution was written. I don't think it really departs from the founding father's intent, considering they were all involved in it. Thomas Jefferson was even the first patent examiner.

Re:Patents as ex post facto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32751098)

...Furthermore, every patent is published, in a freely searchable database...

Which you shouldn't search because if you are found to have done so and violated one or more, you are in for triple damages. The OP post has some serious merit, unfortunately. If the legal system was software, we'd be seriously overdue for a complete rewrite.

freely searchable database?... (4, Insightful)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 3 years ago | (#32751122)

As I understand it, there's someone saying there are so many patents / laws that no one can be sure not to break them; you're saying that everyone is free to read those patents / laws, so this is not an issue. I remember that some time ago there was a story about some contracts (some company and their customers) that were written so that normal people couldn't really read them, and a judge decided the contract was void because of this. And I don't see a reason why someone should own an idea, just because he had it first. so what? subsequent discoveries of the same idea are still because someone worked for it. Today you can't claim patents help because someone steals ideas to claim as their own; there's arxiv for proving that you did what you did. My personal belief is that we are passed the point in human history where the concept of "intellectual property" is of any use. The thing is that today, if someone proves their worth as an inventor / programmer / artist / whatever, they will most likely be able to find at least a decently paid job, if not grants or something similar. It might take time, it might be problematic, but the only stable solution to the fact that information is so cheap will be to give up the idea of ownership of information.

Re:Patents as ex post facto (3, Insightful)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 3 years ago | (#32751500)

every patent is published, in a freely searchable database.

But is the source code published? A searchable database doesn't mean much if the searcher can't see how something was done. If more than one person creates a product that does X but they do it in different ways, it's too bad for those who do not get to the patent office in tyme to file a patent.

The first patent act was written in 1790, three years after the Constitution was written. I don't think it really departs from the founding father's intent, considering they were all involved in it. Thomas Jefferson was even the first patent examiner.

Two things here. One is that even when Thomas Jefferson was patent examiner a working copy was required so that the average professional in the industry could duplicate what was being patented. I doubt the compleat source code for software patents is included though. And two, software already enjoys copyrights. And even those copyrights don't include the compleat source code. According to Copyright Witness [copyrightwitness.com] only the first 25 pages of source code is needed.

Falcon

Re:Patents as ex post facto (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 4 years ago | (#32752940)

But is the source code published? A searchable database doesn't mean much if the searcher can't see how something was done.

It's a pretty terrible programmer who thinks a flow chart is unclear, and needs source code to see how something was done. Why, it's almost as if they want to copy and paste that source code, rather than writing their own from the flow chart!
Wait, what's your point?

If more than one person creates a product that does X but they do it in different ways, it's too bad for those who do not get to the patent office in tyme to file a patent.

Oh... Your point is that if I invent a new way of doing X and I code it in C++, you should be able to copy it in C# and claim that you're not infringing, even though you only copied and pasted my source code into a compiler. Well, I can certainly understand how you might think that you've contributed to the state of the art. But people who've passed a programming class may disagree.

Two things here. One is that even when Thomas Jefferson was patent examiner a working copy was required so that the average professional in the industry could duplicate what was being patented.

No, a working copy was required to show that the inventor actually had possession of the invention. The requirement that "the average professional in the industry could duplicate what was being patented" is a completely different requirement. Specifically, you've outlined the distinction between 35 USC 112, first paragraph and 35 USC 112, second paragraph. Relaxing a requirement under the first that the inventor provide a model changes no requirements of the second.

I doubt the compleat source code for software patents is included though.

Yes. And personally, I would argue that someone who, given a comprehensive flow chart and explanation, can't implement the method described in the flow chart in any computing language they know is not actually one of "ordinary skill in the art". And if they're not skilled in the art, they really have no place criticizing patents in that art.

Troll (1)

falconwolf (725481) | about 4 years ago | (#32753402)

Troll

Falcon

Re:Patents as ex post facto (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32751250)

There are so many patents / laws, that no one can be confident that he's in full compliance. ...and the reason there are so many patents is because the idea of IP is fundamentally flawed.

The problem as I see it reduces to this:

The ultimate standard for a trivial extension to an existing idea is whether two individuals independently think of the extension.

This is almost always the case, so almost everything is trivial.

The reason why average joe programmer or small business runs into these practices is precisely because they independently arrive at the idea that's patented, and then later discover it's patented. In my mind, the fact that they could come to the same idea independently invalidates the patent as being trivial.

Wow, so how easy it is to see what has ... (1)

3seas (184403) | about 4 years ago | (#32751802)

... become of IEEE. I EEEEEE.

Then the IEEE can... (1)

Eth1csGrad1ent (1175557) | about 4 years ago | (#32752524)

.. get FUCKED! Because over the last 25 years, software patents have done nothing but FUCK this industry completey!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...