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 ×

88 comments

In Germany? (1)

Nuno Sa (1095047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707782)

What can the German court do?

Re:In Germany? (5, Insightful)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707822)

Give them crap in all of Europe? Note that the world is rather larger than the USA...

Re:In Germany? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34708424)

Give them crap in all of Europe?

Note that Europe is rather larger than the USA...

There, fixed that for you.

Re:In Germany? (2)

Fizzl (209397) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707828)

Are you implying some other countries court could do more?
File it in US and watch it unfurl in a torrent of doldrums in a matter of decades!

Or perhaps they just saw that they may be breaking German law in particular, I dunno...

Re:In Germany? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34709404)

Or perhaps they just saw that they may be breaking German law in particular, I dunno...

suing in Germany is faster and less expensive.
it happens quite often that a smaller company sues a larger company in Germany over patents. The larger company usually counter-sues in the US in the hopes that keeping both cases going would become too expensive for the smaller company.

Re:In Germany? (1)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707844)

Suse is a german company - so it can stop the sale of Suse.

Re:In Germany? (2)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707990)

SUSE is not a company anymore. It is a trademark.

Re:In Germany? (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34712062)

SuSE Linux GmbH is still a company, and it is not part of Novell Germany, but a separate corporate entity, while wholly owned by Novell Corp.

Re:In Germany? (3, Informative)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34708108)

Drag the entire EU with it? If you're going to try to get a government to investigate this stuff, the German government is probably the best place to start. One, because US courts, even if they could, aren't going to do shit. Two, because Germany, besides being an important and relatively large country in its own right, really is the big dog in the EU.

Re:In Germany? (3, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34709034)

What can the German court do?

It seems that the company that Microsoft, Apple, EMC and Oracle formed to buy these patents is registered in Germany.

Re:In Germany? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34710744)

Ah, you beat me to it. I would have said "here comes the knee jerk reaction of americans since this is not in the US".

What can the German court do? (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713246)

The company is registered in Germany and every business partner does business there too. So the question then becomes is CPTN or it's principals doing anything illegal there? That I don't know. But after investigating CPTN and this transaction if they decide there is a basis then charges can be filed in court.

Falcon

Uh oh (0)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707842)

So it begins. OSI is here, and soon Apple, Oracle, etc will merge with many others to form The Guild of Calamitous Intent. So where do I sign up? I wanna arch Richard Stallman!

Re:Uh oh (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707854)

So it begins. OSI is here, and soon Apple, Oracle, etc will merge with many others to form The Guild of Calamitous Intent. So where do I sign up? I wanna arch Richard Stallman!

And thus the final battle over the very existence of software patents began (!?)

Re:Uh oh (2)

Confusador (1783468) | more than 3 years ago | (#34708176)

Now that should have been the plot of the new Tron.

Re:Uh oh (1)

overlordofmu (1422163) | more than 3 years ago | (#34710290)

I thought both films were about the ideal of a free, flexible and open computer system versus the ideal of a totalitarian, inflexible and closed computer system.

So, this is what both Tron films were about. Apple, Microsoft and Oracle (corporations) play the role of CLU/MCP and we the individuals of the world (human beings) play the role of the relatively powerless programs that die on the grid as punishment for defiance (a metaphor for what happens when an individual attempts to confront a corporation in court).

I hope this doesn't depress you too much . . .

Re:Uh oh (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714826)

I thought both films were about the ideal of a free, flexible and open computer system versus the ideal of a totalitarian, inflexible and closed computer system.

Certainly the second one was; they even used the old "Information wants to be free" line. Of course there's an irony in Disney putting out such a film, but corporations don't mind being hypocritical if it makes them the money.

Possible Intern Job at Tech Web Site (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34707848)

I'm looking for hot geeky Emo boys interested in making a little money for not a whole lot of work... MUST be Emo.

Email me your height and weight.

James@DeveloperShed.com

Re:Possible Intern Job at Tech Web Site (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34707886)

I'm sorry, I should have also said, this work will involve a bit of modeling. Thin Emo boys preferred, no computer experience required. Sorry, but this project requires boys only, under 19 preferred.

James@DeveloperShed.com

Re:Possible Intern Job at Tech Web Site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34710250)

Emo boy here, 18, 5'9", 110 pounds, 7-inch uncut cock, shaved balls. No anal.

Ahem. (2, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707850)

"...is establishing a patent troll called CPTN to attack open source software..."

As they say in the fact verification industry, [citation needed].

Tech Intern Jobs (-1, Flamebait)

James.Payne (1967796) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707916)

I'm looking for hot geeky Emo boys interested in making a little money for not a whole lot of work... MUST be Emo. This position involves a bit of modeling. Candidates *MUST* be under 19. Email me your height and weight. James@DeveloperShed.com

Re:Tech Intern Jobs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34708038)

Will you touch my pee pee?

Re:Tech Intern Jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34710360)

You posted the other as AC, this one is not, can we assume this is your "coming out" or this was a big fail and you forgot to click the Post Anonymously button?

Re:Tech Intern Jobs (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34710702)

Brand new UID of almost 2 million. I'd say the answer is "none of the above"

Re:Ahem. (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707942)

The summary does not state that this is what the listed companies are doing; it states that this is what OSI is worried they're doing. It's a small but critical difference. And the linked OSI statement explains quite succinctly why they're worried about this.

You can quote anything out of context to make it sound ridiculous.

Re:Ahem. (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 3 years ago | (#34708314)

The summary does not state that this is what the listed companies are doing; it states that this is what OSI is worried they're doing. It's a small but critical difference. And the linked OSI statement explains quite succinctly why they're worried about this.

Except that it doesn't state any actual basis for worrying that the group would be used to "attack open source." And even then, that is not said in the linked article, you have to link back to the original statement from OSI to read anything about that - which raises the question; why did slashdot link to an intermediary, rather than the statement itself?

Re:Ahem. (1)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34712042)

Except that it doesn't state any actual basis for worrying that the group would be used to "attack open source."

A lack which hopefully will be rectified by the time the complaint is heard by the German competition authorities.

Bizarre as it may seem, I don't think the OSI are in any way obliged to submit their legal arguments to Slashdot in advance of a hearing.

Re:Ahem. (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#34709256)

"...is establishing a patent troll called CPTN to attack open source software..."

As they say in the fact verification industry, [citation needed].

And as we say in the conveniently truncated quotation industry - try again, troll.

Not a completely bad sign (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707856)

They were afraid of filesharers, so they started suing them, with predictable results.

Clearly "they" are now very afraid of open source--so we must be doing something right.

And I don't think they can win this battle, either.  If nothing else, have you noticed how common heterogeneous environments have become in the corporate world?  Nice job, my droogies!

Re:Not a completely bad sign (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 3 years ago | (#34708308)

What these type of agreements allow are for companies to get one license to use a number of patents. Generally companies contributing to the pool may get free access or cheaper access, but for companies not in the pool it allows you to buy a single license and continue about your business. It makes innovation and development of new products easier. The only pool I've every used is the H.264 pool from H.264. If we had to go through and license all those patents it would have been nearly impossible for a company our size to do.

But not all of those companies on that list are anti-opensource. Microsoft has been. EMC, I'm not really sure about. Oracle may not develop a lot of opensource stuff, but they certainly use it where it benefits, but Apple? I'd hardly call Apple "anti-opensource". They may not pass the purity test for the True Believers of the Church of Stallman, but let's take a look here...

Apple bought and now maintains CUPS. And I remember the nightmare of *iux printing before CUPS.
Apple created Webkit and has kept it opensource. The core is LGPL, the rest is BSD. I'd hardly call that "closed source".

And then look at the vast amount of stuff available under APSL, which is OSI approved:

http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1065/ [apple.com]

Re:Not a completely bad sign (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713038)

Apple did not create webkit, webkit is a derivative of KHTML.

Re:Not a completely bad sign (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 3 years ago | (#34718858)

It makes innovation and development of new products easier.

Patent pools are not needed for that. Abolishing patents will do more to spur innovation, research, and development.

Falcon

Re:Not a completely bad sign (1)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715828)

They were afraid of filesharers, so they started suing them, with predictable results. Clearly "they" are now very afraid of open source--so we must be doing something right.

So "you" sue "them" because that's what "they" do?

Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the US (3, Interesting)

masdog (794316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707874)

IANAL, but seeing as how the CPTN combines the patent portfolios four of the largest and most litigious technology firms and appears to exist to exclude certain competition from the market by using intellectual property, couldn't they be charged with a Section 1 violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act for operating as a cartel?

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34707908)

That's adorably naive.

In America, the Sherman Antitrust Act is a legal artifact, like "Common Law" and sodomy legislation. While technically still legal precedent, ever since the second revolutionary war(the invisible one) America has all but stopped enforcing such barbaric refuges of bigotry(anti-corporate discrimination).

I for one welcome our new corporate overlords.

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (3, Insightful)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707950)

That's adorably naive.

In America, the Sherman Antitrust Act is a legal artifact, like "Common Law" and sodomy legislation. While technically still legal precedent, ever since the second revolutionary war(the invisible one) America has all but stopped enforcing such barbaric refuges of bigotry(anti-corporate discrimination).

I for one welcome our new corporate overlords.

I, for one, do not welcome them. And I think you might not either if you have your wish -- your comment is adorably naive. These corporate overlords do not care about personal loss or gain. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about humanity. They do not care about learning nor innovation. They do not care about you. The only thing they care about is their bottom line, extracting fortune and knowledge from the "commoners", stifling innovation, controlling what you think, and controlling how and where you spend your money. I, for one, eagerly anticipate the downfall of the United States of America not because I hate the people but because the people no long have freedom -- you have given it away to a government that is controlled by your corporate overlords and no longer cares about the people. Fortunately the economy of the USA seems to be supporting freedom indirectly by slowly and agonisingly collapsing. Keep your corporate overlords.

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (4, Informative)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#34708072)

The concept of sarcasm is lost on you, isn't it?

You also might want to Google for phrases of the form "I for one welcome our new ___ overlords." That would be a start.

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (1)

plankrwf (929870) | more than 3 years ago | (#34708216)

Better yet, make that:

I for one welcome our new site:Slashdot.org

That should really do it ;-0

Kind regards,

Roel

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (2)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 3 years ago | (#34708752)

The concept of sarcasm is lost on you, isn't it?

You also might want to Google for phrases of the form "I for one welcome our new ___ overlords." That would be a start.

I've spent the last hour googling "I for one welcome our new ___ overlords" and can say with conviction that the most disturbing are the tentacle photos.

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34708874)

Holy crap. I've heard of "You must be new here," but the GP... must really be new here.

Hey, Psychotria, up there in the comment thread! How do you get your UID to look like that?

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713440)

Psychotria is a karma whore and repeated the GP but left out the sarcasm to appear original.

And the mods fell for it.

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (3, Interesting)

masdog (794316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707984)

Poe's Law for the win.

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (1)

protektor (63514) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713698)

Well I would say that Microsoft would disagree with you to a certain extent. They were convicted of being a monopoly but managed to lobby, buy, campaign contributions their way out of a serious punishment but they were indeed convicted of being a monopoly and illegally leveraging that. So I would say the anti-trust act is still used, but some of the teeth may have been removed by the political process.

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (1)

emaname (1014225) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707978)

Not with more Republican influence entering the Washington mix.

BTW, I used to consider myself a Republican. Now I refer to myself as an independent conservative. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are owned. They will do whatever their corporate masters tell them to do. That's how the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed and that worked out really well (eg, banks merging with insurance companies and investment houses).

We can forget about any chance of any anti-trust action ever happening again.

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34708052)

sounds socialist to me

what we need in this country is more jobs and less regulation/encumbrances on corporations

the sherman act sounds quaint and out of touch with the new economic dynamic, I hardly think we should be enforcing such antiquated laws

- JP

oh yeah (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34708230)

sounds socialist to you. what you need is more 'jobs' (somehow, NEVER come) and 'less regulation/encumberances on corporations', which were there in the last decades.

and now we have a global credit SCAM, from which finance may never recover. there are even 'less jobs', because it is much easier to make money over money and (investment tools). and the top 7% of your society has 72% of everything (including income) whereas bottom 80% has to do with 15%

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html [ucsc.edu]

the bullshit you propose, does NOT work. thats that.

Re:oh yeah (1)

protektor (63514) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713844)

We need totally free markets. We need less government regulations which create artificial barriers to new players in the markets. We need less government incentives that prop up companies with bad business models and give unfair advantages to some corporations. We need to keep monopolies under control. We need to allow any business to fail that screws up and makes stupid decisions and not bail them out. We need the government to stop giving monopolies to companies and protecting companies with laws just for the select few.

We need corporations to completely disclose all risks associated with the their products and clear disclosure of the exact cost of their product. This will allow consumers to make informed decisions about how much risk they are willing to take and at what price.

We need the government to get the hell out of the way and let companies compete on level playing fields. True free markets have created more wealth and more jobs than any other form of government/society in the past. Is it perfect? Maybe not but its the best system we currently have world wide. What we have now isn't totally free markets, we have serious barriers to entry and corporations pulling all kinds of dirty tricks to knock out competitors or startups that try to compete against them.

We have a serious case of corporatism in the US, and that is the major problem. Corporations should have be able to have any influence over the laws in this country or be able to write their own bills then try and get someone in Congress to get them passed. We the people have allowed this to go on for too long and we never learn that we aren't voting change in to Congress. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are arms of the same house, both love to spend and do favors for corporations. The only difference is what they love to spend money on. Both grab us much power from the people as they can possibly grab, and they have become drunk on that power. Federal government was never designed to be this big monster. It was to do a few limited things and stay the hell out of the state and people's lives for the most part. The closer a government body is to you the more power it should have. Not some bureaucracy hundreds of miles away telling people what to do.

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34709036)

Yea, like the Reagan administration said, "Monopolies are a good thing, because they competition alive."

With corps getting the less regulations/encumbrances already, the first thing they did was to bring back slavery in the latest form, overseas labor.
Overseas, they can pollute the air, land and water. They can work the locals 6-7 days a week, 10-12 hour days with no overtime.

When they can get their products built for a 1/10 of what it costs in the US, the jobs are never coming back, get used to it.

If you want the US to be a third world country, keep telling yourself, "We need less regulations/encumbrances on corporations.

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713498)

Yea, like the Reagan administration said, "Monopolies are a good thing, because they competition alive."

citation?

I tried to google it and got "no results found"

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Monopolies+are+a+good+thing%2C+because+they+competition+alive.%22 [google.com]

When you start your post with inaccurate information, it really clouds the rest of your post.

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34709818)

More jobs?? FFS, One (steve) jobs is not enough for you fanbois????

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34709828)

sounds socialist to me

what we need in this country is more jobs and less regulation/encumbrances on corporations

You must be very young to believe in the total nonsense of "less corp regulation" in the face of overwhelming evidence that corps are utterly sociopathic. They are sociopathic not only by nature but by legal requirement, because for them profit is king and social responsibility is not.

And on top of that, your post isn't even consistent, since you say the country needs more jobs, while corps are in the business of shedding jobs wherever possible because employing people is expensive and detrimental to profit. And saying that we need more jobs yet using "sociolist" as a term of abuse isn't consistent either. You're really confused.

After a few decades of bitter experience, you'll see. Corps are the enemy, in a very major way.

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34711222)

Less regulation. Corporations are an artifact OF regulation. They're entirely created by legal fiat. A free market wouldn't have special dispensation given to corporations, nor treat them as legal entities with any special rights.

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34709086)

IANAL, but seeing as how the CPTN combines the patent portfolios four of the largest and most litigious technology firms and appears to exist to exclude certain competition from the market by using intellectual property, couldn't they be charged with a Section 1 violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act for operating as a cartel?

They can't, because apparently CPTN is a German company. Your idea that this company was set up to hurt Google is at this point pure supposition. At this time it is just as likely that we have here four companies who thought it would be cheaper to pay $450 million for a lot of patents, just $112.5 million each, rather than letting them fall into the hands of a patent troll who immediately runs to their favourite court in texas.

Since Novell was a company that was actually doing business, there is a good chance that say EMC's developers figured out long ago that EMC is infringing on a few of Novell's patents, while Novell is also infringing on a few of EMC's patent, so they had talks on some higher level and decided that between EMC and Novell, the cheapest way to proceed would be to just ignore this infringement. But whatever patent troll would buy the patents would _not_ be infringing on anyone else's patents because patent trolls don't produce anything, so EMC would now have to make sure these patents cannot be used against them. Apple, Oracle, Microsoft might be in the same boat.

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (1)

masdog (794316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714534)

You're right. It is pure supposition that CPTN would be set up to hurt Google. However, three of the four companies that are behind CPTN are engaged in lawsuits with Google or Google partners over Android.

However, the certain competition I was referring to was Linux and other open-source software like Postgres that competes directly with their product offerings.

Re:Wouldn't the Sherman AntiTrust Act apply in the (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725128)

As others indicated there is a jurisdiction issue with a German company
and the US Sherman AntiTrust Act.

The important bit I see is that these LARGE patent portfolio groups hides
the very real fact that many patents are obvious and should not be
granted a patent.

i.e. if a patent for smearing foo on vitrified pooh was developed independently
by two, three.... twenty companies the idea is most likely not worthy
of a patent. Perhaps more importantly if 90% of the companies involved
in the same business of "bar" encountered the same problem and clean room solved
it in the same way the patent is not valid because it is obvious.

The anti trust issue should not be lost because the massive size of some
companies so dominates an activity that even obvious solutions go
uncontested because the business practices so fully limit the market
that the number of engineering eyes looking at a problem is thus constrained.

An example is the large number of cell phone patent cases. The number
makes it obvious (to me) that when the only N (=small) companies building a
device discover that a patent is at issue -- the fact that near 100% of those in the business
stumbled on the same solution to the same problem define the idea as
an obvious solution and not a unique invention...

It is rare to see a long list of defendants in patent cases but a long list
where many clearly developed the solution independently is "proof"
that the idea is obvious. A long list may have a count of two when
the list of companies in the business is near two.

An interesting corner case is university based research where laws
protect the university while they research and tinker with technology
that would put "companies" in legal trouble.

Cross-Licensing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34707878)

This isn't about open v. closed source. To receive a patent you must publish the 'best method' of your invention. If you choose to include open-source, compilable code as part of your 'best method' then it will still be protected by a patent. Individuals or companies may choose to license or, in this case, cross-license their patents. Is the poster arguing we should eliminate the patent system? Or should we merely encrouch on the property rights of corporations because you've decided it is the benevolent thing to do?

Re:Cross-Licensing (5, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707926)

Is the poster arguing we should eliminate the patent system?

I don't know about original poster, but my argument would be on the line of eliminating patents for software. Copyright and trade-secret should be more than enough for software (even disregrading what the trademark can do: see the faec... errr.. pardon me... facebook I meant)

Unconstitutional (1)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 3 years ago | (#34708774)

I've brought this up before, and I'll say it again. Our current copyright and patent systems are unconstitutional. According to a strict reading of the constitution, congress only has the power to reserve rights when it promotes science and the useful arts.

I'm not opposed to the idea of copyright and patents for software, but they last way, way too long. They do more harm than good (to science and the useful arts), and that should be measurable.

(I'd post a longer screed, but it's too late at night as it is.)

Re:Unconstitutional (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34711822)

Lawrence Lessig argued this in front of SCOTUS, [wikipedia.org] and considers it his life's biggest defeat.

Re:Unconstitutional (1)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714046)

Interesting. It's not what I've read, but I haven't reviewed the actual case arguments. He well might have.

As I understand it, he argued that retroactive copyright extension was being used to circumvent the intent of the "limited times" language. I, on the other hand, am arguing that exclusivity is constitutionally subordinate to promoting progress. Any exclusivity must have a well reasoned basis to promote progress for the sciences and useful arts. Otherwise, congress has no such authority.

Some of my reply to this post [slashdot.org] is the same thing, phrased differently (and much harsher).

Re:Unconstitutional (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714450)

Lessig was, according to his book Free Culture [google.com] (if I remember it correctly) arguing also that copyright lengths were too long to fit the "limited times" the constitution set forth, and SCOTUS said that "limited" means whatever Congress says it means -- which of course makes anything and everything constitutional.

Re:Unconstitutional (1)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 3 years ago | (#34716858)

Hmmm. I wonder... I bet Congress could get away with passing indefinite limited use on the basis that it would eventually be curtailed. (and therefore limited, we just wouldn't know limited to what...)

Infinite is a tricky thing, especially in the legal sense. Somebody needs to teach SCOTUS some calculus. (rather: mathematical limits and infinite as covered in calculus)

Re:Unconstitutional (1)

protektor (63514) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714270)

The Supreme Court isn't infallible they are only humans and can make wrong decisions. The Supreme Court has made some bad decisions in my opinion. I personally think that many on the Supreme Court let their politics and personal feelings taint their judgment rather than ruling strictly based on the US Constitution. Our court systems have become screwy and, in my opinion, illegal. They are basically getting laws created by what is done in courts, and only the legislative branch is empowered to create new laws. The Supreme Court has done the exact same thing, and in several cases clearly ignored the Constitution and ruled for things that have taken our rights away. The whole process has become far too political and in many ways illegal.

Re:Unconstitutional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34715088)

...all we need is the NewYorkCountyLawyer Copyright Rescindment Act to be passed.

Re:Cross-Licensing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34714114)

see the faec... errr.. pardon me... facebook I meant)

You had it right the first time.

Re:Cross-Licensing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34707962)

Florian, is that you?

Re:Cross-Licensing (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34708820)

Is the poster arguing we should eliminate the patent system?

They definitely need to raise the bar on what's patentable.

By a couple of orders of magnitude.

Re:Cross-Licensing (1)

viralMeme (1461143) | more than 3 years ago | (#34709094)

"This isn't about open v. closed source" ..

It's about patenting algorithms, as in Amazon attempting to patent one-click buying, something a sane patent system should never allow. link [wikipedia.org]

They can make some powerfull enemies (3, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34708036)

IBM (yes they are a big patent troll) and Google have a large vested interest in open source software.

I can only imagine the deal with Sun and Oracle has already made IBM very nervous. It would bug me if I worked for them.

The second they start suing and filing injunctions to force us to buy their products you can bet they will fight back. Not to mention Mark Shuttleworth has invested hundreds of millions in Ubuntu and other products which would be killed by such an onslaught. He would probably contribute to such a cause and fight as well. It would be a legal war equivalent to World War I to say the least in the industry.

It would be very ineffective for the big boys to wage. Sure they would convince many fortunate 500 companies for an anti-gnu clauses but many would fight back. The extra revenue for those who are fall to the sight of lawyers will be much smaller than the legal costs to fight IBM, Google, Redhat, Rackspace, and whoever else all combined.

Re:They can make some powerfull enemies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34708126)

I don't get how we ended up here.

- Novell have been around for zonks. Whether you like their products or not they have a stack of patents covering a range of technologies including unix. They make a decent directory service that runs on linux, a collaborative messaging system, IDM, workstation/server management and a file system with some handy features. Bottom line - they may well have patents you don't want to in less benign hands.

- Novell have been up for sale for a while now, officially or otherwise. It's been all over town so no excuse for not knowing.

- Chances are that some of their patents could be used against the open source movement (or anyone else the patent holder doesn't happen to like).

So why haven't the likes of Google, IBM or Red Hat taken an interest in proceedings? I'd like to hope that they have a good knowledge of Novell's patent collection and genuinely don't rate it - the alternative isn't pretty..

Re:They can make some powerfull enemies (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | more than 3 years ago | (#34708336)

Please explain: Precisely how are IBM a big patent troll?

Re:They can make some powerfull enemies (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34710448)

Precisely because everybody, in this world and out need a patent agreement with IBM (that means giving them a percentage of your income, and free access to all of your patents) just because IBM has a generic patent that the Nazgul can convince a court that covers your work. On nearly on any high tech field, except from, maybe, software, where they don't seem to enforce that rule.

They are a patent troll, and a very sucessfull one.

Re:They can make some powerfull enemies (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | more than 3 years ago | (#34715168)

The problem with calling them a troll is that IBM actually carry out a significant amount of research, and also create products based on their research. IBM is behind real research that have created significant parts of what has made the IT industry successfull (like hard disks).
The fact that you will have to license patents from them is a just because they have made actual inventions, not because they have patented a lot of silly ideas, as many of the companies that caused the term to be creatred have done.

Look up the definition of a patent troll, and you will see that IBM does not fit the definition. And no, I do not have any relation to IBM.

Re:They can make some powerfull enemies (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721482)

Yep, they've made a lot of usefull inventions. They also have a lot of doubtfull patents that they use to troll busines that don't use their inventions. They half-fit the definition...

Sic stallman at them ! (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34708226)

and the other hairy guys. i remember how their witnessing/expert opinion (if i remember a linux trial) was instrumental in turning the case over long ago. they had had talked so down to earth, in so easy understandable terms that, jury had started their verdict with 'the hairy guys are right' and went on to deliver a blow to patent trolls.

Globalization (1)

ubersoldat2k7 (1557119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34708382)

I don't want to criticize on the US, but really, software patents are stupid as they are right now.

What pisses me off the most, is that as with pushing your so call "democracy" your government also tries to influence other countries into accepting this stupid IP laws (Fuck ACTA!), with the corporate giants kicking its ass into it. You have your laws, fine with it, leave other sovereign states handle their own and don't do the dirty job of your industry and for free.

Re:Globalization (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749476)

You say that as if most citizens support this kind of shit. Just FYI, we have a rogue government.

Microsoft, Apple, Oracle and EMC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34708430)

I guess that makes Microsoft, Apple, Oracle and EMC the Guild of Calamitous Intent?

unholy alliance of Microsoft, Apple? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34708830)

They worked together so well to kill avoiding per-font royalty payments.

Apple use Open Source (1)

Enrique1218 (603187) | more than 3 years ago | (#34709474)

Apple uses and contributes to Open Source software regularly. Many major components of Mac OS x and iOS are derived from open source. I seriously doubt that they are going to attack open source development. But, in this age of patent lawsuit, salvaging proprietary patents from defunct companies is just a part of doing business.

Re:Apple use Open Source (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#34710122)

That's what I was thinking too. EMC, Apple and Oracle/Sun all rely somehow on open source components for their OS or major components of it. I think the common thread is that they're all commonly sued by the likes of Paul Allen, Acacia and the Constellation group as well as companies that are going down and in last hopes try to monetize their patent base (Motorola, RIM, Nokia, SCO) and they need to use their own heaps of patents to defend against it. By combining these patents and signing a deal not to sue each other they can defend better against patent trolls as well as give the rest of the industry incentive to join them.

Sued by Acacia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34712402)

What? They're sued by a genus of shrubs and trees belonging to the subfamily Mimosoideae of the family Fabaceae, first described in Africa by the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus in 1773? (according to wikipedia)

Oscar & Steve, Inc (1)

crndg (1322641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34709940)

This would never happen if Oscar Goldman was still in charge.

This statement should also go to US authorities (1)

grandpa-geek (981017) | more than 3 years ago | (#34710002)

The statement that OSI sent to the German authorities should also go to the US Justice Department Antitrust Division and to the Federal Trade Commission. The placement of OSS-relevant patents in the hands of OSS opponents creates a serious concern.

Re:This statement should also go to US authorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34710880)

The statement that OSI sent to the German authorities should also go to the US Justice Department Antitrust Division, where it will get ignored and to the Federal Trade Commission, where they will initiate a discussion to propose a compromise that will enable them to create even better conditions for patent trolling. The placement of OSS-relevant patents in the hands of OSS opponents creates a serious concern.

Fixed it for you.

Authritarian Governance .... (1)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 3 years ago | (#34710256)

Authoritarian Governance is totalitarian, which is draconian.

Governance by US, EU, RU, CN citizens is democracy.

Governance of citizens is tyranny in the US, EU, RU, CN.

Governance of the many by the few (aristocracy, politicians, clergy) is plutocratic tyranny.

Governance of the many by institutions (C*Os, congress, RIAA) is oligarchic despotism.

The difference grows ever dimmer between US, EU, RU, CN governance.

Before the time of the next plutocratic or oligarchic dark-ages, one great thing is my old ass will be dead by a decade or more (I hope). I’ve got something positive to look forward too.

Oracles gain of Open Office - is a shitty. (1)

dogzdik (1700552) | more than 3 years ago | (#34719632)

Yeah Oracles gain of Open Office IS a shitty deal.... it's turned it into a faceless corporate shitbag piece of software, that is run by a faceless shitbag corporation.

.

Now there is Open Office - shitbag free basic version, AND (something like this) :

Open Office Small Office Home Office,

Open Office Professional and

Open Office Corporate....

And there is NO human contact in any of it......

It just smacks of being very antisocial and I for one was rather ambivalent about the Open Office Fork into Libre Office.....

But now I see how "corporately tactless and scumware mentality" Oracle has become and I now see them as a threat to Open Source, as much as Microsoft is to anything.....

Check for New 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...