×

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!

Comments

top

Ask Slashdot: Are You Apocalypse-Useful?

ciaran_o_riordan Designing models for 3D printers (733 comments)

Today's mass-scale manufacturing will collapse, and needs will change, so my bet is that it will be very useful to be the guy who can design models to be fed to 3D printers.

This is going to become a useful skill anyway in the next few decades, so it's not a bad investment for a hobby today.

Will lawyers be useful? (I know many slashdotters will laugh and say we'll be better off without them, but the new forms of society will need new rules and a new justice system - and programmers would do this as badly as lawyers would program.)

about a week ago
top

Research Suggests Pulling All-Nighters Can Cause Permanent Damage

ciaran_o_riordan Re:The blurb doesn't give enough for a discussion (144 comments)

Last I checked (a few years ago), the pretty much universally accepted theory of muscle growth is that muscle fibres suffer micro-tears during exercise, and these heal back slightly stronger than before. Bodybuilders inflict more micro-tears on their muscle fibres than other exercisers and then try to maximise nutrition, rest, and hormones afterwards to maximise the healing.

The observations might be valid in some sense (e.g. not incorrect) but it looks to me like an insignificant finding that's been dressed up to get press attention. I mean, I don't think anyone was under the impression that all-nighters were somehow good for you, or even neutral. A good question would be how much damage they do, and more importantly, what nutrition or what should be done before or after an all-nighter to reduce the negative effects.

This researcher's next shocking discovery will be that crossing the road carries a risk of death.

about 1 month ago
top

Research Suggests Pulling All-Nighters Can Cause Permanent Damage

ciaran_o_riordan Re:The blurb doesn't give enough for a discussion (144 comments)

I said muscles. You're talking about tendons. And your example is a corner case - most people who exercise never get tennis elbow. Even among those whose sport of choice is tennis!

about 1 month ago
top

Research Suggests Pulling All-Nighters Can Cause Permanent Damage

ciaran_o_riordan The blurb doesn't give enough for a discussion (144 comments)

> anything that takes a small toll, may become measurable
> in aggregate after a given number of occurrences.

I think that's overly vague. Us animals have very resilient bodies. Our muscles get damaged during exercise but years of hard exercise doesn't wear our muscles away.

The article itself (or at least the blurb) is sensationalist in its use of "brain damage".

If I never did any all nighters, ok, maybe I would have avoided some "measurable" but insignificantly small amount of damage, but I would have failed some important exams and missed some project deadlines.

Similarly, I won't be giving up drink just because some study says it's not good for the brain.

about 1 month ago
top

Open Source Initiative, Free Software Foundation Unite Against Software Patents

ciaran_o_riordan Re:both a misconception and irrelevant (105 comments)

> Narrowing what the Federal Circuit thinks is patentable, yes. Narrowing what the Supreme Court thinks is patentable, no.

The Supreme Court rarely narrows what it thinks. They look for ways to judge each case in a way that (they can claim) is consistent with prior rulings.

The Supreme Court had never ruled on the subject matter of Mayo or Myriad before. Until they rule on something, the patents are "valid" if the PTO grants them and if the courts uphold them. In those two cases, the Supreme Court's ruling means the PTO has to stop granting a certain category of patents, and the lower courts have to stop upholding them against product developers. That means patentable subject matter got narrowed.

about a month and a half ago
top

Open Source Initiative, Free Software Foundation Unite Against Software Patents

ciaran_o_riordan Re:both a misconception and irrelevant (105 comments)

> we can see pretty well which way they're leaning, based on Bilski and other cases.

If you check, you'll find that the last three subject matter cases taken by the Supreme Court have resulted in *narrowing* what is patentable.

The Mayo and Myriad cases narrowed subject matter very explicitly, and while I originally read Bilski was neutral, it did actually cause the CAFC to start rejecting certain types of previously-accepted patents, and Bilski is also the reason we're seeing this case today.

about 2 months ago
top

Open Source Initiative, Free Software Foundation Unite Against Software Patents

ciaran_o_riordan Re:both a misconception and irrelevant (105 comments)

> You can patent a new method for ranking relevant web pages in search results.

Well, no. That's only the patent office's point of view. We don't know what the Supreme Court thinks about this, and that's what this case is going to decide.

about 2 months ago
top

Woman Attacked In San Francisco Bar For Wearing Google Glass

ciaran_o_riordan Re:Not generally accepted!? Nope. (921 comments)

> I'd say that's pretty much the definition of generally accepted

Wearing Google Glass isn't common. I've never seen anyone wearing it. If I saw someone wearing it in a bar, I think I'd ask the barman to ask them to put it away or leave.

about 2 months ago
top

Woman Attacked In San Francisco Bar For Wearing Google Glass

ciaran_o_riordan p.s. (921 comments)

P.S. In that last sentence I meant "person" in the general sense, not specifically the person mentioned in this particular article. What I'm criticising is that the article portrays the behaviour of filming people without their consent as being perfectly fine, and that people who object just "don't understand". (Don't understand what??)

about 2 months ago
top

Woman Attacked In San Francisco Bar For Wearing Google Glass

ciaran_o_riordan I don't want people wearing Google Glass in bars (921 comments)

I wouldn't be aggressive, but I also think it's unacceptable that people film me constantly when I'm trying to relax. Especially in bars and similar places where I have high expectations of being away from the scrutiny of everyone but the people I've chosen to socialise with.

Pointing cameras at people (and optionally saying "I swear it's not recording"), in the form of phones or Glass or whatever, is simply a really anti-social thing to do.

So is aggression and theft, but one wrong doesn't mean we should turn the other person into a white knight as this article tries to do.

about 2 months ago
top

FLOSS Codecs Emerge Victorious In Wikimedia Vote

ciaran_o_riordan How it happened: very encouraging for anti-swpat (235 comments)

There was an initial surge of pro-mpeg votes by people connected to the WikiMedia Foundation and the technical team which would have been implementing it, then there were many days of mostly anti-mpeg voting when normal Wikipedia contributors heard about this idea.

As someone who has been campaigning for many years against software patents, it was very encouraging to see that the general Wikipedia populous (i.e. after the initial pro-mpeg surge from employees and pre-briefed technicians) was two-thirds against the use of patented formats.

about 2 months ago
top

FSF's Richard Stallman Calls LLVM a 'Terrible Setback'

ciaran_o_riordan Re:...but if you want free software to improve... (1098 comments)

> Since the programmer is a subset of the end-user and the
> programmer gets less freedom

Programmers get the same freedoms as normal users. Private modification isn't restricted by any free software licence.

The GPL puts extra requirements on distributors, and in particular distributors of modified versions. Someone who modifies and redistributes is not a mere end-user.

As I said, the users - the people who download and run the program - get the same freedoms. And this is also true for programmers who make private modifications.

about 3 months ago
top

FSF's Richard Stallman Calls LLVM a 'Terrible Setback'

ciaran_o_riordan Re:Yep (1098 comments)

> We don't "just sign it and scan it."

Then my delightful news for you is that not all contributions require assignment. FSF makes certain exceptions, including in cases where copyright assignment is not possible.

Some people's complaints about FSF should be taken with a pinch of salt.

about 3 months ago
top

FSF's Richard Stallman Calls LLVM a 'Terrible Setback'

ciaran_o_riordan Re:FSF are working on it; Scans accepted for US + (1098 comments)

> 20 years of GPL and legal advice is still coming in;

This has nothing to do with the GPL. You were talking about copyright assignment.

> therefor do not wonder that big non-profit academic organizations
> still consider GPL varieties "non-green" licenses:
> http://geant3.archive.geant.ne...

I've never heard of GEANT's software licence list. Since I've been working in the field for ten years, I can assure you it's not a reference. And if you read their document, you'll see it's based on an error. They classify just BSD, MIT, and Apache as "green" because they think that with every other licence "further authorisation is required". Nonsense. Somebody should contact them.

about 3 months ago
top

FSF's Richard Stallman Calls LLVM a 'Terrible Setback'

ciaran_o_riordan Re:NOW he realizes this? (1098 comments)

> The part where [GPLv3] doesn't allow them to distribute signed binaries

GPLv3 doesn't prohibit signed binaries.

What is it that you think Apple wanted to do, and you think is blocked by GPLv3?

about 3 months ago
top

FSF's Richard Stallman Calls LLVM a 'Terrible Setback'

ciaran_o_riordan Re:NOW he realizes this? (1098 comments)

> Apple simply couldn't fit gcc into their ecosystem anymore,
> what with the transition to GPLv3

What part of GPLv3 was a compiler problem for Apple?

> Stallman is an idiot. Remember the EGCS!

If he was an idiot, EGCS would today be a software package instead of a historical note.

about 3 months ago
top

FSF's Richard Stallman Calls LLVM a 'Terrible Setback'

ciaran_o_riordan LLVM funding model doesn't scale (1098 comments)

> undermine's Stallman's argument about corporations not supporting

The LLVM model for attracting funding doesn't scale, and it defeats itself in the long term.

LLVM are only getting funding because Apple wants to undermine GCC. Most projects can't be used in that way, so they can't be of any interest to the Apple category of funders. And Apple's interest in funding the free parts of LLVM will dry up as soon as they (if they ever) achieve the goal of undermining GCC. The LLVM licence allows Apple to switch to a proprietary approach whenever they want. (Although, in reality, they'll continue to contribute the non-flashy bits of code - the stuff they want other people to maintain for them.)

about 3 months ago
top

FSF's Richard Stallman Calls LLVM a 'Terrible Setback'

ciaran_o_riordan Re:NOW he realizes this? (1098 comments)

> feeding back their changes upstream, despite not having to.

For Apple's plan to work, yes, they have to. For the moment.

Taking users and developers away from GCC is main point, so they have to get FreeBSD to switch, and get some of the free software community to switch, etc.

The goal is not about having a great free software compiler. If that was the goal, they would have just continued with GCC.

And if Apple's funding was about helping free software, they would have funded development of something we didn't already have.

about 3 months ago
top

FSF's Richard Stallman Calls LLVM a 'Terrible Setback'

ciaran_o_riordan Re:It's about tactics: GPL helps free software (1098 comments)

> then LLVM would receive less contributions and GCC would reign supreme.

Except that Apple is funding LLVM. It suits their agenda, and their goal isn't to give a long and fruitful life to free software.

about 3 months ago

Submissions

top

MPAA joins W3C; bigger anti-DRM push needed

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  about 3 months ago

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes "The W3C has announced a new member: the MPAA. Oh. Which makes this a good time to see whatever happened to last Summer's campaign against DRM in HTML5. It's still there. W3C took a lot of criticism, but the plan hasn't changed. DRM ("Encrypted Media Extensions") was still there in the October 2013, and in the January 2014 drafts. Tim Berners-Lee is still defending DRM. For the technical details, there are many good pages. What's at stake? It'd be like Flash or Silverlight websites, but instead of being really hard to make free software viewers/browsers, it'll be almost impossible, not to mention possibly illegal in the many countries which prohibit "bypassing technical protection mechanisms". And our work to get governments to use open standards will end up used against us when free software can't tick all the boxes in a public tender that specifies a "W3C HTML5 based" DRM system. More pressure is needed. One very small act is to sign the no DRM in HTML5 petition. A good debate is: "What's more effective than a petition?" But please sign the petition first, then debate it. It's also worth considering giving to the annual appeal of FSF, the main organisation campaigning against this."
Link to Original Source
top

Patent suit leads to 500,000 annoyed software users

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  about 8 months ago

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes "A rare glimpse at the human harm of a software patent lawsuit: company receives 500,000 calls complaining about video quality after a video call system was forced to change to avoid a patent. That's a lot of people having a bad day. We don't usually hear these details because the court documents get ordered sealed and the lawyers only say what the companys' communication strategists allow. However, for VirnetX v. Apple, Jeff Lease decided to go the hearings, take notes, and give them to a journalist. While most coverage is focussing on the fines involved, doubling or halving Apple's fine would have a much smaller impact on your day than the removal of a feature from some software you like. Instead of letting the software patents debate be reduced to calls for sympathy for big companies getting fined, what other evidence is out there, like this story, for harm caused directly to software users?"
top

New Zealand draft patent law rewritten after Microsoft meeting

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  about a year and a half ago

ciaran_o_riordan writes "After two private meetings with Microsoft and IBM, New Zealand's proposed new patent legislation has been changed by "replacing an exclusion in clause 15(3A) (which relates to computer programs) with new clause 10A. Rather than excluding a computer program from being a patentable invention, new clause 10A clarifies that a computer program is not an invention for the purposes of the Bill". The difference is that the new 10A clause contains the "as such" loophole, the wording that is used by the European Patent Office to grant software patents. This is the same Patents Bill launched in 2009."
Link to Original Source
top

New Zealand patent legislation rewritten after Microsoft meeting

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  about a year and a half ago

ciaran_o_riordan writes "After two private meetings with Microsoft and IBM, New Zealand's proposed new patent legislation has been changed by "replacing an exclusion in clause 15(3A) (which relates to computer programs) with new clause 10A. Rather than excluding a computer program from being a patentable invention, new clause 10A clarifies that a computer program is not an invention for the purposes of the
Bill". This is the same Patents Bill launched in 2009."

Link to Original Source
top

GPL in German court over routers

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  more than 2 years ago

ciaran_o_riordan writes "Tomorrow, a German court will hear the case of AVM, a distributor of Linux-based routers, which seeks to block Cybits from distributing software that modifies the routers' software to add content filtering functionality. FSFE explains: "AVM justified its position using three arguments. First, they stated that their whole product software must be regarded as an entity under AVM copyright, and that this entity must not be modified. The position Mr Welte took was that the whole product software would in that case be a derivative work according to the GPL, and thus the whole product software should be licensed under the GNU GPL. AVM then switched to a second argument: that the software embedded on its DSL terminals consisted of several parts. According to Mr Welte, AVM could then not prohibit anyone from modifying or distributing the GPL licensed software parts. The final argument by AVM was that the software on their DSL terminals is a composition of several different programs, which, due to the creative process, would be a protected compilation and thus under the copyright of AVM and not affected by the copyleft of the GPL.""
Link to Original Source
top

FSF on how to chose a license

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  more than 2 years ago

ciaran_o_riordan writes "FSF have put together their license recommendations, beyond just their own licenses, for software, documentation, and other works: 'People often ask us what license we recommend they use for their project. We've written about this publicly before, but the information has been scattered around between different essays, FAQ entries, and license commentaries. This article collects all that information into a single source, to make it easier for people to follow and refer back to. The recommendations below are focused on licensing a work that you create — whether that's a modification of an existing work, or a new original work.'"
Link to Original Source
top

What uprisings teach about social networking

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  more than 3 years ago

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes "A transcript is online (audio: mirrors) of a recent talk where Eben Moglen explains how Egypt and Tunisia highlight the need for decentralized, user-controlled social networking.

we are watching political movements of enormous value, capable of transforming the lives of hundreds of millions of people, resting on a fragile basis, like, for example, the courage of Mr. Zuckerberg, or the willingness of Google to resist the state [...] they're depending for their political survival in their movements for freedom on technology we know is built to sell them out. [...] if we don’t help them, they’ll get hurt.

"

Link to Original Source
top

White House consults public on innovation

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  more than 3 years ago

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes "Ever wanted to tell Obama's policy advisers what you think of software patents? For this week only, the White Houses' policy advisors are taking input on the topic of innovation and the "digital highway". You can draft your responses on End Software Patents' wiki page, and you'll find info and arguments there too that might be useful. Getting a foothold for pushing software patent abolition in the USA is difficult, so let's make the most of this. A good submission has already been posted on Techdirt."
Link to Original Source
top

Canada's highest court to rule on business methods

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  more than 3 years ago

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes "After last month's unfortunate ruling by Canada's Federal Court that Amazon's 1-click shopping idea could be patented, the Commissioner of Patents and the Attorney General of Canada have filed notice to Amazon.com inc (respondent) that an "appeal will be heard by the [Federal Court of Appeal] at a time and place fixed by the Judicial Administrator", probably Ottawa. This case, called Canada's Bilski, has been in the works since Amazon filed their patent application all the way back in 1998. Just like Bilski, the object of this case is what subject matter is and isn't patentable — a question which will create crucial case law, making participation in this case important. Anyone looking for more background, particularly those interested in helping to prepare an amicus brief for this case, is welcome at ESP's wiki page."
Link to Original Source
top

Proposed Final ACTA Text Published

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  more than 3 years ago

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes "The US Trade Representative has published a text which, subject only to a last legal review, is proposed to be the final text of ACTA. The differences between this text and last month's, from the Tokyo round, are mostly cosmetic but there's an important positive change giving signatories the option of excluding patents from section 2. As for software patents, most harm has been avoided. If signatories make use of the section 2 exclusion option, there might be no harm at all. Lobbying for this will be important. Meanwhile, the many problems regarding Digital Restrictions Management, and the extra powers given to businesses to obtain personal and identifying information about accused copyright infringers "in the Digital Environment" are still there (mostly section 5). Earlier texts were much worse. The improvements in recent months are surely due to public outcry, leaving us indebted to the anonymous friends who scanned and leaked the various secret versions and the activists who made text versions and spread them across the Internet. There's a chance we can still influence the text in this legal review phase, but the bigger task ahead will be working on the national implementations. It's not yet clear what procedure the US will require for its own ratification."
Link to Original Source
top

USPTO decides to lower obviousness standards

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  more than 3 years ago

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes "Anyone who feels that patent quality is just far too high nowadays will be glad to hear that the USPTO has decided to ditch four of their seven tests for obviousness. Whereas the 2007 guidelines said that an idea is considered obvious if it consisted of "[predictable] variations [...] based on design incentives or other market forces" or if there was "Use of a known technique [prior art] to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way", the new guidelines do away with those tests. The classic "teaching-suggestion-motivation" test is still there, with two others. For software developers, silly patents are not the main problem, but they certainly aggravate the matter. As described in one patent lawyer's summary, this change will "give applicants greater opportunities to obtain allowance of claims.""
Link to Original Source
top

Canada to grant Amazon's 1-click patent

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  more than 3 years ago

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes "More than twelve years after filing its application, Amazon is going to get it's one-click shopping patent in Canada. The application was shot down in court last year because of Canada's "tradition" of excluding business methods from patentability. However, on appeal, a higher court has ruled that this tradition doesn't exist and the patent's subject matter is valid. The patent office still has to re-examine the application, but given that it's been already approved as novel and non-obvious, and it has now been ruled to be patentable subject matter, the approval is just a formality. A bad decision for software and web developers in Canada."
Link to Original Source
top

Gemalto joins phone patent fray

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  more than 3 years ago

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes "Confirming that "doing X on a phone" is the new "doing X on a computer", the mess of phone patent litigation just continues to expand. The lasted suit is from Gemalto, who have just announced filing a suit against Google, HTC, Samsung, and Motorola. Having all these legal fees filtering down to users is bad enough, but the real casualty here is phone user who adds some functionality. When all the litigation settles down, we'll be left with a dozen bruised companies who've paid dearly to stay in the game, and they won't be too keen on letting newcomers get in without paying the same. That's how megacorp patent suits affect individuals."
Link to Original Source
top

USPTO considers Bilski and software patents

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  more than 3 years ago

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes "A month after the Supreme court rejected Bilski, the USPTO published updated Interim Guidance (pdf) and called for comment. Bilski wasn't as wide-reaching a ruling as most parties thought it would be, so a certain amount of textual digging is needed to find the aspects that can help us reduce software patenting at the USPTO and in future court cases. The End Software Patents campaign sent some such comments. FSF also published a call for participation and got cc'd on over 450 responses. When these comments are published on uspto.gov, and when the USPTO publishes its revised guidelines, we'll have a conservative idea of what effects Bilski will have."
top

Big endorsements for free software

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  more than 3 years ago

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes "A new section of fsf.org has attracted big endorsements for free software: Who's using free software? The first high profile testimonies are from CERN, NYSE, US Dept. of Defense, European Commission, and Wikipedia. The theme is to prove that "the answer to the question, 'can my educational institution, my business, my government or the non-profit I support use free software?' It's a resounding yes!""
Link to Original Source
top

Supreme's throw out Bilski patent

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  more than 3 years ago

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes "The US Supreme Court has finally decided the Bilski case! We've known that Bilski's patent would get thrown out; that was clear from the open mockery from the judges during last November's hearing. The big question is, since rejecting a particular patent requries providing a general test and explaining why this patent fails that test, how broad will their test be? Will it try to kill the plague of software patents? and is their test designed well enough to stand up to the army of patent lawyers who'll be making a science (and a career) of minimising and circumventing it? The judges have created a new test, so this will take some reading before any degree of victory can be declared. The important part is pages 5-16 of the PDF, which is the majority opinion. The End Software Patents campaign is already analysing the decision, and collecting other analyses. Some background is available at Late-comers guide: What is Bilski anyway?."
Link to Original Source
top

New Zealand u-turns, will grant software patents

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  more than 3 years ago

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes "Due to lobbying by a group called NZICT, New Zealand's parliament is now set to let go of its proposal to ban software patents. Patent attorney Steven Lundberg announced the details in a blog entry. This was quickly deleted, but not before it got stored in Google cache. Here we can read that "Hon Simon Power has asked MED [Ministry of Economic Development] to work with the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office to redraft the section along the lines of the European Patent Convention." Which is exactly the opposite of March's announcement that "computer software should be excluded from patent protection as software patents can stifle innovation and competition, and can be granted for trivial or existing techniques" The background to this case gives every reason to be hopeful, if computer users in New Zealand get active again."
Link to Original Source
top

Venture capitalists lobby against software patents

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  more than 3 years ago

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes "No matter which side the US Supreme Court's Bilski decision pleases, it will be just the beginning of the software patent debate in the USA — the other side will start a legislative battle. The lobbying has already begun with venture capitalist Brad Feld arguing against software patents, mailing a copy of Patent Absurdity to 200 patent policy setters. As Feld puts it, "Specifically, I'm hoping the film will bring you to an understanding of why patents on software are a massive tax on and retardant of innovation in the US." The patent lawyers and big patent holders often tell us that patents are needed to secure investment, so it's interesting to see now that venture capitalists are refuting that. And Brad Feld's not the only vocal one, there's a growing list."
Link to Original Source
top

EPO rejects own software patents review

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  more than 3 years ago

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes "For the past 19 months, the European Patent Office's highest board has been reviewing the legal validity of the software patents they grant. Many groups submitted amicus briefs in April 2009. The decision was announced today: we can't review that. The EPO's board ruled each of the four questions "inadmissible". They said they can only review the consistency of their granting, and they didn't find any significant inconsistencies. Their entire conclusion is "The referral of 22 October 2008 of points of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by the President of the EPO is inadmissible". Null and void, or spun another way, no change will result from this. Or, spun to another level, the EPO's astonishing press release: "EBoA confirms EPO approach to computer programs" — no mention of "inadmissible"."
Link to Original Source
top

Bilski, the movie: Patent Absurdity

ciaran_o_riordan ciaran_o_riordan writes  |  about 4 years ago

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes "With the Supreme Court still working on the Bilski ruling (due before the Summer break), FSF has published a film: Patent Absurdity: how software patents broke the system. Most players in the patents game have an interest in making it sound as complicated as possible. Using the Bilski case as a backdrop, independent film-maker Luca Lucarini explains the situation for a general audience and looks at the series of court cases that dumped software and business method patents on us. The story is told through interviews with Dan Bricklin, Timothy B. Lee, Mark Webbink, Eben Moglen, Dan Ravicher and others. All video production done with free software, and there's a good symphonie at the end."
Link to Original Source

Journals

ciaran_o_riordan has no journal entries.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...