Comments on: Apple’s, Microsoft’s and the Gates Foundation’s Games with Intellectual Monopolies

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:44:53 +0000

Grab a permanent domain and cheap hosting with Webmail/POP3.

By: faltu

faltu — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:13:08 +0000

Hey guess what, I delete all my google analytic / adwords accounts today. Only thing that I am using is gmail.com. Do you guys know a free (gpl friendly) email provider ?

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:53:47 +0000

It may also result in less efficient solutions. Everyone loses.

By: Yuhong Bao

Yuhong Bao — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 02:19:27 +0000

MS was lucky that the hype lasted long enough to automatically bury this patch so they didn’t have to bury it themselves. This patch, which was posted about a day after the Hyper-V patch, is important because it shows that the MS FAT LFN patent still was a problem.

By: Yuhong Bao

Yuhong Bao — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 02:13:24 +0000

“the above is a waste of the W3C’s time. ”
Well, as long as software patents exists, they will need to be workaround if needed.

By: Yuhong Bao

Yuhong Bao — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 02:11:59 +0000

I posted a comment to this article as well, BTW:
http://passthesource.org.nz/2009/07/22/donating-code/

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:22:10 +0000

Yes, but so is copyright. But the scope of precise implementation (word by word, line by line) is different from organisation of processes/objects and mere ideas/thoughts/algorithms.

By: The Mad Hatter

The Mad Hatter — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:16:34 +0000

Both are Monopolization of though.

By: dyfet

dyfet — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:47:37 +0000

I agree with Roy. Software can already be constrained by trade secret law, by copyright, and by contract. Patents do not in any way somehow add the “benefit” of temporary artificial market constraints to “encourage” creativity because many such constraints already exist for software. This is of course before we consider equally valid points about software as expression and speech and math, none of which are ever valid for patenting.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:05:49 +0000

Let’s address the problem of software patents, where the innovative victim is Free software.

It’s easier to justify an end to monopolisation of mere thought, as opposed to physical objects (or assembly of them).

By: The Mad Hatter

The Mad Hatter — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:01:31 +0000

Roy,

The problem isn’t “Software Patents”, the problem is “Patents”.

Did you know that a patent was issued for a “waterproof grease fitting assembly” in which the only “Innovation” was that the grease fitting opening was facing down? This is typical of Patent systems worldwide. Large companies like this of course, because there is always something that they can use to sue a smaller, more innovative competitor.

And the smaller, more innovative, competitors get trashed. The Patent System is supposed to encourage innovation, and it has the opposite effect.