THOSE who want to get rid of software patents need not compromise at the level of accepting them as an interim solution just as activists against nuclear weapons must not encourage more nations to acquire or develop nuclear weapons as a "deterrent". The whole argument around deterrence is a weak one, it's propaganda. The opinions of the president of the FFII are quite similar to ours, unlike others in the FFII who adopt a more "diplomatic" (arguably cowardly) approach. This division within the FFII is a subject we alluded to before and it is not of much relevance to this post (see Andre's opening remarks in the video below for a better idea).
"There is not so much consent around the attitude of the OSI, the Linux Foundation, and OIN."In any event and at any rate, there seems to be growing popularity and intensity for the argument that we must get rid of all software patents. There is not so much consent around the attitude of the OSI, the Linux Foundation, and OIN. The president of the FFII points to this older post and notes that EPO Judges argued "[c]omputer-implemented inventions and their protection in the US and under the EPC was the next agenda point" (why do they discuss it in the first place?). He also links to this post and notes this patent: "Downloader: A computer that retrieves web pages and embedded objects from the internet. 6,864,904 "
Suffice to say, the cited item is a lawyers' blog, so it has nothing to do with technology. These people who are not engineers. They are in fact patent lawyers who sue for a living and extort using pieces of paper (patent watchtroll in this case), so they worship patents as a whole and also defend patent number 6,411,947. They insult those who actually write code and understand the subject matter (pun not intended). My critics too should know that I wrote about 3,000 lines of code last month.
The president of the FFII then addresses the Google situation, notably the Nortel bid, by saying:
it'd be better if Google were pouring that $900 million into lobbying to get rid of software patents altogether http://ur1.ca/3s2px
Nortel will pay Google $25 million in break up fees, and a further $4 million to cover expenses if another party wins the auction, Bloomberg reports. Bids will go up in increments of at least $5 million, and bidding has been pegged to hit a minimum of $1 billion.
Today: Texas Instruments intends to buy NatSemi for $6.5 billion. Plus: Watch out for email "phishing" schemes. And: Google (GOOG), Pandora, Silicon Valley tech stocks.
$6.5 billion NatSemi deal
Texas Instruments intends to buy Santa Clara chip giant National Semiconductor in a cash deal worth $25 a share, or $6.5 billion, the two companies announced this afternoon.
[...]
Google would be the "stalking horse" bid, but other companies also could make offers for the patents. Google is trying to buy the patents even as it argues for changes to the system, arguing that some software patents are stifling innovation rather than encouraging it.
Open source software licenses already offer university software creators an alternative to the university’s patent+license commercialization model. Open source hardware licenses are next. University intellectual property strategies will need to learn to peaceably learn to co-exist with open sourced hardware licenses. A centralized, enforcement-flavored intellectual property strategy is not going to work. Nor will university policies that blindly favor hardware patents at the expense of alternative methods of sharing design information.
Tentatively called The Trade Marketplace, this patent-pending software was recently revealed in beta form to a group of Cleveland-area job shop owners, who said they would welcome a convenient, time-efficient means to quote new business, especially one that spotlights their core competencies, reduces the expense of processing an RFQ or an RFP and increases the opportunity to win new business.
24C3: NO OOXML - A 12 euros campaign
Comments
markolopa
2011-04-06 15:05:32
I am from the FFII and your comments about a division within it sounds strange and puzzling to me. If there is an issue you want to discuss I suggest you to formulate it more clearly and openly. The way you did, it gives room to bad interpretations.
Thanks for the very informative blog! Marko
twitter
2011-04-06 17:36:53
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-04-06 18:30:30
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-04-06 18:28:35
The example I gave in the video is one which I merely see for the second time; back in 2008 and now again I find that Andre and Ben disagree/d about the No<OOXML campaign. In addition, there are constrictions found in the @xoobab account (president) and @ffii account (e.g. one agrees with me and retweets, the other says it's incorrect). That again is misalignment between Ben and Andre. Then there are older examples like http://techrights.org/2009/08/31/hijacked-by-large-corps/
No organisation -- unless it is tyrannical -- has one uniform view. IOW, this is fine.
a.rebentisch
2011-04-06 21:07:50
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-04-06 21:16:16
verofakto
2011-04-06 21:50:44
The same old story, except that this time you aimed the gun at yourself. Here's a hint: If you want to avoid upsetting people, don't insult them. That usually works.
a.rebentisch
2011-04-07 14:56:19
In terms of who speaks for what the generally accepted approach is to attribute things as they are. When I write in my private blog (or file a document access request) I do that on my own behalf. When an association where I am a board member adds spin and references to it via twitter is fine for me but it is just a referrer. If I want to make it a request of the org there would be a press release of the respective org.
Concerning Google I see no reason to smear the company. In fact Benjamin does not do that: http://twitter.com/zoobab/statuses/55273151675908096 He highlights that regulatory action is usually much cheaper than suffering the consequences. Tactically Google may take the appropriate decision: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/patents-and-innovation.html
Example for Dr. Schestowitz: Immediately an obese man has to be sent to hospital, his doctor finds. His complete blood count shows. A colleague of the doctor regrets "Malnutrition is a challenge of our society. Sports and carrots would be cheaper than hopitalization of obese persons".
twitter
2011-04-07 17:00:59
I hope that after some reflection, you will realize that Benjamin is correct and that no smear was intended. From your OOXML talk, you and Roy have a lot in common but you admit giving too much credit to big companies. It is disappointing, though not surprising, to see that you consider it a smear disagree with Google's decision to spend $900,000,000 on patents. This would only be a good tactical move if they are bidding to drive troll costs up rather than to purchase something that should be worthless. Even this is a long term defeat because it legitimizes software patents. As Microsoft partners who pay patent royalties for Android and GNU/Linux have already learned, there is no patent portfolio or royalty payment provides protection against the insane US patent system and abusers like Microsoft, MPEGLA and other proxies for big publishers and telcos. No matter who they pay or what they do, they find themselves embargoed, threatened and sued. I agree that Google deserves the benefit of the doubt but software patent purchases are a clear loser for Google and everyone else.
Thank you for your continued and courageous advocacy of software freedom.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-04-07 18:42:24
a.rebentisch
2011-04-07 20:49:37
Example: I do not find it wrong to make a fortune out of speculation against currencies and support regulatory reforms against abuses of the monetary system. It is impossible for me to find "hypocrisy" in that conduct.
That makes it an intellectual challenge for me to take such arguments seriously.
Fear mongering makes the spook. No one gets scared to use Android because of desperate attacks from market competitors: http://bit.ly/gIA5hP If Google buys out Nortel, its not their misconduct but shows the burden/costs of the current regulatory environment for them.
@Schestowitz: http://techrights.org/2011/04/02/transparency-triumph/
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-04-11 06:06:37
There is the spin which gets accentuated, but the claim is hinged on real hypocrisy.
twitter
2011-04-11 06:10:59
a.rebentisch
2011-04-07 21:24:06
Example: I do not find it wrong to make a fortune with speculation against currencies and support regulatory reforms against abuses of the monetary system. It is impossible for me to find "hypocrisy" in that conduct.
That makes it an intellectual challenge for me to take such arguments seriously.
Fear mongering makes the spook. No one gets scared to use Android because of desperate attacks from market competitors. If Google buys out Nortel, its not Google's misconduct but shows the burdens/costs of the current regulatory environment for them.
@Schestowitz:here