Concerning our aunt: she will be very pleased with Ubuntu, I’m sure. As a normal home user nowadays, you don’t need much more – she’s happy with her Mahjongg for herself and Planet Penguin Racer for some grand children. Never had a happier “customer” than her – which shows that Linux just works, no matter which age the “target” “customer” is. For her, she never asked for something else. And if that isn’t a success story on its own, then I dunno what would be.
Chumby runs a customized Linux distribution, and there are a few ways software developers can have some fun with Chumby from recompiling the kernel for added peripheral support to widget development (though Adobe Flash Lite 3.0 is used to deliver/develop widgets, Chumby has a list of open source Flash tools useful in widget development). And of course, since Chumby is open, there are projects in the works to offer alternative ways to interact with and control the device.
The Ubuntu 9.04 (codename Jaunty Jackalope) development will start in 4 days, on November 6th, and will conclude next year on April 23rd, with the final release. Make sure you check with our website, starting with November 20th when the first alpha will be released, as we will do a full coverage of the Ubuntu 9.04 development process.
Additionally, Isilon IQ, featuring its OneFS(R) operating system software, provides Complete Genomics’ massive Linux clustered compute farm with a centralized, near-line storage archive for immediate and reliable access to its DNA sequencing data.
Given the scale of the disadvantage already present, why would any player want to make their position worse? In the report of the interview the Commission representative says: “There are sufficient ways for companies and other organisations to protect their rights.” He may be right, but they aren’t being used by the FOSS community and the reason is that the abuse is too extensive for anyone to want to make the first move.
I’m delighted by the fact the new procurement guidelines exist, but personally I want to see direct action to establish them – it can’t be left up to those already disadvantaged. I wonder if anyone has the stomach for it?
Microsoft said in October that its “Troika” project, designed to ensure that competitors’ programs can run on its Windows operating system without glitches, won’t be ready until October 2006, nine months behind schedule.
Later came Vista, destroying compatibility, especially for third-party developers.
One memorable example of such technical sabotage is Microsoft’s action against DR-DOS, although ODF might be another example [1, 2, 3], perhaps even Exchange.
Remember Jonathan Zuck’s Association for Competitive Technology, which we reported to the FTC? Well, guess who will be a special guest in the continent where ACT does not even belong (although its offices are based where lobbyists and diplomats roam)?
“Didn’t the Commission promise to mitigate the issue of corporate control of governments, through lobbyists in particular?”According to this — a page that has just been torn down (Google cache here) — ACT will participate under a speaker’s position. It is listed under “Industry Representatives” as “Jonathan Zuck, President, ACT \ USA.” Zuck is also listed here as a moderator.
This is supposed to be a European conference, so why involve people who represent (and are funded by) foreign monopolists, who might deserve an embargo? Didn’t the Commission promise to mitigate the issue of corporate control of governments, through lobbyists in particular? █
Posted in Videos at 11:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Did you know that there are more than 34,750 registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C., for just 435 representatives and 100 senators? That’s 64 lobbyists for each congressperson.”
The ringleader of a group of four former Microsoft employees accused of stealing company software worth $7.1 million pleaded guilty yesterday to federal felony charges of conspiracy and money laundering.
Posted in IBM, Law, Patents at 9:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
IBM has just issued a formal response to re Bilski, whose outcome was discussed in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. It comes from Research, Development & Intellectual Property:
“IBM welcomes today’s en banc Federal Circuit decision in the In re Bilski case, as it excludes from patent eligibility business method inventions that are not tied to a machine or transformative of an article. The Federal Circuit’s “machine-or-transformation” test was a primary component of the test that IBM advocated in our amicus brief.
“The ruling applies a principled limitation on the scope of processes eligible for patent protection that should curtail the negative effects of the 1998 State Street decision. That ruling has been interpreted to expand patentable subject matter to include inchoate business methods. Patentability of such methods is contrary to the purpose of the patent laws, is not needed to encourage innovation, and results in an imbalance in the patent system.
“IBM commends the Federal Circuit for clarifying that the “useful, concrete, and tangible result” inquiry set forth in dicta in State Street is insufficient to determine whether a claim defines patent eligible subject matter. “
IBM is said to be responsible for this test, but it wants to eliminate business method patents while keeping software patents. IBM remains a pro-software patents company, so it’s time for a rethink. Can IBM become a friend of Free (libre) software? █
IS the Bilski ruling considered good news or bad news to Novell? Probably a bit of both.
Software patents may be dying, but much like the USPTO, there’s refusal to acknowledge such a thing at Novell. We have not found a formal response or statement from Novell (yet), but one of the key people (the most voted for) in OpenSUSE is not exactly optimistic.
software patents aren’t gone yet, not by any means, but the Bilski decision seems to at least discard the most ridiculous and invasive ones
we still have to see how that court decision translates into what the USPTO will grant as patents or not, as the fact that a patent should be granted or not doesn’t really relate to what patent offices actually grant (just think of what the EPO has been doing for years)
Whether intended or not, Pascal gives ammunition to those who will object to generalising the decision and fighting software patents.
While Pascal is right about some things, he ought to understand that patent lawyers will attack the decision and software patents are good for Novell, which keeps pursuing them.
Novell is using patents as a competitive tool to capture markets at the expense of companies like Red Hat and markets which require compatibility with Microsoft. █
IN previous posts about the re Bilski ruling [1, 2, 3], a cursory look at the ruling was all there was to be offered.
Now that people have taken a more careful look, discussion among experts leads to better assessment and understanding of the decision’s impact on both business methods and software patents. Are they doomed altogether? Which ones? Would they hold water in court? Will they still be possible to obtain? What happens to existing such patents which applicants spent enormous amounts of time and money on? What does this mean to companies whose patent portfolio is their main or only business? These are all interesting questions and a subject that will be debated for quite some time.
Courtesy of and thanks to the work of Digital Majority, here are some posts of interest.
The Federal Circuit has overruled State Street and software patents are no longer available as they have come to be available over the last 10 to 15 years.
Certainly we are not at the end of this, but for the first time in a long time advocates of software patents have been put on the defensive. This is really big.
Effect on Microsoft
Microsoft has for long relied on the last resort which is software patents. It also kept itself occupied trying to expand patentability of software to the many countries which reject them (e.g. India). The ruling regarding Bilski could , but as predicted some weeks ago by Stop Software Patents people, it’s sensible to expect pro-software patents lobbyists to strike back.
So, companies like Microsoft would have a lot to rue about as a huge portion of their patent portfolio has become circumspect. This not only would rob them of revenues in terms of royalties but would also open up a lot of space for competition as well. Special thanks to Red Hat to take up the fight and providing crucial data to the court to take this decision.
Much of the patent portfolio of some of the world’s biggest software companies has become worthless overnight, thanks to a ruling yesterday by the US patent court.
Another scary thing for those in Open Source would be patents. Honestly, thanks to the legal work done by so many in the FOSS world (big props to you guys), patents have more or less become a huge paper tiger. They still scare a lot of people, but in the end, all the saber rattling by the big boys (Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, Intel, etc, etc) have more or less rendered patents as nothing more than dead trees splattered with ink.
It’s not a full rejection of software or business model patents, but I think that’s for the best in the long run. It’s better to create proper overall rules, rather than trying to carve out exemptions and creating a patchwork of rules. However, I’m still worried about the loopholes, and how quickly lawyers with tons of patents seem ready to leap through those loopholes.
As a little bit of background and historical perspective:
During the 1990s, it handed down its Alappat and State Street decisions, which gave a green light to patents on software and business methods, two categories of innovation that had traditionally been regarded as ineligible for patent protection. Even as the evidence mounted earlier this decade that these patents were hindering, rather than promoting, technological innovation, the Federal Circuit showed no sign of backing down.
The decision (or clarification) which will come from EPO is important too [1, 2, 3, 4]. Suffice to say, as IPKat pointed out last week, this may have an impact on the UK as well (Nokia did some damage there [1, 2, 3]). In addition, re Bilski could affect the judgment of the EPO. █
“[The EPO] can’t distinguish between hardware and software so the patents get issued anyway”.”
Whether intended or not, Pascal gives ammunition to those who will object to generalising the decision and fighting software patents.
Content is available under CC-BY-SA