[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Just to add fuel to the fire. Look at this article.
http://www.computerworld.com/newsletter/0,4902,89146,00.html?nlid=PM
At 1:57 PM -0600 1/16/04, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Not a hobbyhorse, just a legitimate and well-informed
>opinion that comes down to we got ourselves into this
>mess and shouldn't be surprised if the old systems
>are creaking under the weight of our own relentless
>industriousness. What is really wanted is transparency
>for patent filings but if we insist on rewriting terms
>and claiming invention where pre-existing terms were
>precise for existing inventions, then let the bad times
>roll. The software industry must face up to the fact
>that it is feeding the wolf and the wolf circles and
>marks grounds where the feeding is good.
>
>1. Patents: The PTO is struggling, yes. The EOLAS case is
>a judge who's ruling is a follow on from that struggle.
>The judge said he thought this was a bad case but
>has to rule based on the law, not his opinions.
>
>2. Copyrights: Rights management is only getting harder and
>our industry is quickly creating and fielding
>technical solutions which actually may make the
>problem worse.
>
>http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue8_11/may/
>
>It's a typical Chinese finger puzzle; to get out
>of it, both sides have to push toward each other
>as has been shown by systems such as iTunes.
>
>Our Drag Drop and Go systems accelerate the
>problems. They increase the market for the
>code or the art but also increase the ease and
>frequency of theft, and that seems to make
>DRM the only way out, so it comes down to
>picking a DRM system that matches our own
>policy and will or means to enforce it.
>
>The Canadians seem to be making some progress
>on copyrights at least by taxing the sales of
>products such as MP3 players and creating a
>money pool to reward the content creators.
>How well that would go over in the US is
>anyone's guess (not well, I suspect) but
>worldwide, it isn't a solution so we are
>back to technical means, ie, DRM.
>
>I don't disagree that software patents are
>bad things. They are. So is the continual
>obsfuscation of invention by software engineers
>and standards wonks. If I am making your point for
>you, then good; we agree.
>
>len
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Frank [mailto:frank@therichards.org]
>Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 1:29 PM
>To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
>Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Judge rules in favor of Eolas
>
>
>On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 13:34, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>> I didn't say wholesale infringement. I said, ignoring
>> it altogether.
>
>I know you did. That's your current hobbyhorse, ridden in probably 25%
>of your posts. A few years ago your hobbyhorse was 'enclosure of the
>commons'. Patenting software is just such an enclosure. Why are you
>surprised that the folks who used that commons from 1946 till 1995 or so
>are resisting the bailiffs? If you're not surprised, you're being
>disingenuous.
>
>> It's ludicrous to shift all the blame
>> to the PTO when a judge is ruling.
>
>You asked and I quoted and answered a general question about the patent
>system. You don't get to jump back to the specific case just because you
>don't like my answer.
>
>
>> Now, is it the case
>> that the patents are hard to evaluate? Sure. If one
>> isn't an expert with thirty or forty years experience,
>> it is tough to read documents in which the same thing
>> has been expressed fifty different ways because not
>> only are the researchers unaware of each other, each
>> company or 'inventor' keeps making up terms and
>> applying them to their own work as if it were novel.
>>
>
>Hard or not, that is what the PTO is supposed to do. Whether they work
>for the citizens/taxpayers or for the inventors, they are supposed to
>make a reliable determination of whether or not something is a novel
>invention. If this has become too hard to be reasonably done, then it's
>time to consider returning the art and science of computer programming
>to the commons. [FWIW, I initially supported the idea of software
>patents. However the current situation is, to me, clearly worse than no
>patents at all. The public is paying, but the money is going to lawyers,
>not inventors, and potential inventors are much more afraid of being
>sued than they ever were of being stolen from.]
>
>
>> Quick Test:
>>
>> o What are inline links and what were they
>> called before that?
>>
>> o Is <a href="" an innovation as some seem
>> to claim from time to time?
>>
>> o Who is Truly Donnovan and why should a
>> patent examiner care?
>>
>> o Are stylesheets for markup a web innovation,
>> and if not, who first applied them to the
>> hypermedia field?
>>
>> What went around has come around.
>
>You're making my point for me.
>
>Frank
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
--
Don Bate | Specializing in Consulting and Mentoring in
Bate Consulting, Inc | Object-Oriented Technologies,
| Software Architecture, and Software Process
(972) 618-0208 voice
(972) 618-0216 fax
donbate@iadfw.net
|
