23-Apr-2024 20:56 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 155 items in your selection (but only 55 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 155]
[Web] SW Patents - Voting delayedANN.lu
Posted on 02-Sep-2003 08:53 GMT by Fabio Alemagna155 comments
View flat
View list

Since there's been already quite some talk about SW patents here, I'd thought I'd update you with the latest happenings: the protest has had success, the voting date has been postponed to some day during the last week of September!

ZDNet has an article about it.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 101 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 19:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 81 (Anonymous):
> Yes thanks, I have a brain

Then do youself a favour: use it, dig up the proper link by yourself instead of accusing me of "hiding" it, and then realize how wrong you are, all by yourself.

I confide in your intelligence, I'm sure you'll be able to do all that by yourself, without me doing it for you.

> - do you? Perhaps it is time you started using yours instead of simply
> insulting everyone who dares to disagree withyou?

I insulted you? I explicitely said you are very smart, and as such you should be able to do by yourself all the stuff you asked me to do. Since I *know* what I am talking about, I *know* that you didn't read the patent's text which you are accusing me of hiding, because I *read* it, I know what is written in it.


> f you used your brain then you would realise that you are barking up the wrong
> tree and there is nothing inherantly wrong with software patents (certainly
> not in the way you claim).

Right, ~250.000 people are all barking at the wrong tree, economists, lawyers and university professors included, and of course you are the only savvy one.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 102 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 20:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 101 (Fabio Alemagna):
If you are going to use the numbers claim, then approximately 5,999,750,000 people are NOT opposing software patents - you still want to boast abotu 250,000?

Dumbass.

I imagine you;d have had a great time with your logic during the second world war - "10,000,000 Nazis can't be wrong!"...
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 103 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 20:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 97 (3seas):
> There is a matter of the reason why to have a patent system in the first place, but time changes everything and computer in general are also helping to bring about such changes that will cause the outdating of the patent systme sooner.

That's an interesting thought but personally, I have come to exactly the opposite opinion (as in "this idea is getting better with time but let's forget about it now"):

In a volatile and rapidly developing scenario, like thirty+ years into using personal computers, patents have the benefit of protecting investments but a decidedly negative effect on free exchange of information and innovation. They also tend to benefit monopolies and thus favour an undesired market structure while the structure is still undecided (today, we have big companies as well as countless individual developers worldwide). But most importantly, they have potentially desasterous consequences for consumers because fundamental ideas and solutions are still out for grabs: A single company patenting the software equivalent of a wheel might stall progress for years in its area.

Fifteen or twenty years later, in a stabilized rather than volatile market, all "fundamental ideas" will be beyond patenting. At the same time, the relative cost of innovation will be higher because software will be more complex and thinking of new features will be more difficult. At that point patents have a decidedly positive effects: they don't run the danger of getting into the way of rapid initial progress, they enter into a market structure that has settled and they protect massive investments into non-trivial inventions.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 104 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 20:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 99 (Fabio Alemagna):
>I totally agree, that's bothering me to death.

*lol* that might be the plan :-)
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 105 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 20:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 102 (Anonymous):
> If you are going to use the numbers claim, then approximately 5,999,750,000
> people are NOT opposing software patents - you still want to boast abotu
> 250,000?

Not opposing doesn't mean being in favour. Have you asked all of them if they fancy SW patents? Of course not, you are just being smartass here.

> Dumbass.

Says who? What's your name? Name yourself, if you dare, and also put your email address up there. Until then, you'll just be an anonymous coward who doesn't stand up behind his own words.

> I imagine you;d have had a great time with your logic during the second world
> war - "10,000,000 Nazis can't be wrong!"...

Riiigh, great analogy.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 106 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 20:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 104 (Anonymous):
> *lol* that might be the plan :-)

Indeed, hadn't thought of that :) I better drop it here then, before's too late :)
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 107 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Phill on 02-Sep-2003 20:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 87 (Anonymous):
You've got to remember that when most people talk about Linux they are really talking about GNU. Call me a capatalist if you want, but I have major issues with the FSF. Yeah free stuff is nice, but if you can watch the movie antitrust without cringing everytime the characters go mad about "open source" then you have serious mental issues and need to be rid of the GPL curse.

Phill
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 108 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Phill on 02-Sep-2003 20:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 99 (Fabio Alemagna):
>> Samface, Fabio, could you (both) please stop the rather childish
>> i-said-you-said?

>I totally agree, that's bothering me to death. I'll let him believe whatever >he wants.

But not without getting the last word.

Phill
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 109 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 20:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 100 (Anonymous):
> Eolas has no patent on any "concepts". Because NOBODY does because you cannot patent a CONCEPT. They do, however, have pantents on METHODS and IMPLEMENATIONS.

Says whom, your inner voice? I don't want to be rude but your argumentation technique leaves a lot to be desired (No, the earth is NOT ROUND. I just KNOW!). As to your apparent inability to locate the patent yourself, it contrasts nicely with your claim that you've been through it, "many times" ;-)

Anyway, below you will find the broad-based Eolas patent, as filed with the US patent office. It patents the concept of "applets" in web pages. On your scale of nebulous, it would probably score a 10. I've cut it down to a few lines from the beginning. The full document covers nineteen pages (it's extremly generalized and presents every possible angle on applets and every possible scenario). Many examples are given to illustrate the patent, no implementation is contained in the patent. As mentioned before, this patent on the concept of "applets" in web browsers was contested before a judge and found to be valid. Appeal process is ongoing. The patent was filed 1995, with dates in the text going back to 1989, possibly the creation date.

--- cut ---

Title

Distributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document

Abstract

A system allowing a user of a browser program [...] to access and execute an embedded program object. The program object is embedded into a hypermedia document much like data objects. The user may select the program object from the screen. Once selected the program object executes on the user's (client) computer or may execute on a remote server or additional remote computers in a distributed processing arrangement. After launching the program object, the user is able to interact with the object as the invention provides for ongoing interprocess communication between the application object (program) and the browser program. [...many more pages]
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 110 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 20:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 102 (Anonymous):
> then approximately 5,999,750,000 people are NOT opposing software patents - you still want to boast about 250,000?

You think that five point nine billion people have filed patents? There truly is a comedian in you ;-)
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 111 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Phill on 02-Sep-2003 21:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 103 (Anonymous):
> A single company patenting the software equivalent of a wheel might stall progress for years in its area.

Or nobody might invent the wheel if they are scared they won't make enough money out of it. If a company really does invent something new then maybe they do have the right to make money out of it.

Don't forget you can't patent something that has already been demonstrated, whether it's patented or not. You can't just go around patenting things that have been around for years. In fact you currently can't patent something you invented yourself, if you discuss it with someone else before filling the patent.

Then of course, even if you are granted the patent. Time for a suprise.... it's completely worthless until you test it in court. However it's in nobodies interest to go to court, because you don't ever want one to be invalidated ( which happens quite a lot ). So all that happens is you then need to swap some patents with the other party and everyone is happy. If you have no patents then nobody will care about you anyway.

The best part about patents is you can use the information freely, as long as you don't intefere with the patent holders ability to make money from it.

Phill
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 112 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 21:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 111 (Phill):
>Or nobody might invent the wheel if they are scared they won't make enough money out of it. If a company really does invent something new then maybe they do have the right to make money out of it.

Of course "they" do have the right to make money and nobody is denying that. "They" are doing that right now rather nicely, don't they? By the way, that includes me, since I write software for a living and freelance. What helps us with respect to the financial side is good old copyright: I work two years on a piece of software, I have no problem with getting my reward for it. No patent needed, thank you very much. Applying for an EU patent would cost me in excess of 50,000 EUR (for eight countries). Now *that* would make my life rather unpleasant. As would make any patent claims from the rich guys whose patents accidentally end up to be relevantr for my software because I do not have a lawyer keeping tabs on new patents and warning me on potential infringements.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 113 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 21:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 108 (Phill):
> I totally agree, that's bothering me to death. I'll let him believe whatever >he
> wants.

> But not without getting the last word.

Last word on what? I was responding to that message.

Get a life, people, you seem to not have anything better to do but constantly complaining about useless things.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 114 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 21:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 111 (Phill):
>The best part about patents is you can use the information freely, as long as you don't intefere with the patent holders ability to make money from it.

It's a good point to have an institutionalized process of disclosure (easier to look things up, for example). But it's not a killing argument: I can license software and source code and protocols right now, providing the owner is willing to sell me a license. I'll even get an implementation which I do not necessarily get with patents. What patents add to that is that after a (long) time, patents enter into public domain. Unpatented content might just be lost or live forever undisclosed. That's nice but today's cutting-edge stuff might be yesterdays cold coffee on the day it finally enters public domain.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 115 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 02-Sep-2003 22:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 103 (Anonymous):
At the end of the nineteenth century responsible authorities wanted to close the United States patent office because obviously everything worth inventing already had been.

Eventually it will be closed but not because everything has been invented, but because the cost of figuring out something that is needed (necessity is the mother of invention) will be so low that the additional cost of getting a patent will outweight it's value.

A patent does not give someone the right to make something, but only the right to prevent another from making it for distrobution. However, in the fair use scope, it doesn't prevent an individual from making an invention someone else patented, for their own use. It only stops them from making the invention to sell to others and profit by sales and/or distribution

Knowledge begets knowledge so there will always be new things to create, and that is the nature of man, to build upon the values those before them created.

So the simpler things are to make, the easier it will be for the individual to make such for their own use. Software is made of what?
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 116 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by BrianK on 03-Sep-2003 02:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 97 (3seas):
I think is idea can relate to the speed of society.

For example: Economists argue about the effect of computers on industry. Such that due to computers the markets are more volatile. The highs are high for shorter period of time and the lows are low for a shorter period of time. However, the quantity of highs are more frequent and the quantity of lows are more frequent.

Another example: SARS, It appears this virus was tracked down in roughly a month from it's first effects. (Yeah that's not exact I'm sure someone has the exact timeing.) However, it can be argued that 5 years ago it would have taken 1-2 years to track down the exact cause of such a disease.

Thus, overall invention, markets, communication, and various aspects of society are moving at a faster pace in the 21st century then they were in the later half of the 20th century and certainly compared to the first half of the 20th century.

Patents are 'old' concept still a good idea. However, I'd argue that the duration of time for a patent is becoming prohibitive to R&D. If the patents were shorter companies would have more incentives to invent/discover new things, such as medicines. Because one main pill couldn't drive their business they'd have to broaden the markets.

Thus, I think patents should be kept around, don't really fit software as that is better off in copywrite area, but the length of a patent award should be reduced perhaps as much as by 50%.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 117 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 03-Sep-2003 03:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 86 (Bill Hoggett):
>Linux and Open Source did not come about as a result of people wanting to copy
>other people's work and make it available for free.

Don't mix Linux and the Open Source movement, you know better. Linus Torvalds did not invent the GPL, nor did I say such a thing. However, it is a *fact* that Linux was (and patially still is) initially a UNIX clone, are you saying that Linus Torvalds did it by mistake? I'm sorry but you can hardly deny that it was nothing but intentional which is all I ever claimed.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 118 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 03-Sep-2003 05:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 117 (samface):
Perhaps I should quote Linus himself (from http://ldp.darwinzone.com/linuxfocus/English/March1998/article27.html):

"I changed the Linux copyright license to be the GPL some time in the first half of 1992 (March or April, I think). Before that it had been a very strict license that essentially forbid any commercial distribution at all - mostly because I had hated the lack of a cheaply and easily available UNIX when I had looked for one a year before.."

I think this shows that I'm quite right on track when I said that Linux is about a free open source alternative to UNIX.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 119 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by m0ns00n on 03-Sep-2003 05:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (Anonymous):
Please... It clearly shows that half the people on this thread, like on many others, like to argue instead of discussing. Many people confuse these two words as well: argue, discuss

What I would suggest is to bare with them. They have probably learned what there is to learn, still sticking to their prestige. Honor was not laid behind in the middle ages ;) As said before, the war in Iraq, the cold war towards North Korea, etcetc is all possible because of these "honorable" and "worthy" foes who can't listen to a dialogue without thrusting into argument. I have seen this too much throughout the forums of the internet (ANN being one of the extremes :)

We better get user accounts on this site!
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 120 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by hammer on 03-Sep-2003 06:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (Anonymous):
> imagine Linux banned in the US - by falling victim to the monopoly of large
> companies. In other words, if the EU takes a stance against software patents
> now, I am hopeful that the US might be forced to compromise.
Lets keep things into perspective.

Governments are the ones who can issue a ban on imported products NOT Corporate entities. Secondly, banning Linux in the US wouldn't happen since it would hurt it's own dominant Linux distros e.g. "Red Hat**" (within enterprise market) and Lindows (e.g. Walmart cheapo PCs). I wouldn’t think that US GOV will shoot itself on the foot. The "Unbreakable Linux" Alliance* which involves 3 US top IT related companies i.e. DELL Corp, Red Hat and Oracle. Then you have SUN, IBM and HP (both are the major seller of Linux based systems). *Vertical Alliance.

**"United Linux" alliances is made up of a group of smaller Linux distros; to counter Red Hat’s(nearly M$ of Linux) increasingly dominance market position....
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 121 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 03-Sep-2003 06:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 118 (samface):
@samface

I think it shows you are prepared to quote out of context to support your lies.

Linux was never designed or intended as a free copy of UNIX. End of story.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 122 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by hammer on 03-Sep-2003 06:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 83 (Anonymous):
>Don't forget the part "in the US". Unlike copyright, patents have no value >and jurisdiction "outside". While that's an impressive 280+ million people,
(CUT)
Note the common market treaty within the North America continent (plus some South American nation(s) which I can't remember). Usually, within a free trade agreement the laws are harmonized (or progressively harmonized).

Australia (~20 million people) (by extension with NZ(~4 million people**) is in planning stage of joining the North American common market. **Via Australia/New Zealand’s CER (proto-EU common market clone treaty).
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 123 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 03-Sep-2003 07:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 121 (Bill Hoggett):
>Linux was never designed or intended as a free copy of UNIX.

Let me rephrase then: Because there was no cheap or easy available version of UNIX, Linus Torvalds created Linux and later released it under the GPL.

I think this complies rather fine with Linus own words, don't you think?
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 124 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Cluke on 03-Sep-2003 07:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 82 (Anonymous):
"Since you ask, I can think of at least 1 other way to implement such equivalent functionality (as far as the user is concerned) without violating Amazon's patent.

No, I am not going to disclose it to you. If you can't think of it, then it can't be "obvious""

Well, regardless of whatever brilliant roundabout scheme you have concocted to get around the use of cookies, the fact is that Amazon's method IS obvious, and they have still got a patent on it.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 125 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 03-Sep-2003 08:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 120 (hammer):
>>imagine Linux banned in the US
>Governments are the ones who can issue a ban on imported products NOT Corporate entities.

I wasn't using "ban" in that sense: the idea was that Linux might involuntary or intentionally infringe on US software patents. If the EU opposes software patents but the US enters into a race of ever-ongoing patenting, sooner rather than later Linux will be full of technologies that infringe on US patents (Linux is a product developed mostly outside the US). Since there is no individual owner of Linux with the intention and funds to enter into purchasing US patents, that would automatically lead to a ban of Linux in the US.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 126 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 03-Sep-2003 08:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 123 (samface):
@samface

> Let me rephrase then: Because there was no cheap or easy available
> version of UNIX, Linus Torvalds created Linux and later released
> it under the GPL.
>
> I think this complies rather fine with Linus own words, don't you think?

First, it's an oversimplification. Linus decided to try and write his own Unix-like system because he could not get enough access to his university's computer, which only supported 16 users at a time in those days, and commercial Unixes were far too expensive for a student to be able to afford. He then found Minix, a Unix-like OS written to teach OS design by studying the code, and the rest is history.

Second, it doesn't match up to your earlier accusation that Linux was written to provide unfair competition to Unix.

There's a big difference between writing something because you need it and writing something to deprive someone else of their hard earned income. You are lying in claiming that the latter is the motivation behind the whole Linux philosophy and typifies the Linux community attitude.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 127 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 03-Sep-2003 08:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 117 (samface):
>Don't mix Linux and the Open Source movement, you know better. Linus Torvalds did
> not invent the GPL, nor did I say such a thing. However, it is a *fact* that
> Linux was (and patially still is) initially a UNIX clone,

Sammy, there's no thing as an "unix clone", simply because every unix-like system just implements the same, *OPEN*, API: POSIX. The implementations differ, even greatly, among all those unix-like systems.

Or are you saying that by implementing a posix layer in AROS I am making it an unix clone and as such ripping off other people's work?

Sammy, it's clear, it should be ovbious to yourself as well, that you are talking of things which you have no knowledge about. Don't you think it would be better for you and your image if you at least did some research on the various things you talk about, before saying anything about them? You know, you don't have to argue *by force*.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 128 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 03-Sep-2003 08:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 127 (Fabio Alemagna):
Fabian, let me give you a lesson about POSIX (from http://www.pasc.org):

--- 8< ---

What is POSIX?

The IEEE POSIX Standards are all currently entitled
Information Technology --
Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX) --
Part xx: ....

The original, trial-use, standard published in 1986 was actually called IEEE-IX (IEEE's version of UNIX). However, this was rapidly changed to POSIX in time for the second printing (also in 1986).

The standard is heavily influenced by UNIX® -- and in the latest revision now merges with The Open Group's Base Specifications which comprise the core of the Single UNIX Specification -- in the mid eighties there was a plethora of UNIX operating systems, most of which had names ending in X (e.g. HPUX, AIX, PNX, Xenix, etc), and that certainly influenced the naming decision.

The following quote appears in the Introduction to POSIX.1: "The name POSIX was suggested by Richard Stallman. It is expected to be pronounced pahz-icks as in positive, not poh-six, or other variations. The pronounciation has been published in an attempt to promulgate a standardized way of referring to a standard operating system interface".

--- >8 ---

Let me pick out a highlight for you:

"The standard is heavily influenced by UNIX®"

What I meant by a UNIX clone is that it is UNIX compatible, kind of like AROS is to AmigaOS 3.x. So, wether Linux is a UNIX clone or not depends on how you define an OS clone. For the sake of sorting out our definitions of the terms used here, how do *you* define an OS clone? Perhaps I should have used the term UNIX derivate instead? But then, wouldn't that also make AROS an AmigaOS derivate rather than a clone?

Here's an interesting article for you to read: http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~echi/technolog/technolog.html
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 129 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Phill on 03-Sep-2003 09:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 113 (Fabio Alemagna):
>Last word on what? I was responding to that message.

The message was calling for you to stop, you used it as a way of putting in your final statement on the matter.

>Get a life, people, you seem to not have anything better to do but constantly
>complaining about useless things.

Are you complaining?

Phill
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 130 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Phill on 03-Sep-2003 09:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 120 (hammer):
>Secondly, banning Linux in the US wouldn't happen since it would hurt it's
>own dominant Linux distros

Microsoft have been pushing for Linux to be banned under the DMCA. They will probably succeed, if they can prove that Windows can stop piracy because of it's closed source nature. They'll need to stop normal users from writing software, but they don't seem to have a problem with that.

Phill
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 131 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Phill on 03-Sep-2003 10:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 130 (Phill):
Whether Linux was intended as a operating system for free loaders is irrelevent. It's the attitude of the users that makes it obvious they are only there for the free lunch. I don't have a problem with people like Linus that want to muck around writing an O/S clone, but the surrounding fan boys that can't see the big picture must make even Linus cringe.

It's a similar situation with the emulation scene, a number of high profile programmers resigned because they couldn't take the hero worship.

Phill
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 132 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 03-Sep-2003 10:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 131 (Phill):
> Whether Linux was intended as a operating system for free loaders is
> irrelevent. It's the attitude of the users that makes it obvious they
> are only there for the free lunch.

I wonder who is worse: the users who openly prefer free software or the pirates that make up the vast majority of Windows users, and for that matter the majority of Amiga users in its heyday.

In fact, I'd say most freeloaders much prefer Windows as there is so much more software for it, and they don't have to pay for it anyway.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 133 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 03-Sep-2003 10:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 128 (samface):
> Fabian,

My name is Fabio, not Fabian, please use my real name if you want to name me.

> let me give you a lesson about POSIX (from http://www.pasc.org):
> [...]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I know perfectly well what POSIX is, why it was born, what does it derive from and what it stands for. You didn't prove anything which contraddicts what I said.

But let me use one of your quotes to make you understand the situation better:

> The following quote appears in the Introduction to POSIX.1: "The name POSIX
> was suggested by Richard Stallman. It is expected to be pronounced pahz-icks
> as in positive, not poh-six, or other variations. The pronounciation has been
> published in an attempt to promulgate a standardized way of referring to a
> standard operating system interface".

And let me requote the relevant part: "promulgate a standardized way of referring to a standard operating system interface". Do you see there, "standard operating system interface"? POSIX is a _standard_, everyone can implement it wuthout fear of "ripping other people's work". Fact is, that _many_ OSs implement a POSIX interface, almost _every_ OS out there does it, windows included: are they all unix clones and rippers? You also seem to forget that there are other _3_ open source operating systems which are even _directly_ descendant of the original UNIX operating systems, namely OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD. Were they also born to rip other people's work?

Not to mention you didn't answer to my question about AROS: is AROS an unix rip off just because I'm implementing a posix layer?

> What I meant by a UNIX clone is that it is UNIX compatible, kind of like AROS
> is to AmigaOS 3.x.

Thus, by your reasoning, everything that is compatible with something is a rip off of the thing which it is compatible with? Interesting theory, which incidentally also makes it clear why you have the position you have about patents.

Well, whatever Sammy, there's no point in continuing this discussion.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 134 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 03-Sep-2003 11:01 GMT
Below is the URL to the web site of Arlene McCarthy, EU spokesperson for patents. She is strictly pro-patents according to a report by Heise (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-03.09.03-007/), and in the last days released a paper that is openly directed against open source groups and small companies (that are blamed by her for a disinformation campaign against patents). If you are against patents and care to make that clear, you can leave a message on that web site:

http://www.arlenemccarthy.labour.co.uk/
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 135 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 03-Sep-2003 11:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 133 (Fabio Alemagna):
???

I have no idea of what you are on about, but let me ask you this; where did I state that Linux was a "rip off"? Where did I state that POSIX was NOT a standard? All I ever said was that Linux is a UNIX clone, or a derivate if you like. I really don't see why you go on about the POSIX standard like it would somehow change this. Like I told you in my last post; POSIX is based on UNIX and Linux is an implementation of the POSIX standard. That makes Linux a UNIX compatible OS, which in my world means a clone, just like IBM-PC compatibles are referred to as IBM-PC clones. Does the fact that there is a PC hardware standard change the fact that they are IBM-PC clones? No.

BTW, POSIX is much more than just an application layer, simply implementing a POSIX compatible application layer would not make AROS a POSIX certified OS.

Now, can we please stop arguing over something I only said as an argument for not bringing this into the discussion to begin with?
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 136 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by BrianK on 03-Sep-2003 11:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 118 (samface):
Samface said
'Linux original goal was to copy the functionality of UNIX'

This is incorrect. Please read up on the history and creation of Linux.

'and release it as open source and for free, which is not very fair competition, IMO'

This is incorrect, also.


Samface you then go further to quote Linus about GPL. However, the quote is misplaced and out of context. It goes against your previous statement if taken in context and doesn't support your position.


I'll assume the 'best' and believe you've not read up on Linux and have a incorrect understanding on how the OS came to be and why.

Please read up on the history and creation of Linux.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 137 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by BrianK on 03-Sep-2003 12:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 123 (samface):
Samface wrote
'Let me rephrase then: Because there was no cheap or easy available version of UNIX, Linus Torvalds created Linux and later released it under the GPL.

I think this complies rather fine with Linus own words, don't you think?'


No I don't think it complies at all with Linus's own words...

"
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
Summary: small poll for my new operating system
Message-ID: <1991Aug25.205708.9541@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
Hello everybody out there using minix -
I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing
since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on
things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
(same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
among other things). I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40),and
things seem to work.This implies that I'll get something practical within a
few months, andI'd like to know what features most people would want. Any
suggestions are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)
Linus (torvalds@kruuna.helsinki.fi)
PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.
It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's
all I have :-(.
"

Linus has no statement of 'cheap or easy available version of UNIX' but a statement of a hobby project similar to MINIX. So, no your statement doesn't jive with Linus's own words.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 138 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 03-Sep-2003 12:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 136 (BrianK):
>Samface said
>'Linux original goal was to copy the functionality of UNIX'
>
>This is incorrect. Please read up on the history and creation of Linux.

I have. Linux is an implementation of the POSIX standard, which is very much based on UNIX, is it not? Furthermore, Linus Torvalds wrote Linux because there was no cheap and easy available version of UNIX that suited his needs, did he not?

>'and release it as open source and for free, which is not very fair
>competition, IMO'
>
>This is incorrect, also.

...because?

>Samface you then go further to quote Linus about GPL. However, the quote is
>misplaced and out of context. It goes against your previous statement if taken
>in context and doesn't support your position.

GPL? When did I talk about GPL? Please, tell me!

>I'll assume the 'best' and believe you've not read up on Linux and have a
>incorrect understanding on how the OS came to be and why.
>
>Please read up on the history and creation of Linux.

Or, maybe you could do your own homework. This beats any book you could ever find about Linux history:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~awb/linux.history.html
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 139 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 03-Sep-2003 12:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 137 (BrianK):
Minix is a UNIX clone and Linux is POSIX compliant. I really don't see why that quote would change anything.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 140 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 03-Sep-2003 12:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 139 (samface):
> Minix is a UNIX clone

Not at all. MINIX is just something similar to an unix, it's not unix at all, it barely implements a certain part of the API, adding its own to it.

> and Linux is POSIX compliant. I really don't see why that quote would change
> anything.

Linux is not POSIX compliant, linux has many things which conflict with POSIX, besides to be defined "POSIX compliant" you have to file a request to OpenGroup, pay for it and have them certify your OS.

In any case, you used the fact that linux looks like an unix in order to discredit linux and its users ("not fair competition"), not considering that there are tons of other OSs which do just the same.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 141 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by BrianK on 03-Sep-2003 12:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 138 (samface):
Samface said
'Linux original goal was to copy the functionality of UNIX'
which I replied 'This is incorrect. '

Samface countered with
'Linux is an implementation of the POSIX standard, which is very much based on UNIX, is it not?'
While Linux is an implementation of the POSIX standard doesn't support your statement that the 'original goal was to copy the functionality of UNIX'.

Samface then says
'Linus Torvalds wrote Linux because there was no cheap and easy available version of UNIX that suited his needs, did he not?'
I disagree. It appears he originally wrote Linux to be MINIX like, which is Unix like. But, instead he was doing this for it's educational value. Read up on the history of Linux your statements read that Linus wanted to make a free version of Unix for the world to use. That's the state today and not the original goal.

Samface wonders ..'GPL? When did I talk about GPL? Please, tell me!'

Samface did you not read your own post #118 or did someone spoof being you? It's clearly there in the link you provided and the quote from the link you are talking about the GPL. Not directly but indirectly as you use Linus statement about the GPL to help support your position. Example you quoted 'I changed the Linux copyright license to be the GPL some time in the first half ...' then go on to conclude from this '...Linux is about a free open source alternative to UNIX...' Thus, yes you do talk about the GPL as supporting your position.


Let me quote Linus - 'I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby'
This goes against Samface's statement of 'and release it as open source and for free, which is not very fair competition'. Linus didn't make this for competition. It was a hobby/educational project.

You, also, seem to think that POSIX compliance means Unix Clone. I've the POSIX extensions added into my Amiga does that make AmigaOS a Unix clone? No!
POSIX is the Portable Operating Systems Interface, while it began as an effort to promote applications across UNIX environments it can be implemented on non-Unix systems. AmigaOS, Windows, VMS, MPE, and CTOS are some examples. I think most people would agree that those systems with POSIX extensions are not UNIX Clones.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 142 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by BrianK on 03-Sep-2003 12:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 139 (samface):
Samface wrote -
'Minix is a UNIX clone and Linux is POSIX compliant. I really don't see why that quote would change anything'

No MINIX's original implementation it wasn't a UNIX clone as it's API's were different. It's become closer to a UNIX Clone over the years but in 1990 it wasn't.

Also, Linux isn't fully POSIX compliant it does however have many POSIX extensions. As do other OSes - CTOS, AmigaOS, Windows... Having POSIX extensions does not make an OS a Unix Clone.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 143 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 03-Sep-2003 13:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 138 (samface):
@samface

> Or, maybe you could do your own homework. This beats any book you could
> ever find about Linux history:
>
> http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~awb/linux.history.html

A few quotes from the newsgroup? Is that it??? No interviews or explanations from Linus himself? No background information? No research? Nothing about minix?

If everyone followed your example, the world would be filled with simpletons.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 144 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 03-Sep-2003 17:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 73 (Anonymous):
> I specifically give them credit for integrating HTML into the operating system,

Prior art - SmallTalk, Oberon and others, HTML as such is nothing special

> for embedded applications (formerly known as OLE, object linking and embedding),

Prior art - Again, SmallTalk and others

> for the Start menu,

Prior art - So they stole the apple menu, replaced the apple with a windows logo, added a "Start" text to the bitmap and placed it on the bottom of the screen instead of the top - no big deal.

> for the SDI/MDI window models,

Prior art - NeXTStep and several others, nothing new I guess

> for anchoring "things" in a unified file system (the desktop, the start menu, the network, the "my computer" etc.),

Prior art - NeXTStep, RiscOS, CDE etc etc etc

> for the hardware assistant and for setting a standard for development systems.

Prior art - NeXTStep etc etc

> Some other stuff was probably ripped off but is associated by me with Windows due to lack of education:

You dont say...

> context menus,

Lots of games had this long befor windows, and CAD programs, filemanagers etc

> rip-off-toolbars,

Dont quite remember when I first saw this, but it was indeed before win95, and I never liked it :)

> rip-off-containers,

Same as above

> animated user interface (animated menus, copying etc.),

Heh - IRIX anyone??
Also, old CDE with all gismo features turned on... *shrug*

> file links, etc.

Even amiga had file links _long_ before windows.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 145 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 03-Sep-2003 20:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 144 (Kolbjørn Barmen):
> Prior art - SmallTalk, Oberon and others, HTML as such is nothing special

It was not claimed that HTML is anything special. That point was that Windows allows the use of HTML templates to customize the appearance of the dektop and windows (active desktop, templates for folders). As to Oberon, I that an operating system? Haven't heard about it (only about the language Oberon).

>>for the SDI/MDI window models, for the SDI/MDI window models,
>Prior art - NeXTStep and several others, nothing new I guess

How can NextStep be prior art if it was released considerably later than Windows versions with MDI (Multiple Document Interface; windows of an application to be contained in a "root wondow")?

>> for anchoring "things" in a unified file system (the desktop, the start menu, the network, the "my computer" etc.),
> Prior art - NeXTStep, RiscOS, CDE etc etc etc

These operating systems have a file system that contains non-filesystem-entities such as the (start-)menu, the system configuration, etc?

> rip-off-toolbars: Dont quite remember when I first saw this, but it was indeed before win95

Sure, in Windows 3.x applications (Word etc.).

> even amiga had file links _long_ before windows.

Certainly, and Unix had them long before AmigaOS. I'm still giving Windows credit for bringing them to the attention of users in a graphical user interface with a suitable optical representation and extra features, such as the ability to link to entities other than files.

> Heh - IRIX anyone?? Also, old CDE with all gismo features turned on...

Hmm, you sure have seen a lot of computers. May I ask how old you are?

> Start menu: Prior art - So they stole the apple menu, replaced the apple with a windows logo, added a "Start" text to the bitmap and placed it on the bottom of the screen instead of the top - no big deal.

Placed on the bottom of the screen? It's draggable. There is obviously a bit more to it than what you have just described (like showing the running applications in the start bar or having the animated symbol tray or recognizing often-used applications or freshly installed applications or having multiple columns or having automatic grouping or having notification for new windows rather than taking away focus).
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 146 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by hammer on 04-Sep-2003 00:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 125 (Anonymous):
>I wasn't using "ban" in that sense: the idea was that Linux might involuntary >or intentionally infringe on US software patents.
One shouldn't cut-and-paste source codes nor looking at one...

>(Linux is a product developed mostly outside the US).
In SCO vs IBM case indicates otherwise in regards to Linux, i.e issues with IBM's Linux contributions (is it “clean copy” or not “clean copy”). IBM claims their Linux contribution is clean. The existence of Linux also benefits a large section of US originated companies(e.g. Red Hat, Lindows, Lycoris (aka Redmond Linux), Xandros OS (from Corel Linux))...

>Since there is no individual owner of Linux with the intention and funds to >enter into purchasing US patents, that would automatically lead to a ban of >Linux in the US.
Note that the open-sourced FreeBSD/NetBSD is US in origin. Via Netcraft’s statistics, BSD is the third most used Server OS for X86 HW.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 147 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by hammer on 04-Sep-2003 00:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 146 (hammer):
Minor Addendum...

>I wasn't using "ban" in that sense: the idea was that Linux might involuntary
>or intentionally infringe on US software patents.
One shouldn't cut-and-paste copyrighted source codes nor looking at one...

>(Linux is a product developed mostly outside the US).
In SCO vs IBM case indicates otherwise in regards to Linux, i.e issues with IBM's Linux contributions (is it “clean copy” or not “clean copy”). IBM claims their Linux contribution is clean. The existence of Linux also benefits a large section of US originated companies(e.g. IBM, Red Hat, Lindows, Lycoris (aka Redmond Linux), Xandros OS (from Corel Linux))...

>Since there is no individual owner of Linux with the intention and funds to >enter into purchasing US patents, that would automatically lead to a ban of >Linux in the US.
Note that the open-sourced FreeBSD/NetBSD is US in origin. Via Netcraft’s statistics, BSD is the third most used Server OS for X86 HW...
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 148 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 04-Sep-2003 10:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 146 (hammer):
>One shouldn't cut-and-paste source codes nor looking at one...

That's nonsense, a lot of source code is provided for re-use, like virtually the whole of Linux software (that's what "open source" means, get it?). As to violating patents, the US patent office has granted millions over millions of patents. I don't know the percentage of software patents but the chance is that if you write an application without looking ANYWHERE and cut-and-pasting NOTHING, you still violate patents. If not now, then in some years when more patents have accumulated and the treshold on what is patentable is not re-examined. To make matters really complicated, US patents apply to the US only and EU patents to the EU only: countries have their own patent offices and patents. You will not only have to be informed about the national patents, you will have to be a truly global thinker. If you still think that a developer can have a thourough overview of what is patented (and what not), then have your head examined.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 149 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 04-Sep-2003 10:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 147 (hammer):
> In SCO vs IBM

That case is a copyright case, not a patents case, so let's keep it out of this thread.

> Note that the open-sourced FreeBSD/NetBSD is US in origin

Well, Linux isn't. And key components are developed almost exclusively in Europe (for example, the highest percentage of developers of KDE is from Germany). Note that I'm quoting here from a recent study on Open Source software development, I have no Linux experience myself. That study came to the conclusion that enthusiasm for Open Source is most firmly rooted in Europe.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 150 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by BrianK on 04-Sep-2003 11:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 148 (Anonymous):
In the US you've violated a patent if the patent owner takes you to court and the court finds that you have accutally violated the patent.

Alternatively, a company could settle out of court for patent 'violation'. However, even in said settlements it is rare that the preceived violator agrees to fault.
Anonymous, there are 155 items in your selection (but only 55 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 155]
Back to Top