19-Apr-2024 01:03 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 62 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 62]
[Forum] Internet TV patentANN.lu
Posted on 17-Jul-2004 09:33 GMT by Amon_Re62 comments
View flat
View list
Yet another software patent that shouldn't have been granted :( See here
Internet TV patent : Comment 1 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 17-Jul-2004 10:14 GMT
Some of us have had "Internet TV" for years already, without any silly patent :)
Internet TV patent : Comment 2 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 17-Jul-2004 10:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Kolbjørn Barmen):
I just hope software patents won't come to Europe :(
Internet TV patent : Comment 3 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Neko on 17-Jul-2004 10:43 GMT
This patent is perfectly valid.

Show me an STB solution currently that has an internet-linked EPG.

As far as I know, TiVo is closest, but it downloads the EPG in a batch and
any "links" to extra data are handled internally, via contracts to get the
EPG information from TV suppliers, not via dynamic viewing of internet content.

Of course it doesn't stop ANY solution like this from being created in Europe.
That's the great thing about US patents :)

Neko
Internet TV patent : Comment 4 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 17-Jul-2004 10:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Neko):
> This patent is perfectly valid.

Legally, perhaps. Morally, ethically, economically (as in the big picture of things), certainly not.
Internet TV patent : Comment 5 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 17-Jul-2004 12:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Fabio Alemagna):
I agree totally with you Fabio for once :P
Internet TV patent : Comment 6 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Neko on 17-Jul-2004 12:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Fabio Alemagna):
Patents are legal documents. They don't have ethics :)

You should take it up with the publishers, rather than reeling against the
patent system itself. It's not up to the patent office to regulate the morals
of corporations.

Neko
Internet TV patent : Comment 7 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 17-Jul-2004 12:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Neko):
The whole idea of software patents is bad for innovation, but i forgot, your employer also has software patents, guess that explains your bias
Internet TV patent : Comment 8 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 17-Jul-2004 12:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Neko):
This is not the place to discuss such a matter and with such naive argumentations. You might want to document yourself a bit on the ongoing movement against SW patents in Europe and the reasoning behind it.

EOD.
Internet TV patent : Comment 9 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 17-Jul-2004 12:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (Fabio Alemagna):
Just for the uninformed: ffi.org
Internet TV patent : Comment 10 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 17-Jul-2004 12:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Amon_Re):
Crap, wrong link, this is the one i meant: eurolinux.org
Internet TV patent : Comment 11 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Toner on 17-Jul-2004 13:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Neko):
> Show me an STB solution currently that has an internet-linked EPG.

ATI's Media Center was around and I was trying to use it before this patent was filed (Windows crashed to much though), Home Media Networks Ltd.'s Showshifter was around before this patent was filed and heck, the date on my second license purchase (upgraded to "DIVX pro" version) is dated September 29, 2002, my original Showshifter invoice is dated September 7, 2002. I'd used ATI's software for at least 6 months before that (long enough to go through 2 computers). If you look at MythTV's "old news", they mention using xmltv for program guide information on May 19, 2002. All three of these use the internet to download their program guide data.

Many people are using these in HTPC setups that I myself equate to home-brew set top boxes.

Also, if that's not good enough for you, ReplayTV requires a broadband connection, and that's a commercial set-top box. http://www.epinions.com/content_3271663748 talks about Tivo over broadband dated May 03 2003: "Broadband connectivity via the USB port. By hooking up either a wired or wireless USB network adapter, you can connect your Tivo to your home network and share your broadband connection. This eliminates the need to hook your Tivo up to a phone line." And what about Microsoft's UltimateTV DVR? With it also being a WebTV, why wouldn't it use dialup ISP internet access to guide data?
Internet TV patent : Comment 12 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Andrew Korn on 17-Jul-2004 13:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Neko):
>As far as I know, TiVo is closest, but it downloads the EPG in a batch and
>any "links" to extra data are handled internally, via contracts to get the
>EPG information from TV suppliers, not via dynamic viewing of internet content.

I wonder who owns those old Wugofski patents assigned to Amiga LLC. They clearly cover the same ground. On the other hand they don't make a claim for this aspect on the grounds that it's established art, so there's no money to be made selling the patent to MS, alas ;-)

The patent is valid, but that's not to say it's enforcable. Much of what is described has been covered before. Internet linked EPGs were proposed as part of the TV Anywhere DAVIC standard in the mid '90s.
Internet TV patent : Comment 13 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 17-Jul-2004 13:29 GMT
Actually, I've only skimmed it, but any set-top-box with both a browser and tuner might 1. run foul, and 2. prove prior art.

See, good old TV Guide provides an online program guide... and by necessity, it uses hyperlinks within the guide itself.

That should, at the least, narrow the protected claim to the interface between a proprietary 'EPG' program and a general-purpose browser given a marginally sane court... so just run your guide display within the browser itself (Flash, Java, PHP, ProprietaryGuideDisplayPlugin, whatever) and you've got a good argument.

Unless someone's patented *that.*
Internet TV patent : Comment 14 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 17-Jul-2004 14:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (Andrew Korn):
"I wonder who owns those old Wugofski patents assigned to Amiga LLC."

Gateway, I think.
Internet TV patent : Comment 15 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Rafo on 17-Jul-2004 15:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Amon_Re):
??????

You mean tou're not aware yet ?

google : EU software patents vote
Internet TV patent : Comment 16 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 17-Jul-2004 15:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Rafo):
Games are still open, nothing has been decided yet for sure.
Internet TV patent : Comment 17 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 17-Jul-2004 15:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Neko):
"You should take it up with the publishers, rather than reeling against the
patent system itself. It's not up to the patent office to regulate the morals
of corporations."
A bad system encourages abuse. The patent system was introduced centuries ago and the last serious revision was many decades ago. It remains corrupt because the politicians who review it are always rewarded by the corporations to ensure that no changes are made. In most cases the system is abused, and not just by companies who simply specialise in patent hoarding.

For instance, not many people understand that the term "patented trade secret" is an oxymoron.

The US patent system is one of the most incompetent and corrupt institutions in existence.
Internet TV patent : Comment 18 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 17-Jul-2004 15:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Bill Hoggett):
Yep, and it's only rivelled by the R.I.A.A.
Internet TV patent : Comment 19 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Neko on 17-Jul-2004 17:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Amon_Re):
Nothing to do with my employer.

Patents, despite claims to the contrary by hippies, are claims to novel
inventions. If you invent a new way of doing something, and wish to secure
your right to profit from it (which is every inventor's right) then the
procedure is to patent it.

I don't think there is a valid distinction between a vacuum cleaner or a new
way of cleaning up viruses from your hard drive.

The patent does not cover the application presented by ATI's Media Center,
since ATI do not present continuous video content which has an embedded EPG -
instead you subscribe to a website, which streams the guide SEPERATELY, on
request for the current programme guide and you assign programme guides to
channels fairly MANUALLY if the TV channel name doesn't match with the expected (for instance if the signal is too weak to decode the channel name
from the broadcast signal..).

The patents seems restricted enough in it's definition to apply to content
such as DVB streams (MPEG 2 transport..) where the EPG is defined by the
components of the stream (for instance, MHP).

This patent basically allows integration and cooperation of EPG (as streamed
by the cable provider with the channel data) with hyperlinks that connect to
detailed or themed websites. Clicking links in the (non-internet-based) EPG
(which is NOT an HTML document by ANY standard!) would open a browser and load
them up as directed. Therefore an embedded programme guide interface requests
that a browser open internet-based URLs.

You should read the patent. Most of these "Slashdot Stories" are complete
bullshit with conclusions jumped to by a cursory look at the basic patent
abstract, and NOT the claims or description. If you actually read the
description, and the 86 or so points listed, you will see it references all
previous prior art as background, and the application of the patent is only
granted if it's significantly DIFFERENT or ADDITIONAL to those references.

Neko
Internet TV patent : Comment 20 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 17-Jul-2004 18:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (Neko):
> Patents, despite claims to the contrary by hippies, are claims to novel
> inventions.

In theory, yes. In practice, they're more and more becoming claims to obvious concepts masked out as "novel inventions".

As for the hippies, I guess Europe is full of hippies then, among which there are lots of university professors, lawyers, studends, journalists and IT workers. That doesn't make "hippy" sound as bad as you intended it to, then.
Internet TV patent : Comment 21 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 17-Jul-2004 19:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (Neko):
So what we have here is the hippy view being ridiculed by the corporate monkey.

That qualifies as a waste of bandwidth in my view. :)
Internet TV patent : Comment 22 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 17-Jul-2004 20:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (Neko):
This isn't a slashdotter, i don't visit that site Neko, you are the first person i met that actually defends software patents.

Software patents do not work in this field, imagine where we would have been if Xerox had perused it's patent to the mouse & GUI, there would have been just xerox, and the rest of the world would still be banished to DOS, untill the patent expires, what is it again, 15 years?

What if British Telecom had perused it's patent of a hyperlink?

Just think for a minute & wake up, software patents are a bad thing.

Cheers
Internet TV patent : Comment 23 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 17-Jul-2004 22:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (Neko):
The patent system is kinda like good old fashioned communism, isnt it? :)
Internet TV patent : Comment 24 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 18-Jul-2004 02:52 GMT
OK guys, I've got to wade in here and support Neko.

Most people I know (except students and the unemployed) work for a living. If you've just spent "x" hours/days/weeks developing a program then you are entitled to reap the rewards without someone stealing the idea, cloning it and passing it onto the world with no consideration to the hours of sweat that you've put into the project.

Now I understand people being worried that someone will patent a simple programming trick that everybody might need and then sit on it and demand royalties for it, but that's just blind scare mongering and it's the same as anti-abortion protestors waving pictures of partial birth abortions around and claiming that it "happens all the time". I guess some people believe that oil companies have a patent for a car engine that runs on water locked in a dark vault somewhere in Area 57.

Sorry guys. If someone does some hard work then they deserve to get paid for it. This isn't being "communist" (in fact, it's exactly the opposite). Trying to prevent people being granted this protection is the worst idea, as it will stifle innovation.

The only reason we have patents is to protect people's rights. If the "hippies" didn't think they were entitled to steal and reverse engineer peoples property then we wouldn't need them. The only reason we have copy protection on DVD's is because there is an element in this world that thinks that they are entitled to something for nothing and delight in pirating everything they can find. It reminds me a bit of Seehund's efforts to get OS4 on open firmware mobos so that his supporters can pirate OS4.

Thanks for listen folks. I'll put on my flame retardant jacket now.... :-)
Internet TV patent : Comment 25 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Kronos on 18-Jul-2004 04:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Darrin):
You mean like the GIF-patents or C='s "right-click-menu" ?

Yes such trivial ones do exists, and more are granted even today.
And whats worse is that they last 15 years or more.

I don't mind patents for real inventions, like someone coming up with REAL artificial intellegence, being protected for 3-5 years, but this patent-hogging only for the purpose to artificially protect the interest of big companies has the same effect as communism.
It makes competion nearly impossible.

As a side note, did it ever come to your mind that people don't really mind the copy-protection, but the STASI-like methods the distributors are useing to pursue those they think that might be doing something wrong =

And you should also know that porting OS4 to OF-based mobos DOES NOT mean it can't use a dongle ? The piracy-claim is, was and allways will be void.
Internet TV patent : Comment 26 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 18-Jul-2004 05:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Kronos):
>You mean like the GIF-patents

Nobody is forced to use GIF's. There are a lot more formats out there. If someone designs a file format then why shouldn't he protect it and earn money for it?

> or C='s "right-click-menu" ?

It was a neat idea. Give the guy who thought of it some credit. OK, that example is a pretty good arguement for your side ;-)

>Yes such trivial ones do exists,

Apparently so.

>and more are granted even today. And whats worse is that they last 15 years or more.

But your argument that this should stop all patents is WRONG. Cars are involved every day in fatal Road Traffic Accidents as a result of driver error. So, using your argument, we should therefore ban all cars because a minority of drivers don't bother to follow the Highway Code (or whatever laws your particular country has).

>I don't mind patents for real inventions, like someone coming up with REAL
>artificial intellegence, being protected for 3-5 years, but this patent-
>hogging only for the purpose to artificially protect the interest of big
>companies has the same effect as communism.
>It makes competion nearly impossible.

I agree with you that "patent hugging" is a bad thing, but that's no reason to deprive honest applicants of the protection it provides. What needs to be done is to educate the people who grant the patents about what the negative consequences could be.

>As a side note, did it ever come to your mind that people don't really mind
>the copy-protection, but the STASI-like methods the distributors are useing to
> pursue those they think that might be doing something wrong =

Coded copy protection alone isn't enough. Code can be decompiled/reverse engineered and reused. The idea can be stolen and incorporated into a rival product without the rivals having to put any research into the idea or even spending time producing their own functioning code. Hacked software is just too easy to find.

I could easily start a flame war here by suggesting a possible example of such "software", but I wont ;-)

>And you should also know that porting OS4 to OF-based mobos DOES NOT mean it
>can't use a dongle ? The piracy-claim is, was and allways will be void.

It's easier to by-pass a "dongle" than it is to adapt a whole OS to work on hardware it wasn't designed for. My "piracy claim" seems valid to me.
Internet TV patent : Comment 27 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 18-Jul-2004 06:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Darrin):
"Most people I know (except students and the unemployed) work for a living. If you've just spent "x" hours/days/weeks developing a program then you are entitled to reap the rewards without someone stealing the idea, cloning it and passing it onto the world with no consideration to the hours of sweat that you've put into the project."

Take a look into the way this sector evolved, copying idea's has always been here, and you have copyrights to prevent that of happening.
(For instance, Microsoft obtained the right to use parts of MacOS in Windows 3)
Software patents are unnatural due to the nature computing works, what would happen, for instance, if Microsoft were to create a "new" internet standard with nifty features, only to keep it locked up in their portfolio & only make it available to windows? The rest of the world would be locked out, and don't you dare reverse ingeneer their protocol, or you'll have the DCMA up your ass...

"Now I understand people being worried that someone will patent a simple programming trick that everybody might need and then sit on it and demand royalties for it, but that's just blind scare mongering and it's the same as anti-abortion protestors waving pictures of partial birth abortions around and claiming that it "happens all the time". I guess some people believe that oil companies have a patent for a car engine that runs on water locked in a dark vault somewhere in Area 57."

No it's not scare mongering, it's knowing the history of computing, and understanding how we got here in the first place.

"Sorry guys. If someone does some hard work then they deserve to get paid for it. This isn't being "communist" (in fact, it's exactly the opposite). Trying to prevent people being granted this protection is the worst idea, as it will stifle innovation."

No, it will keep the guy on edge, making sure his implementation remains the best, and if someone does interfere with his code, there's always the anti-competition laws and copyrights, you don't need patents for that.

"The only reason we have patents is to protect people's rights. If the "hippies" didn't think they were entitled to steal and reverse engineer peoples property then we wouldn't need them. The only reason we have copy protection on DVD's is because there is an element in this world that thinks that they are entitled to something for nothing and delight in pirating everything they can find. It reminds me a bit of Seehund's efforts to get OS4 on open firmware mobos so that his supporters can pirate OS4."

This has absolutely nothing to do with copy protection on dvd's, besides, the lawsuits in that field are all based on the DCMA act, and don't get me started on that piece of filth :) Besides, without DeCSS there would be no DVD players on linux or AOS or MOS, is that what you want? And you don't need DeCSS if you wanted to copy a dvd in the first place.

"Thanks for listen folks. I'll put on my flame retardant jacket now.... :-) "

It's gonna be needed.
Internet TV patent : Comment 28 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 18-Jul-2004 06:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (Darrin):
">You mean like the GIF-patents

Nobody is forced to use GIF's. There are a lot more formats out there. If someone designs a file format then why shouldn't he protect it and earn money for it?"

Because the 'net is filled with GIFS already, most people out there don't even know there's a patent on GIF files, and as such, they use the format, forcing others to obtain a licenced app to display them, or to be stuck with ilegal apps or the unability to display the file altogether. Software patents like these are a burden for smaller or open source OS & apps.

"> or C='s "right-click-menu" ?

It was a neat idea. Give the guy who thought of it some credit. OK, that example is a pretty good arguement for your side ;-)"

You SHOULD NOT be able to patent a UI.

">Yes such trivial ones do exists,

Apparently so.

>and more are granted even today. And whats worse is that they last 15 years or more.

But your argument that this should stop all patents is WRONG. Cars are involved every day in fatal Road Traffic Accidents as a result of driver error. So, using your argument, we should therefore ban all cars because a minority of drivers don't bother to follow the Highway Code (or whatever laws your particular country has)."

But car accidents don't have the risk of destroying a whole market, your analogy is bogus. Besides, had there been no "copying" (immitating would be a better word), the computing world as we know it would be completely different, after all Xerox would be the only one with a usuable GUI.

">I don't mind patents for real inventions, like someone coming up with REAL
>artificial intellegence, being protected for 3-5 years, but this patent-
>hogging only for the purpose to artificially protect the interest of big
>companies has the same effect as communism.
>It makes competion nearly impossible.

I agree with you that "patent hugging" is a bad thing, but that's no reason to deprive honest applicants of the protection it provides. What needs to be done is to educate the people who grant the patents about what the negative consequences could be."

Do you know what is involved in obtaining a patent & what the cost(s) are?

">As a side note, did it ever come to your mind that people don't really mind
>the copy-protection, but the STASI-like methods the distributors are useing to
> pursue those they think that might be doing something wrong =

Coded copy protection alone isn't enough. Code can be decompiled/reverse engineered and reused. The idea can be stolen and incorporated into a rival product without the rivals having to put any research into the idea or even spending time producing their own functioning code. Hacked software is just too easy to find."

Kronos was actually refurring to the way corporations persue their copy rights, and how they enforce it upon people, i have internet, i can download just about any cd or dvd i want, yet, i own over 300CD's & 100DVD's, because i buy what i like, now, had i been unable to play DVD's on linux, i would have bought none dvd whatsoever, i bought it, it should be my right to use & abuse my dvd's as i see fit, but the DCMA, for instance, makes playing DVD's on linux a crime, so technicly, i'm breaking the law (had i lived in the states)

"I could easily start a flame war here by suggesting a possible example of such "software", but I wont ;-)"

MorphOS, Lindows, AROS, linux.... the list is huge

">And you should also know that porting OS4 to OF-based mobos DOES NOT mean it
>can't use a dongle ? The piracy-claim is, was and allways will be void.

It's easier to by-pass a "dongle" than it is to adapt a whole OS to work on hardware it wasn't designed for. My "piracy claim" seems valid to me."

It's valid, but unrelated
Internet TV patent : Comment 29 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 18-Jul-2004 07:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 27 (Amon_Re):
>Take a look into the way this sector evolved, copying idea's has always been
>here, and you have copyrights to prevent that of happening.

No, the laws do not "prevent" it from happening - otherwise it wouldn't happen. The law allows offenders to be punished for commiting the crime. Likewise the Patent itself is not going to stop the code being use, but it will allow the owner the ability to chase down and seek damages from those that do.

>(For instance, Microsoft obtained the right to use parts of MacOS in Windows
>3)

and? Did they pay for them? Doesn't this show that patents work?

>Software patents are unnatural due to the nature computing works, what would
> happen, for instance, if Microsoft were to create a "new" internet standard
> with nifty features, only to keep it locked up in their portfolio & only make
> it available to windows? The rest of the world would be locked out,

I'm sorry. I see nothing wrong with this example. If Mircosoft want to purchase or fund the R&D into such a feature then it's theirs to do with as they see fit. If they only want to include it in Windows and you want it that badly then buy Windows. If I want a BMW then I have to buy a BMW. If I want a chicken sandwich then it is pointless to buy a BLT and then complain loudly that there is no chicken in it.

>and don't you dare reverse ingeneer their protocol, or you'll have the DCMA up
> your ass...

LOL. And black helicopters overhead too :-)

>No it's not scare mongering, it's knowing the history of computing, and
>understanding how we got here in the first place.

Are you suggesting that if a certain Frenchman put a patent on a certain weaving loom then we wouldn't have got Space Invaders?!!! ;-)

>No, it will keep the guy on edge, making sure his implementation remains the
> best, and if someone does interfere with his code, there's always the anti-
>competition laws and copyrights, you don't need patents for that.

That's a bit late once your code is stolen and distributed for free or if your idea has been cloaned and sold to the world. The only thing the guy will be on the "edge" of is missing his next mortgage payment.

>This has absolutely nothing to do with copy protection on dvd's,

I was using DVD's as an example on how copyright alone doesn't protect anything and how there is a population who want everything for free. Welcome to the Napster Generation. :-)

> besides, the lawsuits in that field are all based on the DCMA act, and don't
> get me started on that piece of filth :) Besides, without DeCSS there would
> be no DVD players on linux or AOS or MOS, is that what you want? And you
>don't need DeCSS if you wanted to copy a dvd in the first place.

Why not? Surely someone would legally be able to release such a beast after payments have been made to the right people? Ah... we're arguing about PAYMENTS again. You know what I think of free meals ;-)

>It's gonna be needed.

I can tell!!!! :-)

Neko, where are you??!!! I need help!!!

The bugger has legged it while I distracted you!!!
Internet TV patent : Comment 30 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 18-Jul-2004 07:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (Amon_Re):
>Because the 'net is filled with GIFS already, most people out there don't even
> know there's a patent on GIF files, and as such, they use the format, forcing
> others to obtain a licenced app to display them, or to be stuck with ilegal
> apps or the unability to display the file altogether. Software patents like
> these are a burden for smaller or open source OS & apps.

If open source apps cant use them then it's up to the website designers to stop using GIFS. Blame the website designers. It is possible to make websites frames, Java and GIF free... just not as functional.

>You SHOULD NOT be able to patent a UI.

I was agreeing there.

>and more are granted even today. And whats worse is that they last 15 years or more.

Ah, but what's 15 years when the Universe has been around so long...

>But car accidents don't have the risk of destroying a whole market, your
>analogy is bogus.

Patents are not going to destroy the whole software market.

> Besides, had there been no "copying" (immitating would be a
>better word), the computing world as we know it would be completely different,
> after all Xerox would be the only one with a usuable GUI.

Unless they granted licenses to use it... besides, as you have poined out, it would have expired by now. See, 15 years wasn't so long, was it? ;-)

>Do you know what is involved in obtaining a patent & what the cost(s) are?

According to the advertisments that are constantly on the TV, about $200 for the kit and then the nice people will process the whole thing for you (or steal your idea and claim it was theirs). I think they're called "The Inventors' Network".

>Kronos was actually refurring to the way corporations persue their copy
>rights, and how they enforce it upon people, i have internet, i can download
>just about any cd or dvd i want, yet, i own over 300CD's & 100DVD's, because i
> buy what i like,

Just like most law abiding citizens. You should see my DVD collection!

> now, had i been unable to play DVD's on linux, i would have bought none dvd
>whatsoever,

Really? I don't have Linux and it doesn't stop me playing DVD's... or most of the world doing it either.

>i bought it, it should be my right to use & abuse my dvd's as i see fit,

No, just because you own a DVD doesn't mean you can use it as you see fit. For example, owning a DVD does not give you the right to use it as a weapon to kill someone. You are still limited to the used that you can put your DVD to whether you like it or not. When DVD's came out there were lots of cons going around on converting your existing CD player into a DVD player for only $19.99 and there were a lot of angry people who thought it was their right to be able to play DVD's in CD players (after all, they do fit!).

> but the DCMA, for instance, makes playing DVD's on linux a crime, so
> technicly, i'm breaking the law (had i lived in the states)

I wasn't aware of that. It's sad, but if that is the law then too bad. If I want to watch a DVD then I'd better use my Windblows computers or my stand-alone players. No hardship there.

>MorphOS, Lindows, AROS, linux.... the list is huge

Dohhh!!!! Oh bugger!!! You've done it now!!! Now we're going to have EVA post something nasty, and then someone will tell him to sod off, and then someone else will.... what have you done!!! Moderator!!! Moderator!!! Help!!! Delete the above line quick!!! :-)

>It's valid, but unrelated

It is kind of related as a anti-copying/need for protection example. Plus it have me a chanceto have another stab at Seehund's petition (again).

:-)
Internet TV patent : Comment 31 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 18-Jul-2004 08:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (Darrin):
>Take a look into the way this sector evolved, copying idea's has always been
>here, and you have copyrights to prevent that of happening.

No, the laws do not "prevent" it from happening - otherwise it wouldn't happen. The law allows offenders to be punished for commiting the crime. Likewise the Patent itself is not going to stop the code being use, but it will allow the owner the ability to chase down and seek damages from those that do.

There are already laws to persue damages, but patents not only allow you to keep the stuff to yourself, it locks it for 15 years, the problem is that patents are not legal all over the world, plus you have the right to disasm a program in order to maintain compability, this is what patents legally block, amongst others, and thus invalidates that right, do you want to return to a world of propriaty filetypes? Or do you want to be able to use your data in the way you wish? It's not just about locking idea's up, it's also about the way you handle YOUR OWN DATA in the end (check out M$'s patents on XML extentions)

>(For instance, Microsoft obtained the right to use parts of MacOS in Windows
>3)

and? Did they pay for them? Doesn't this show that patents work?

No, they told Apple that if they wanted Office, then they had to give Microsoft those rights (in other words, microsoft used it's Office suite as a leverage to wrongfully obtain Apple's sourcecode (well parts of it anyway) because they knew Apple had no alternative)

>Software patents are unnatural due to the nature computing works, what would
> happen, for instance, if Microsoft were to create a "new" internet standard
> with nifty features, only to keep it locked up in their portfolio & only make
> it available to windows? The rest of the world would be locked out,

I'm sorry. I see nothing wrong with this example. If Mircosoft want to purchase or fund the R&D into such a feature then it's theirs to do with as they see fit. If they only want to include it in Windows and you want it that badly then buy Windows. If I want a BMW then I have to buy a BMW. If I want a chicken sandwich then it is pointless to buy a BLT and then complain loudly that there is no chicken in it.

Your analogy is flawed, it would be like having to buy a BMW to be able to use diesel fuel, it's not the technology alone that's affected by patents, it's also the way data is distributed, and made available.

>and don't you dare reverse ingeneer their protocol, or you'll have the DCMA up
> your ass...

LOL. And black helicopters overhead too :-)

Just for the kicks, put up an mp3 with a songtitle on your webspace, and wait for the RIAA bots to pick up that filename, you'll be suprised how quickly you'll receive a letter from them

>No it's not scare mongering, it's knowing the history of computing, and
>understanding how we got here in the first place.

Are you suggesting that if a certain Frenchman put a patent on a certain weaving loom then we wouldn't have got Space Invaders?!!! ;-)

No, i'm saying that if Xerox had the "marketing skills" of Microsoft, there would have been only one OS with a decent GUI, the rest would have been sued to death (and this does include AOS amongst others)

>No, it will keep the guy on edge, making sure his implementation remains the
> best, and if someone does interfere with his code, there's always the anti-
>competition laws and copyrights, you don't need patents for that.

That's a bit late once your code is stolen and distributed for free or if your idea has been cloaned and sold to the world. The only thing the guy will be on the "edge" of is missing his next mortgage payment.

Tell that to Netscape then, the situation you describe is simular enough to bring up that bit, about abusing monopoly positions & effectively killing your competition by giving away simular stuff for free (granted, this doesn't involve patents)

>This has absolutely nothing to do with copy protection on dvd's,

I was using DVD's as an example on how copyright alone doesn't protect anything and how there is a population who want everything for free. Welcome to the Napster Generation. :-)

Patents won't change that, patents is only good for the corporate world, lets assume you have a patent on something, and microsoft abuses it, do you think you have any chance in the world to win? With your financial status compared to the hordes of lawyers M$ has?

> besides, the lawsuits in that field are all based on the DCMA act, and don't
> get me started on that piece of filth :) Besides, without DeCSS there would
> be no DVD players on linux or AOS or MOS, is that what you want? And you
>don't need DeCSS if you wanted to copy a dvd in the first place.

Why not? Surely someone would legally be able to release such a beast after payments have been made to the right people? Ah... we're arguing about PAYMENTS again. You know what I think of free meals ;-)

It's not so simple, there are only 400 DVD dechriptor keys available for licencing, wich means the licence fee will probably be an amount higher then the linux community (or the AmigaOS community) can afford, CSS is maths, if you allow a patent on a mathimaticall formula you'll open up a whole other pandora's box (iirc there are already patents on mathimatical formula) if i buy a DVD, it is within my rights to play it on whatever platform i choose (the fair use act, wich is in conflict with the DCMA act), CSS is a means by the RIAA to make it, amongst others, hard for people to use imported dvd's, if i visit eg, the US, and buy a DVD there, why should it be forbidden for me to watch said dvd at home?
Internet TV patent : Comment 32 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 18-Jul-2004 08:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Darrin):
Those who are in favour of patents, and especially software patents, must be far left wingers, since they obviously are in favour of a large and expencive federal bureaucracy to administrate and enforce the patent system. How ironic.
Internet TV patent : Comment 33 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 18-Jul-2004 08:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Darrin):
>Because the 'net is filled with GIFS already, most people out there don't even
> know there's a patent on GIF files, and as such, they use the format, forcing
> others to obtain a licenced app to display them, or to be stuck with ilegal
> apps or the unability to display the file altogether. Software patents like
> these are a burden for smaller or open source OS & apps.

If open source apps cant use them then it's up to the website designers to stop using GIFS. Blame the website designers. It is possible to make websites frames, Java and GIF free... just not as functional.

Frames aren't patented, Java is somewhat open source (it's a simular licence iirc), GIFS, however, are a data format, and patenting a way to save data to a magnetic storage medium are things wich should never be patented, as they conflict with the right of the author to use his data as he pleases.

>You SHOULD NOT be able to patent a UI.

I was agreeing there.

Then where would you draw the line? If you disallow the patenting of a UI (wich is also software) why would you allow it for a data storage format like gif or M$'s bastardised XML?

>and more are granted even today. And whats worse is that they last 15 years or more.

Ah, but what's 15 years when the Universe has been around so long...

15 years in this sector are like an eternity.

>But car accidents don't have the risk of destroying a whole market, your
>analogy is bogus.

Patents are not going to destroy the whole software market.

We don't know yet, because they aren't valid all over the world, what if tomorrow the EU accepts software patents, and IBM or British Telecom or whomever desides to use their patents to sue their competitors to the ground? Or worse, say you create an app that implements a way to store files, and some big corporation thinks you are abusing their patent (of wich you had no prior knowledge) and starts sueing you for x amount of damages? What if, before you even start writing an app, you have to check the whole patent directory just to make sure no-one patented something remotely simular to what you were planning to do? It would kill the small companies, hobby programmers, and in the end, probably also linux

> Besides, had there been no "copying" (immitating would be a
>better word), the computing world as we know it would be completely different,
> after all Xerox would be the only one with a usuable GUI.

Unless they granted licenses to use it... besides, as you have poined out, it would have expired by now. See, 15 years wasn't so long, was it? ;-)

Wich means the Amiga wouldn't be possible, untill somewhere arround 1990, same for Apple, Atari & Microsoft, the market would have stagnated, alot of innovations wouldn't have happened....

>Do you know what is involved in obtaining a patent & what the cost(s) are?

According to the advertisments that are constantly on the TV, about $200 for the kit and then the nice people will process the whole thing for you (or steal your idea and claim it was theirs). I think they're called "The Inventors' Network".

And do you know the costs involved in defending a patent? For starters, the lawyer fees? Believe me, the small man in the street will be screwed left right infront & behind by big corporations

>Kronos was actually refurring to the way corporations persue their copy
>rights, and how they enforce it upon people, i have internet, i can download
>just about any cd or dvd i want, yet, i own over 300CD's & 100DVD's, because i
> buy what i like,

Just like most law abiding citizens. You should see my DVD collection!

The law has actually nothing to do with it, it's more a principle thing, besides, i like shiny boxes :P

> now, had i been unable to play DVD's on linux, i would have bought none dvd
>whatsoever,

Really? I don't have Linux and it doesn't stop me playing DVD's... or most of the world doing it either.

Yes, because i happen to run linux quite alot, it's my main os, infact, there's no DVD player installed in the windows partition i have

>i bought it, it should be my right to use & abuse my dvd's as i see fit,

No, just because you own a DVD doesn't mean you can use it as you see fit. For example, owning a DVD does not give you the right to use it as a weapon to kill someone. You are still limited to the used that you can put your DVD to whether you like it or not. When DVD's came out there were lots of cons going around on converting your existing CD player into a DVD player for only $19.99 and there were a lot of angry people who thought it was their right to be able to play DVD's in CD players (after all, they do fit!).

You very well know i was refurring to "fair use"

> but the DCMA, for instance, makes playing DVD's on linux a crime, so
> technicly, i'm breaking the law (had i lived in the states)

I wasn't aware of that. It's sad, but if that is the law then too bad. If I want to watch a DVD then I'd better use my Windblows computers or my stand-alone players. No hardship there.

For you, perhaps, for me, it's a violation of my rights (fair use)

>MorphOS, Lindows, AROS, linux.... the list is huge

Dohhh!!!! Oh bugger!!! You've done it now!!! Now we're going to have EVA post something nasty, and then someone will tell him to sod off, and then someone else will.... what have you done!!! Moderator!!! Moderator!!! Help!!! Delete the above line quick!!! :-)

I'm pretty sure she would agree with me :P
Internet TV patent : Comment 34 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 18-Jul-2004 08:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (Amon_Re):
It is DMCA btw (pronounced village people style, hehe), not DCMA - unless this was some sort of advanced pun that I didnt grasp :)
Internet TV patent : Comment 35 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 18-Jul-2004 09:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 31 (Amon_Re):
>There are already laws to persue damages, but patents not only allow you to
>keep the stuff to yourself, it locks it for 15 years,

Exactly. So if I design something. ME!!! ME!! ME!!!... It's MINE!!! Then I feel I have a right to it for at least 15 years. Now, it would be stupid to keep it to myself and 99.999*% of people wont want to do that because the main reason of patents is to put something on the market so that tou can MAKE MONEY!!!

> the problem is that patents are not legal all over the world,

No, you're right. However this is changing...

plus you have the right to disasm a program in order to maintain compability, this is what patents legally block, amongst others, and thus invalidates that right, do you want to return to a world of propriaty filetypes? Or do you want to be able to use your data in the way you wish? It's not just about locking idea's up, it's also about the way you handle YOUR OWN DATA in the end (check out M$'s patents on XML extentions)

You've lost me here. You either choose to use a program or a filetype or you don't. Nothing is forced.

>No, they told Apple that if they wanted Office, then they had to give
>Microsoft those rights (in other words, microsoft used it's Office suite as a
> leverage to wrongfully obtain Apple's sourcecode (well parts of it anyway)
> because they knew Apple had no alternative)

And what was wrong with this? MS delveloped a killer app and used it as a chip in a poker game. At the end of the day, MS has part of Apples sourcecode and Apple has MS Office. Nothing was wrongfully obtained - it was bargained for. Compromises were made. Would you say that Apple wrongfully optained MS Office by using their source code to force MS into giving it up? This was business.

>Your analogy is flawed, it would be like having to buy a BMW to be able to use
> diesel fuel, it's not the technology alone that's affected by patents, it's
> also the way data is distributed, and made available.

If BMW have the patent on diesel engines and only use them in their cars then it's a simple fact of life that if you want to use diesel then you buy a BMW. Nobody is forcing you to walk - you can still buy a petrol driven car. If you want something bad enough then you have to accept the rules. Imagine that you want to join a club that has a rule that all gentlemen must wear a jacket and tie. You have a simple choice - wear a jacket and tie or don't bother joining.

>Just for the kicks, put up an mp3 with a songtitle on your webspace, and wait
>for the RIAA bots to pick up that filename, you'll be suprised how quickly
> you'll receive a letter from them

No thanks. I don't want my Green Card revoked!!! :-)

>No, i'm saying that if Xerox had the "marketing skills" of Microsoft, there
> would have been only one OS with a decent GUI, the rest would have been sued
> to death (and this does include AOS amongst others)

Or Xerox would have made a nice licensing fee on each copy of the other OS's sold...

>Tell that to Netscape then, the situation you describe is simular enough to
>bring up that bit, about abusing monopoly positions & effectively killing your
> competition by giving away simular stuff for free (granted, this doesn't
>involve patents)

What killed Netscape was MS distributing a perfectly good browser for FREE with their OS and the inability of the average Windows user to install a new program without screwing up his whole OS installation. Or even uninstall a program... " Ijust went into C:Programs, deleted the folder and now I get errors!" :-)

>Patents won't change that, patents is only good for the corporate world, lets
> assume you have a patent on something, and microsoft abuses it, do you think
> you have any chance in the world to win? With your financial status compared
>to the hordes of lawyers M$ has?

It's is also for the individual. You could patent something tomorrow and you could send your complaints to infringements to the Feds. Theft is theft.

How do you know MS wont win? They've been sued before and when they know they're going to lose they settle quietly or buy the company. Either way, people get their money.

> besides, the lawsuits in that field are all based on the DCMA act, and don't

>It's not so simple, there are only 400 DVD dechriptor keys available for
>licencing, wich means the licence fee will probably be an amount higher then
>the linux community (or the AmigaOS community) can afford,

Are you sure? You say "probably", but are you sure Linux users can't aford it? Don't Linux users "buy" anything?

>if i buy a DVD, it is within my rights to play it on whatever platform i
>choose (the fair use act, wich is in conflict with the DCMA act),

Not really. You have a right to play it on anything that has a licensed player. If it doesn't have a player then you may want to play it, you just can't. You can't play DVD's on cassette deck either.

> CSS is a means by the RIAA to make it, amongst others, hard for people to use
>imported dvd's, if i visit eg, the US, and buy a DVD there, why should it be
>forbidden for me to watch said dvd at home?

Now we're onto a subject that really annoys me too. I have DVD's at home from many different regions... thank goodness for "hidden menus".

:-)
Internet TV patent : Comment 36 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 18-Jul-2004 09:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 32 (Kolbjørn Barmen):
>Those who are in favour of patents, and especially software patents, must be
> far left wingers, since they obviously are in favour of a large and expencive
> federal bureaucracy to administrate and enforce the patent system.

No, I just want to see "inventors" get what's entitled to them.
Internet TV patent : Comment 37 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 18-Jul-2004 09:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (Darrin):
And the only way to do this is through patents?
Internet TV patent : Comment 38 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 18-Jul-2004 09:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (Amon_Re):
>GIFS, however, are a data format, and patenting a way to save data to a
>magnetic storage medium are things wich should never be patented, as they
>conflict with the right of the author to use his data as he pleases.

But the data doesn't have to be stored as a GIF. The data can be stored in another format. If I decide to store data as a GIF then it's my fault.

>Then where would you draw the line?

Tough question and I don't know.

>We don't know yet, because they aren't valid all over the world, what if
>tomorrow the EU accepts software patents, and IBM or British Telecom or
>whomever desides to use their patents to sue their competitors to the ground?

We don't know... exactly. I doubt that BT will be able to sue anyone over something that wasn't illegal at the time. If the US government makes drinking tea illegal today then I'm not going to get jailed over the cup that I drank yesterday.

> Or worse, say you create an app that implements a way to store files, and
> some big corporation thinks you are abusing their patent (of wich you had no
> prior knowledge) and starts sueing you for x amount of damages?

If you had no prior knowledge then you're probably going to get away with it. Perhaps the big corporation will grant you a license.

Mind you, if you had tried to patent it as well then you'd have found out that someone beat you too it. ;-)

>It would kill the small companies, hobby programmers, and in the end, probably
> also linux

No, you can program things using code that doesn't have patent restrictions or that has ahd the patent run out. This should be fine for Linux as it's about 15 years behind Windoze and all Linux users wear tank-tops and bell-bottom trousers!!!! <that was a joke!!!>.

>Wich means the Amiga wouldn't be possible, untill somewhere arround 1990, same
> for Apple, Atari & Microsoft,

It could have been licensed, or all of those excellent games could have been coded to run from the CLI and use a joystick only.

>And do you know the costs involved in defending a patent? For starters, the
>lawyer fees? Believe me, the small man in the street will be screwed left
> right infront & behind by big corporations

Or you would have an army of lawyers offering their services for free in order to get 50% of the huge settlement they're going to win you.

>The law has actually nothing to do with it, it's more a principle thing,
>besides, i like shiny boxes :P

:-)

>Yes, because i happen to run linux quite alot, it's my main os, infact,
>there's no DVD player installed in the windows partition i have

no DVD drive either? I can hear Bill Gates crying from here ;-)

>You very well know i was refurring to "fair use"

I know. And you know I know. And I know that you know that I know. ;-)

>For you, perhaps, for me, it's a violation of my rights (fair use)

You have some strange ideas on what a "violation" is. ;-)

>I'm pretty sure she would agree with me :P

LOL. And that's the scary part!!! :-)
Internet TV patent : Comment 39 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 18-Jul-2004 09:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Kolbjørn Barmen):
Right, my bad ;)
Internet TV patent : Comment 40 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 18-Jul-2004 09:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 38 (Darrin):
It's clear to see we'll never see eye to eye on this, so lets agree to disagree, but i still think you are wrong :P
Internet TV patent : Comment 41 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 18-Jul-2004 09:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (Kolbjørn Barmen):
>And the only way to do this is through patents?

It's one way. It may not be the best, but whatever method is used, someone will disagree.

For example, if someone gave $1,000,000 to cancer research, the next voices you would hear would be "Why didn't he ive it to AIDS research", "No! Feed starving in Africa", "No, build a new homeless shelter", "no, open a 36 hole golf course!!!", etc, etc.

Sometimes you just have to go with something because you'll never please everybody. Also, some lawyers will always find loopholes to take advantage of something. It may not be right, but it's life.
Internet TV patent : Comment 42 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 18-Jul-2004 09:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Kolbjørn Barmen):
>It is DMCA btw (pronounced village people style, hehe), not DCMA - unless this
> was some sort of advanced pun that I didnt grasp :)

LOL. OK, if we're all have to get up and sing this then I'll take the cowboy costume as I live 30 mins from Texas. What are you and Amon_Re going to dress as?
Internet TV patent : Comment 43 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 18-Jul-2004 10:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 40 (Amon_Re):
>It's clear to see we'll never see eye to eye on this, so lets agree to
>disagree, but i still think you are wrong :P

LOL. I agree that we'll never see eye to eye on this and I agree that we should agree to disagree...

... However... ;-)

At least we managed to debate this without insults... certain other parties take note!!! :-)
Internet TV patent : Comment 44 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 18-Jul-2004 11:09 GMT
Patents are a result of selected economic systems.

In such economic systems patents can provide incentive to invent.

Inventions are ment to benefit mankind, the human race.

Patents have had their ups and downs in the history of their use.
Even whole patent systems have been removed from use.

Like anything man made, what is created with good intentions can be abused and counter the main objective or goal of patents, to benefit mankind, the human race.

Even more fundamental is the matter of economic systems, by which any patent system may or not make since.

before anyone jumps in and claims this or that economic system is the best or only way to go, the fact has to be realized that all economic systems to date have been based upon economic theory(ies) which in attempt to put into practical application, all of these economic theories have failed to follow their theories and as such in actuality are approximations or biases towards their theories.

However, most all these theories had as their goal a benovelent intent towards the whole of mankind, the human race.

Here is the real deal:

As our technology advances to the point of enabling us to provide all humans with the basics of survival and work is globally reduced in what is required to maintain these basics, then it becomes more a matter of sharing the maintainance work where beyond that is luxury and what would you like to do with your increased free time? Would you not like to contribute some work of your interest to the improvement of the general quality of life for yourself as well as the environment you live in (big picture -- the world/earth... and beyond).

The point is, the patent system is intended to help inspire overall improvement in the quality of human life. When it fails to do this, it will be abolished.

When this happens, and it will (humans just can't avoid the temptation of abusing good intents), it won't be the first time a patent system has been abolished.

Already there are many signs of such wrongful abuse going on and growing.... The sooner it gets top heavy in abuse the sooner it will all fall.
Internet TV patent : Comment 45 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 18-Jul-2004 11:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 44 (3seas):
Damn, that was very well put. I can't argue with that. :-)
Internet TV patent : Comment 46 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by RAG on 18-Jul-2004 11:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 35 (Darrin):
> Not really. You have a right to play it on anything that has a licensed player. >If it doesn't have a player then you may want to play it, you just can't. You >can't play DVD's on cassette deck either.

So if BMW decided to only allow you to drive your new car on licensed roads you would think that would be fair? A couple of miles in New York, then you will have to fly it to a strip in California that is licensed... Seems rather stupid to me...
If I buy a DVD I should be able to play it on whatever I like that has the ability to play it. Lets say I have a Pioneer DVD that is licensed at home. Fine. Then my mate calls and asks for a DVD night. -Sorry, your Philips player isn't licensed...
Internet TV patent : Comment 47 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 18-Jul-2004 13:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 46 (RAG):
>So if BMW decided to only allow you to drive your new car on licensed roads
>you would think that would be fair? A couple of miles in New York, then you
>will have to fly it to a strip in California that is licensed... Seems rather
>stupid to me...

If BMW stated that I could only drive their car on BMW licensed roads then I simply wouldn't buy a BMW. I wouldn't waste my time complaining to them about it. Buying low profile sports car to drive over muddy offroad terrain and then sulking when you get stuck... THAT'S stupid.

>If I buy a DVD I should be able to play it on whatever I like that has the
>ability to play it.

Agreed. I'm glad you used the word "ability" there.

> Lets say I have a Pioneer DVD that is licensed at home. Fine. Then my mate
>calls and asks for a DVD night. -Sorry, your Philips player isn't licensed...

You've bought a Region X DVD disk to play in Region X enabled DVD players. You have a right to expect your Region X disk to play in any Region X Player regardless of who makes it and if your friend has a Region X player then you'll have no problems. However, if you take your Region X disk to your friend house knowing he has a Region Y player and then insert the disk... you don't have a "right" to expect it to work. That's why DVD disks have the Region Code printed in large friendly letters on the back of every case. And let's not even go into the problems caused by PAL and NTSC on DVD that causes some "Region 0" disks to fail on certain players or display distorted images.

Anyone want to whine about Macrovision?
Internet TV patent : Comment 48 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by mark on 18-Jul-2004 20:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 35 (Darrin):
"Not really. You have a right to play it on anything that has a licensed player. If it doesn't have a player then you may want to play it, you just can't. You can't play DVD's on cassette deck either."

There's a difference between not being physically able to do something, and being legally prevented from doing so.

If companies want to make it so that DVDs can only be physically used in certain players, fine. Before the DMCA though, you wouldn't get thrown in prison if you found a way to play your DVDs on your cassette player.
Internet TV patent : Comment 49 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Olegil on 19-Jul-2004 08:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 47 (Darrin):
I actually have a DVD at home where they make a big number out of using MacroVision. Rotating logo and sound, just to make it clear. I mean, come on. Are these people stupid? Using MacroVision isn't excactly something that the consumer will go "oooh" and "ahhh" over...
Internet TV patent : Comment 50 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by ujb on 19-Jul-2004 13:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 47 (Darrin):
Don't you think the current author's copyrhights are enough?
I can't afford to search for potential patents I violate when designing my usb devices (easy things). I even can't afford to pay those licenses. let's just take that gif patent again. It waas licensable in batches but not in small numbers. if I write an application here in university for our internal use which needs to process gifs (say I got gifs as raw material) I just can't pay the license. Our bughet is too small. Should I really stop my research?
I assure I see teh aspects that one must get benefit from his/her work, but softwarepatents are just not the right way. It's too obvious that abuse will be too much. Wait until the day one patents thinking, if you can't pay the license you'll have to live a dumb life.
Another story are patents on natural goods (e.g. plants -> some companies are patenting natural plants because the developed some application on basis of that plant. That just must not happen (I am a biologist I know the raesons of thst companies -> i developed an application on basis of chick peas do I have the right to patent chick peas then? No ,no and another no!!!)

Darrin read again the http://swpat.ffii.org/index.en.html Something IS wrong with that patents. Witht the exististing methods it's just possible to protect your work, no need to change that law.
Anonymous, there are 62 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 62]
Back to Top