Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Graham Lauder wrote: Approved! Unbelievable! http://www.builderau.com.au/program/work/0,39024650,39190121,00.htm 8-( The original article in ZDNet http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/applications/0,39020384,39200380,00.htm -- Graham Lauder OpenOffice.org MarCon New Zealand (http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html) INGOTs Certification Assessor Trainer www.theingots.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
What a joke the patent office is. I think I'll try for a patent that covers when some object strikes another object causing signals to be sent down a wire that produces an object on a screen. Ha! then I'll own the keyboard! Pay up suckers!! JB Graham Lauder wrote: Approved! Unbelievable! http://www.builderau.com.au/program/work/0,39024650,39190121,00.htm 8-( - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
If you generalize this just a bit--and it would still most likely remain within the required specificity of patent offices--to simply have a triggering event to cause the signal... and don't mandate a wire, then you'll own TVs, telephones, cell telephones, kids' can-and-string toys, etc. You'll be in Fat City Eric Hines At 05/30/05 09:59, you wrote: What a joke the patent office is. I think I'll try for a patent that covers when some object strikes another object causing signals to be sent down a wire that produces an object on a screen. Ha! then I'll own the keyboard! Pay up suckers!! JB Graham Lauder wrote: Approved! Unbelievable! http://www.builderau.com.au/program/work/0,39024650,39190121,00.htm 8-( - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Government programs provide enough to keep you alive, but they don't offer any hope of living your dreams. --Grim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
I wonder if it cost money to apply for patents? What's frustrating is I've look at a couple of articles regarding this and the general stance of the patent office is let the courts decide. Total B.S. its their job to review the patents for clear innovation, not to hand them out for ever 'different' idea that comes out. What a bunch of morons. JB Eric Hines wrote: If you generalize this just a bit--and it would still most likely remain within the required specificity of patent offices--to simply have a triggering event to cause the signal... and don't mandate a wire, then you'll own TVs, telephones, cell telephones, kids' can-and-string toys, etc. You'll be in Fat City Eric Hines At 05/30/05 09:59, you wrote: What a joke the patent office is. I think I'll try for a patent that covers when some object strikes another object causing signals to be sent down a wire that produces an object on a screen. Ha! then I'll own the keyboard! Pay up suckers!! JB Graham Lauder wrote: Approved! Unbelievable! http://www.builderau.com.au/program/work/0,39024650,39190121,00.htm 8-( - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Government programs provide enough to keep you alive, but they don't offer any hope of living your dreams. --Grim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
There's usually a fee for filing a patent--to keep out the frivolous ones, yet. Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one--it compensates the inventor(s) for their efforts, and so spurs innovation--the performance of the open source community notwithstanding. We--all of us--just need to do what we can to get our respective governments to move back to a more appropriate middle ground between the rights/benefits of the inventor and the value to the general public than currently obtains. This isn't quite wishful thinking; laws do get changed, and revolutions do occur. Eric Hines At 05/30/05 10:44, you wrote: I wonder if it cost money to apply for patents? What's frustrating is I've look at a couple of articles regarding this and the general stance of the patent office is let the courts decide. Total B.S. its their job to review the patents for clear innovation, not to hand them out for ever 'different' idea that comes out. What a bunch of morons. JB Eric Hines wrote: If you generalize this just a bit--and it would still most likely remain within the required specificity of patent offices--to simply have a triggering event to cause the signal... and don't mandate a wire, then you'll own TVs, telephones, cell telephones, kids' can-and-string toys, etc. You'll be in Fat City Eric Hines At 05/30/05 09:59, you wrote: What a joke the patent office is. I think I'll try for a patent that covers when some object strikes another object causing signals to be sent down a wire that produces an object on a screen. Ha! then I'll own the keyboard! Pay up suckers!! JB Graham Lauder wrote: Approved! Unbelievable! http://www.builderau.com.au/program/work/0,39024650,39190121,00.htm 8-( - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Government programs provide enough to keep you alive, but they don't offer any hope of living your dreams. --Grim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Government programs provide enough to keep you alive, but they don't offer any hope of living your dreams. --Grim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Eric Hines wrote: Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous. --it compensates the inventor(s) for their efforts, and so spurs innovation I've never seen any evidence that granting a monopoly over an idea (patents) spur innovation. And I have seen a lot of evidence to the contrary. Putting roadblocks in the sharing of ideas inhibits progress, since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications of old ones. --the performance of the open source community notwithstanding. And the scientific community, which is much older, by several hundred years. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
I read this patent and I think it covers every conceivable method of communication between computers done by applications, connected by any means. If this patent is enfoceable, Microsoft would own the methods of communicating on any form of communication means applications could communicate with each other. Claim 1 defines this. The USPTO does not enforce patents and patents are worthless until they stand up to a challenge in court. This patent looks to be largely unenforceable. Who are they going to take to court? Everybody on the internet or a network who is running applications that communicate with each other? Yes, the USPTO has really show its intelligence on this one. Alex Janssen Graham Lauder wrote: Approved! Unbelievable! http://www.builderau.com.au/program/work/0,39024650,39190121,00.htm 8-( - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
I agree with you, Daniel, about improvements, but, this patent is try to stake a claim on something that we have all been doing ever since we created two applications on two networked computers that communicated via some protocol. Read claim 1 and think about how broad it is. Alex Janssen Daniel Carrera wrote: Eric Hines wrote: Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous. --it compensates the inventor(s) for their efforts, and so spurs innovation I've never seen any evidence that granting a monopoly over an idea (patents) spur innovation. And I have seen a lot of evidence to the contrary. Putting roadblocks in the sharing of ideas inhibits progress, since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications of old ones. --the performance of the open source community notwithstanding. And the scientific community, which is much older, by several hundred years. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Alex wrote: I agree with you, Daniel, about improvements, but, this patent is try to stake a claim on something that we have all been doing ever since we created two applications on two networked computers that communicated via some protocol. Read claim 1 and think about how broad it is. I was commenting on the general concept of patents and why I disapprove of it. I was not commenting on this patent. I really don't see what point you just tried to make. I said "I don't like the concept of patents" and your answer was "yes, but this patent is very stupid". Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
At 05/30/05 10:57, you wrote: Eric Hines wrote: Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous. Patent monopoly rights are very similar to copyright monopoly rights--just need some (not so minor) tweaks: shorter lifetime for the monopoly (at least in the US, this needs to be applied to copyrights, too); mandatory licensing, similar to copyright fair use requirements. --it compensates the inventor(s) for their efforts, and so spurs innovation I've never seen any evidence that granting a monopoly over an idea (patents) spur innovation. And I have seen a lot of evidence to the contrary. Putting roadblocks in the sharing of ideas inhibits progress, since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications of old ones. --the performance of the open source community notwithstanding. And the scientific community, which is much older, by several hundred years. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Government programs provide enough to keep you alive, but they don't offer any hope of living your dreams. --Grim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
At 05/30/05 11:21, you wrote: I read this patent and I think it covers every conceivable method of communication between computers done by applications, connected by any means. If this patent is enfoceable, Microsoft would own the methods of communicating on any form of communication means applications could communicate with each other. Claim 1 defines this. The USPTO does not enforce patents and patents are worthless until they stand up to a challenge in court. This patent looks to be largely unenforceable. Who are they going to take to court? Everybody on the internet or a network who is running applications that communicate with each other? That's exactly what the music industry is doing with music file sharers--no matter how small the individuals may be. It's expensive in the beginning, but if it protects their investment--however unfair that may seem--it's a cost-effective move. MS won't be far behind, except that I doubt that the patent is enforceable: even though a patent office granted it, it is too broad, and so the courts are very likely to toss it on challenge, or on an MS enforcement attempt. Yes, the USPTO has really show its intelligence on this one. Alex Janssen Graham Lauder wrote: Approved! Unbelievable! http://www.builderau.com.au/program/work/0,39024650,39190121,00.htm 8-( - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Government programs provide enough to keep you alive, but they don't offer any hope of living your dreams. --Grim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Mon, May 30, 2005 11:57:50 AM -0400, Daniel Carrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Eric Hines wrote: > > >Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one > > I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a > monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous. > Maybe you meant _software_ or _algorithm_ _only_ patents, not all possible patents in every field, didn't you? > I've never seen any evidence that granting a monopoly over an idea > (patents) spur innovation. Patents were born as monopolies over real _inventions_, not ideas. You could patent a physical, working prototype of bulb lamps or antigravity engines, and the process to build them. New, useful, physical things, not their mere ideas. The money, time and stress to concretely _build_ for mass production something innovative don't come for free. Today the concept is wildly and frequently abused, no doubt, but that's no reason to negate its validity, when applied properly, is it? Ciao, Marco -- Marco Fiorettimfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ Cyberspace means the end of our species ... because it means the end of innovation. This idea that the whole world is wired together is mass death And believe me, it'll be fast. -- Michael Crichton, "The Lost World" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Eric Hines wrote: I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous. Patent monopoly rights are very similar to copyright monopoly rights No, they are *very* different. Copyright covers works, patents cover ideas. The things you listed (lifetime, licensing) are quite superficial next to the difference of what they cover. The concept that you have ownership over your own work is acceptable. The concept that you have ownership over an *idea* is not. Ideas are not built up, they are not constructed. Ideas are merely discovered, and your discovering one does not inhibit me from discovering it too. And there is no fundamental reason why your discovering an idea first you prevent me from discovering it too. It is one thing for you to write a book about a young wizard learning magic and choose to keep your work private. It is quite another for you to prevent other people from writing their own book about a young wizard learning magic. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
M. Fioretti wrote: Maybe you meant _software_ or _algorithm_ _only_ patents, not all possible patents in every field, didn't you? I used the word "idea" and "idea" is precisely what I mean. Ideas are not constrained to software. If I draw a painting about a dragon, I should not be able to prevent you from drawing your own painting about a dragon, even though that's not an algorithm, or software. Patents were born as monopolies over real _inventions_, not ideas. You could patent a physical, working prototype of bulb lamps or antigravity engines, If you invent a new light bulb or an antigravity engine I should be able to use the ideas behind them to make my own bulb and antigravity engine. I can accept a copyright-style protection for your actual work. If you take a beautiful photograph of half-dome I understand if you don't want me to make copies of it. But I can still go to half-dome myself and take my own photograph. Today the concept is wildly and frequently abused, no doubt, but that's no reason to negate its validity, when applied properly, is it? I question the general validity of patents. Suppose you design a better keyboard, so that it's much easier to learn. Should you be granted a monopoly on making keyboards with that design? I don't think so. You are free to disagree. We can just agree to disagree on that. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Eric Hines wrote: At 05/30/05 11:21, you wrote: I read this patent and I think it covers every conceivable method of communication between computers done by applications, connected by any means. If this patent is enfoceable, Microsoft would own the methods of communicating on any form of communication means applications could communicate with each other. Claim 1 defines this. The USPTO does not enforce patents and patents are worthless until they stand up to a challenge in court. This patent looks to be largely unenforceable. Who are they going to take to court? Everybody on the internet or a network who is running applications that communicate with each other? That's exactly what the music industry is doing with music file sharers--no matter how small the individuals may be. It's expensive in the beginning, but if it protects their investment--however unfair that may seem--it's a cost-effective move. MS won't be far behind, except that I doubt that the patent is enforceable: even though a patent office granted it, it is too broad, and so the courts are very likely to toss it on challenge, or on an MS enforcement attempt. Yes, the USPTO has really show its intelligence on this one. Alex Janssen Graham Lauder wrote: Approved! Unbelievable! http://www.builderau.com.au/program/work/0,39024650,39190121,00.htm 8-( - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Government programs provide enough to keep you alive, but they don't offer any hope of living your dreams. --Grim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To All: Does anybody know what the Linux industry's take on this patent is? Are they going to challenge it? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Joseph wrote: > What a joke the patent office is. Understandable, considering that they are based upon number of patents _approved_. It would be much better if the default were to _reject_ patents, and the performance based upon rejected patents as a percentage of submitted patents. Get a bonus equal to the percentage of patents that you reject. xan jonathon -- A Fork requires: Seven systems with: 1+ GHz Processors 2+ GB RAM 0.25 TB Hard drive space - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Mon, May 30, 2005 13:43:46 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > If you invent a new light bulb or an antigravity engine I should be able > to use the ideas behind them to make my own bulb and antigravity > engine. Absolutely yes, that's why patents have limited duration. Whether its current value in years is the optimal one is another issue, of course. > I can accept a copyright-style protection for your actual work. Stallman teaches us that copyright and patents are deeply different beasts, so we shouldn't mix them, but, in the interest of a stimulating and friendly discussion, I'll byte. When it is a *real* invention the "actual work" is not just the drawing of a keyboard or, speaking of photographs, the final formula for a better film. It can take years and an awful lot of money to invent and make producible real inventions. Said this, > you take a beautiful photograph of half-dome I understand if you > don't want me to make copies of it. But I can still go to half-dome > myself and take my own photograph. Absolutely yes. That's copyright realm. But inventions and patents are different. If you come to my home, see my half dome photograph, and inspired by that go to Yosemite to make much better ones, none of us can and should pretend anything on the work of the other. I agree 100%. But if I had finished yesterday, after years of labor, the formula for the film you used, maybe spending a lot of money, you copied the formula today and, without even really understanding it, began to sell tomorrow films at a cheaper price because you have no R&D costs to recover, I'd be mightily pissed. That's why patents were invented. > I question the general validity of patents. Suppose you design a > better keyboard, so that it's much easier to learn. Should you be > granted a monopoly on making keyboards with that design? For a *limited* time, definitely yes. See film example above. Material things are not software. (oh, and before there is confusion, I think medicines and genes should be treated in a veeery different manner). > We can just agree to disagree on that. Of course, no problem. Ciao, Marco -- Marco Fiorettimfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ "The SUN TROPIC beauty farm reopens today: featuring exotic swimming pools, and, under the palm trees, **UVA lamps**" (unluckily for humankind, a REAL ad that I read in a real magazine) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Mon, May 30, 2005 10:57:42 AM -0700, OldSarge ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: [two screenfuls of text snipped] > To All: Does anybody know what the Linux industry's take on this > patent is? Are they going to challenge it? To all: may we all avoid to retransmit every time a lot of text that every list member has already received, sometimes paid? Thanks, Marco -- Marco Fiorettimfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ We have to pursue this subject of fun very seriously if we want to stay competitive in the 21st century. -George Yeo, Singapore's Minister of State for Finance. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
The most critical function of a patent or a copyright is that it allows the owner (I'll call this person, for now) of the thing--the invention, the implementation of an idea, etc--to assert ownership of that thing. With that ownership comes the ability to mandate, for the duration of that ownership, the dissemination of that thing. For instance, without ownership, the GNU license would be impossible, because there would be no owner to assert the requirement for that license to be applied. Notice I have never said anything about owning ideas. In the US, at least, owning ideas is explicitly excluded from the patent/copyright process, however blurred that seems to be getting now. I have an idea for a thing: I write a book that describes that idea, or I build a better keyboard that is an implementation of that idea--the book and the keyboard are mine to control the use of, but the idea remains owned by no one. You can write a different book describing that same idea, and you can build your own better keyboard that implements that same idea, so long as its a different implementation from mine. Eric Hines At 05/30/05 12:43, you wrote: M. Fioretti wrote: Maybe you meant _software_ or _algorithm_ _only_ patents, not all possible patents in every field, didn't you? I used the word "idea" and "idea" is precisely what I mean. Ideas are not constrained to software. If I draw a painting about a dragon, I should not be able to prevent you from drawing your own painting about a dragon, even though that's not an algorithm, or software. I question the general validity of patents. Suppose you design a better keyboard, so that it's much easier to learn. Should you be granted a monopoly on making keyboards with that design? I don't think so. You are free to disagree. We can just agree to disagree on that. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Government programs provide enough to keep you alive, but they don't offer any hope of living your dreams. --Grim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
M. Fioretti wrote: I can accept a copyright-style protection for your actual work. Stallman teaches us that copyright and patents are deeply different beasts, so we shouldn't mix them, but, in the interest of a stimulating and friendly discussion, I'll byte. Yes, indeed. I should have written the above more carefully. I believe your position is best shown in this example: But if I had finished yesterday, after years of labor, the formula for the film you used, maybe spending a lot of money, you copied the formula today and, without even really understanding it, began to sell tomorrow films at a cheaper price because you have no R&D costs to recover, I'd be mightily pissed. That's why patents were invented. Now, I'm going to say something very radical: I disagree. "What? Is Daniel crazy? Did he just say not to reward hard work?" I'm not crazy yet :-) and I do see where you're comming from. But I think I have an interesting, and outside-the-box thought here: What you just described could be called a "big bang" development model. That is, an inventor works in secrecy for a long time, and one day announces to the world this one massive invention. I believe that this development model should be discouraged in favour of the "small step" model. Similar to the FOSS mantra "release early, and release often". The scientific community has been following it for a long time. And historically, most breakthroughs come from this model. A useful historical analogy is alchemy vs chemistry. Alchemy was developed in the big-bang model. People worked in isolation for long periods of time. During alchemy, very few advances were made. It wasn't until people started sharing ideas early and often that real progress was made. Once this happened, progress was very rapid, and gave rise to what we now call chemistry. Patents discourage small-step development in favour of the less productive big-bang development. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Daniel, All I was pointing out was that MS didn't even do what you suggested. You said "since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications of old ones" and that is true. They did not invent anything, although there patent would lead you to believe otherwise. *grin* Cheers back at you, Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
If this bothers you then write your EU representative or that of the EU country you have business or project partners in: http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep6/owa/p_meps2.repartition?ilg=EN Otherwise, the situations is likely to get worse. As monopoly rents go away, look for more things like "Microsoft Intellectual Property Ventures" -Lars Lars Noodén ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Software patents harm all Net-based business, write your MEP: http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep6/owa/p_meps2.repartition?ilg=EN On Mon, 30 May 2005, Graham Lauder wrote: Approved! Unbelievable! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
> Eric Hines wrote: > > > Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one > > I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a > monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous. > > > --it compensates the inventor(s) for their efforts, and so spurs > > innovation > > I've never seen any evidence that granting a monopoly over an idea > (patents) spur innovation. And I have seen a lot of evidence to the > contrary. Putting roadblocks in the sharing of ideas inhibits > progress, since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications > of old ones. > > >--the performance of the open source community notwithstanding. > > And the scientific community, which is much older, by several hundred > years. > > Cheers, > Daniel. Both copyrights and patents are monopolies on ideas, just a different way of expressing the idea. Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent). However, the way that it is implemented (see the various countries that have different ways) and then manipulated (see how companies will patent certain things in different ways in different places) Ways of overcoming this manipulation has been licensing, shortening the term, tightening what can be patented. However, the expansion of what can be patented from a chemical process to a chemical for use in the body then expanding the term for this particular type a chemical patent etc is what is wrong. Also, patenting a plant. but it is big money. Chris - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 13:43:46 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Absolutely yes. That's copyright realm. But inventions and patents are > different. If you come to my home, see my half dome photograph, and > inspired by that go to Yosemite to make much better ones, none of us > can and should pretend anything on the work of the other. I agree > 100%. But if I had finished yesterday, after years of labor, the > formula for the film you used, maybe spending a lot of money, you > copied the formula today and, without even really understanding it, > began to sell tomorrow films at a cheaper price because you have no > R&D costs to recover, I'd be mightily pissed. That's why patents were > invented. I like the last sentence LOL, also the reference of 'That's" FOTFL Chris - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Chris BONDE wrote: Both copyrights and patents are monopolies on ideas, just a different way of expressing the idea. In which way is a copyright a monopoly over an idea? I believe that "an expression of an idea" and an "idea" are very different. I accept that the former should be "protected", but not the latter. Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent). That is neither the intention, nor the effect of patents. The intention of patents was to encourage people to work on developing ideas with the promise that, in return, they would be granted a temporary monopoly. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Chris BONDE wrote: I like the last sentence LOL, also the reference of 'That's" FOTFL "FOTFL"? I'm not familiar with that acronym. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 20:24 -0400, Daniel Carrera wrote: > Chris BONDE wrote: > > > I like the last sentence LOL, also the reference of 'That's" FOTFL > > "FOTFL"? I'm not familiar with that acronym. > > Cheers, > Daniel. Falling On The Floor Laughing. Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Mon, May 30, 2005 16:39:12 PM -0700, Chris BONDE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 30, 2005 13:43:46 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Absolutely yes. That's copyright realm. But inventions and patents are > > different. If you come to my home, see my half dome photograph, and > > inspired by that go to Yosemite to make much better ones, none of us > > can and should pretend anything on the work of the other. I agree > > 100%. But if I had finished yesterday, after years of labor, the > > formula for the film you used, maybe spending a lot of money, you > > copied the formula today and, without even really understanding it, > > began to sell tomorrow films at a cheaper price because you have no > > R&D costs to recover, I'd be mightily pissed. That's why patents were > > invented. > I like the last sentence LOL, also the reference of 'That's" FOTFL What do you mean with "also the reference of "That's"? Marco -- Marco Fiorettimfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ [media giants] have no idea how to do business with resourceful human beings rather than passive vegetables. So they run to [the] government for protection." -- Doc Searls on the SSSCA, in Linux Journal - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Mon, May 30, 2005 16:30:36 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > "What? Is Daniel crazy? Did he just say not to reward hard work?" > > I'm not crazy yet :-) and I do see where you're comming from. But I > think I have an interesting, and outside-the-box thought here: > What you just described could be called a "big bang" development model. > That is, an inventor works in secrecy for a long time, and one day > announces to the world this one massive invention. I believe that this > development model should be discouraged in favour of the "small step" > model. Similar to the FOSS mantra "release early, and release often". Your thesis is interesting indeed and it would be a wonderful world if it were always applicable. But it doesn't scale, so to speak, outside certain research fields. You can follow the "FOSS mantra" with software, that is something immaterial that every kid can "rebuild" to test 10 times a day with extremely cheap equipment which fits under a desk and does the hard job (the actual compiling process) unattended. You can do it with small material things which can be built with *very* little space and money, or in "environments" where, again unlike software, everybody plays by the same rules. But you can't "release early and often" new fuels, cars, microprocessors, or the extremely complex machinery needed to build even one single working prototype. Not when you want to actually build and sell many units. Some years ago this lady: www.suberis.it discovered by herself a process to make shoes, clothes and other things directly out of cork. DISCLAIMER: I have no relationship whatsoever with that her and her company, just read this last week on the net. Now, I am quite confident that she could afford to do it only because, thanks to the patents she got, she could borrow the money with confidence she could give it back asap. I can test a kernel patch coming from Antarctica and share it without expenses, so it would be a shame not to share it. But if she had shared his early experiments, I could have NOT done anything with them (no cork trees in 200 Kms, no space at all for machinery at home), and very probably some far-east sweatshop (no unions, no laws for child or environment protection) would be now flooding the market with the same goods at a price that would not leave her any possibility to recover her R&D expenses. > The scientific community has been following it for a long time. And > historically, most breakthroughs come from this model. Historically, yes. It was a simpler world, with simpler technology to discover. > A useful historical analogy is alchemy vs chemistry. Alchemy had such powerful mystic/esoteric components and motivations that I'm not so sure it's meaningful to look at it to decide a doable scientific process for today's world. Again, it would be wonderful if all inventions could happen in the way you describe. And I surely want to see a world where as much scientific research as possible is funded by governments and other non-profit institutions. for the common good. But I am convinced that *real* patents, as they were meant to be, would NOT hurt or slow down that process, and stimulate a lot of activity in the meantime. Ciao, Marco F. -- Marco Fiorettimfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ "What terrifies you most in purity," I asked? "Haste," William answered. -- The Name of the Rose, Fifth Day, Nones - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Mon, May 30, 2005 20:23:13 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Chris BONDE wrote: > >Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their > >idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent). > > That is neither the intention, nor the effect of patents. As far as I know, it indeed *is*. I (government): 1) make sure that everybody can learn all the details of new technologies by *forcing* inventors to disclose what they did. 2) keep inventors motivated to keep inventing while giving away by granting them a temporary monopoly. > The intention of patents was to encourage people to work on > developing ideas with the promise that, in return, they would be > granted a temporary monopoly. No. Without patents people would have invented and sold anyway, just keeping the secret on how they did stuff. Meaning that their monopoly, without the patent papers which are mandated just to share knowledge as *early* as possible, could have lasted even longer than a patent duration. Marco -- Marco Fiorettimfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book. - Groucho Marx - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Tue, May 31, 2005 05:27:04 AM +0200, io ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I believe that this development model should be discouraged in > > favour of the "small step" model. Similar to the FOSS mantra > > "release early, and release often". > > Your thesis is interesting indeed and it would be a wonderful world if > it were always applicable. But it doesn't scale, so to speak, outside > certain research fields. You can follow the "FOSS mantra" with > software, that is something immaterial that every kid can "rebuild" to > test 10 times a day with extremely cheap equipment which fits under a > desk and does the hard job (the actual compiling process) unattended. Another example: google for "synthetic diamonds" which have a lot of useful industrial applications, not just pretty rings and necklaces. It costs a lot to test and develop the machinery. If the private companies doing this "released early and often" without patents they would go bankrupt only in favour of other for-profit companies, because no private hacker could replicate, debug, contribute in his kitchen. One could argue that this wouldn't be an issue if all research or any other activity were always funded and done by governments, but we'd really digress then. Ciao, Marco F. -- Marco Fiorettimfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ Those who will be able to conquer software will be able to conquer the world. -- Tadahiro Sekimoto, president, NEC Corp. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
M. Fioretti wrote: You can do it with small material things which can be built with *very* little space and money, or in "environments" where, again unlike software, everybody plays by the same rules. But you can't "release early and often" new fuels, cars, microprocessors, or the extremely complex machinery needed to build even one single working prototype. Not when you want to actually build and sell many units. Actually, very large particle accelerators are a lot more expensive than cars and microprocessors and they don't use the restrictive model (some new fuels are cheaper, others aren't). They still grow progress in incremental steps. It's also interesting to note that new fules, cars and microprocessors also don't have the secretive model you described, and this lack of secrecy or monopoly has been the source of inmsense growth in new fuels, cars and microprocessors. This has been the case for as long as there have been projects that require high expenditures (several hundred years, beginning with large telescopes for astronomy). And they have all been done without secrecy or monopoly, and they have all grown inmensely because of the lack of secrecy and monopoly. So yes, actually, it definitely scales, all the way up to the largest projects ever made. The thing about using patents to "protect" invention is actually a very recent aberration in a few fields, most notably the pharmaceutical industry (and the pharmaceutical industry uses labs that are cheaper than particle accelerators or fusion reactors). It is a lot less common that it might seem at first. But truth is, most discovery is not done in the big-bang model. Not in the past, and not today. Historically, yes. It was a simpler world, with simpler technology to discover. 1) Proportionally, telescopes and other technology of the time was still quite very expensive. 2) What I said still applies to the modern world. Again, it would be wonderful if all inventions could happen in the way you describe. They can. And I'm sure that the benefit that might be derived from the finnancial incentive is far outweight by the slow down in discovery due to government imposed monopolies. And I surely want to see a world where as much scientific research as possible is funded by governments and other non-profit institutions. for the common good. Don't confuse the small-step development model with aulterism. Perfectly selfish companies can bring about discovery without patents, and earn money. And indeed, discovery is faster. A good example of this is, ironicaly, in the computer industry. Microprocessors are not packed with patents. Nothing prohibits you from creating a microprocessor that copies the x86 design, inspite of the fact that it took time, effort and money to make. But you don't see the microprocessor industry stagnant. In fact, you see the opposite, it's seen fantastic growth. Now, what would happen if (say) Intel had been granted a monopoly on the x86 chip model? Then AMD would not have been able to compete with them by copying the model, which would have removed a motivator for Intell to improve the technology further. And today microprocessors would not be nearly as advanced as they are today. The same holds true for cars, new fuels, and many other things that require heavy investment. But I am convinced that *real* patents, as they were meant to be, would NOT hurt or slow down that process, and stimulate a lot of activity in the meantime. I have no doubt that if Intel had gotten a patent on the x86 chip design, that would have severely hurt the development of microprocessors. Likewise, I've seen sound medical research been hurt bye either patents or patent-like provisions from NAFTA. There was a case where an American company found a very expensive, and accurate method of detecting a type of cancer (I forget the details). A Canadian company found a method that was only about 80-90% accurate (based on looking at proteins, I remember that bit, it was an indirect method) but was less than 1/10th the cost. The American company successfully sued the Canadian under NAFTA provisions and forced it to stop. Notice, this was a completely different system of diagnosing the same illness. I can't believe that this sort of system stimulates progress. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
M. Fioretti wrote: Another example: google for "synthetic diamonds" which have a lot of useful industrial applications, Indeed, and this link suggests that the existence of patents did not accelerate the creation of synthetic diamonds at any point, but at several points did slow it down: http://edwardjayepstein.com/diamond/chap15_print.htm not just pretty rings and necklaces. It costs a lot to test and develop the machinery. Yet, the ones who developed them first did not use patents, but when GE did get patents, it did inhibit De Beers from using their process until they paid $8 million. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
M. Fioretti wrote: Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent). That is neither the intention, nor the effect of patents. As far as I know, it indeed *is*. I (government): 1) make sure that everybody can learn all the details of new technologies by *forcing* inventors to disclose what they did. 2) keep inventors motivated to keep inventing while giving away by granting them a temporary monopoly. I'm pretty sure that the intention was (2), not (1). No. Without patents people would have invented and sold anyway, just keeping the secret on how they did stuff. That logic only applies for inventions that don't lend themselves to reverse engineering. I doubt that the majority of inventions fall into that category. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Tue, May 31, 2005 00:16:44 AM -0400, Daniel Carrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Actually, very large particle accelerators are a lot more expensive > than cars and microprocessors and they don't use the restrictive > model (some new fuels are cheaper, others aren't). Isn't this because there is no market for them, that is the fact that they are scientific *instruments*, not stuff you could need at home or sell at the mall? I am all for basic research, but again, does this apply? > They still grow progress in incremental steps. It's also interesting > to note that new fules, cars and microprocessors also don't have the > secretive model you described Examples? Also note that I am talking the whole process, including engineering and mass production, not only of basic research. That's why I say patents do have a reason to exist. The architecture of a new microprocessor can be drawn on a piece of paper, and sharing and discussing it on the net can accelerate progress. But to really build many of them cheap, fast and safe you have to invest a lot. That's where patents can help to accelerate progress. > So yes, actually, it definitely scales, all the way up to the > largest projects ever made. Like what? The pyramids and the gothic cathedrals? Things that, like accelerators and the telescopes you also mentioned, had no private use? > The thing about using patents to "protect" invention is actually a > very recent aberration in a few fields, The polio vaccine and the Internet are even more recent. Being recent does not automatically makes something wrong or worst of what existed before, so we should really stop using that as a criterion to decide if something is good or bad. Said this, I had *already* mentioned, and if I didn't I do think so anyway just like you, that drugs and genes are a very different case which must be handled in a really different way. > Don't confuse the small-step development model with aulterism. Aulterism? > Perfectly selfish companies can bring about discovery without > patents, and earn money. And indeed, discovery is faster. A good > example of this is, ironicaly, in the computer > industry. Microprocessors are not packed with patents. ROFL. Check your facts. Whether they are real or a joke is another issue, but check your facts before we go further. Google for "Intel X86 patents". While doing that, don't think only to accelerators and telescopes, scale down. Investigate if all the "low tech" machinery needed to really make them has no patents. A processor only existing on paper is not really useful. > Nothing prohibits you from creating a microprocessor that copies the > x86 design. Today, probably yes, because the patents have probably expired. But if I had done it when it first appeared on the market, maybe they would have sued my ass. As they did, IIRC, with AMD some years ago. Maybe they could have arrived some year earlier if patents didn't exist, but this is speculation. In any case, the assertion that microprocessor exist today without patents is not true. Ciao, Marco F. -- Marco Fiorettimfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ It's not the hours you put in your work that counts, it's the work you put in the hours.Sam Ewing - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Tue, May 31, 2005 00:30:00 AM -0400, Daniel Carrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > M. Fioretti wrote: > > >>>Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their > >>>idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent). > >> > >>That is neither the intention, nor the effect of patents. > > > >As far as I know, it indeed *is*. I (government): > > > >1) make sure that everybody can learn all the details of new > > technologies by *forcing* inventors to disclose what they did. > >2) keep inventors motivated to keep inventing while giving away by > > granting them a temporary monopoly. > > I'm pretty sure that the intention was (2), not (1). In "Free Software, Free Society", R.M. Stallman "talks about the perversion of the original intent of patent and copyright law. For those of us in the US, our constitution states clearly that these are granted for the benefit of society. Most other countries say something similar". http://gnu.open-mirror.com/doc/book13.html > > >No. Without patents people would have invented and sold anyway, just > >keeping the secret on how they did stuff. > > That logic only applies for inventions that don't lend themselves to > reverse engineering. I doubt that the majority of inventions fall into > that category. Maybe you keep looking only at the majority of a small part of them. I could sell to you something I made which in itself is extremely simple, and can be reverse-engineered in seconds. But in practice it can be manufactured only with some very special machinery. Which I have no obligation to sell you. I'd patent that machinery. Without patents, then, *if* you are lucky, you can re-invent that machines in one year, for the common good. Or it may take yoy, say, 10 years. Or, for the common good, we use patents which force me to explain now what I did and how, and you to wait 5 years, instead of risking 10. The actual numbers could be reviewed, of course, and SW, drugs and genes are exceptions, but that's how the system is supposed to work, and I find nothing harmful in it. Ciao, Marco -- Marco Fiorettimfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. R. A. Heinlein - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
M. Fioretti wrote: Isn't this because there is no market for them, that is the fact that they are scientific *instruments*, not stuff you could need at home or sell at the mall? I am all for basic research, but again, does this apply? This is like expensive pharmaceutical labs. I'm not saying that the accelerator itself would be patented, anymore than pharmaceutical labs are patented. The point is that nuclear research is expensive, just like pharmaceutical research, because they require expensive equipment. Ditto for astronomy, solar cells, fusion, cars, microprocessors etc. Even when the derivatives of those do have market applications. They still grow progress in incremental steps. It's also interesting to note that new fules, cars and microprocessors also don't have the secretive model you described Examples? x86 processor, solar cells, fusion technology, cars, fuel cells. The architecture of a new microprocessor can be drawn on a piece of paper, The issue is cost. That drawing (which would not fit on any piece of paper I know of) is very expensive to do. The point is not whether you need a huge facility to design a microprocessor, but whether there is a heavy capital investment before you get any money back. So yes, actually, it definitely scales, all the way up to the largest projects ever made. Like what? The pyramids and the gothic cathedrals? Things that, like accelerators and the telescopes you also mentioned, had no private use? Where does "private" come from? Private use has nothing to do with monopoly rights. Intel is a private company, so are car companies and many fuel companies. And the products they make are for priate use. The point is over the use of patents to get a monopoly. They don't. The thing about using patents to "protect" invention is actually a very recent aberration in a few fields, The polio vaccine and the Internet are even more recent. Being recent does not automatically makes something wrong or worst of what existed before, That's not the point I was making. I never said "new = bad" and I don't know how you got that impression. I was saying that most progress hasn't come from patents. I was saying that heavy capital investment to produce science is nothing new and patents are. Aulterism? Sorry, I can't type "altruism". ROFL. Check your facts. Whether they are real or a joke is another issue, but check your facts before we go further. Okay, I made a mistake for once in my life. But in general, the x86 architecture has been more open than the Mac architecture and this has been a driving reason why that architecture took off and now dominates the market, instead of the comparatively closed Mac architecture. So the basic point is still valid. The more closed system did worse. Nothing prohibits you from creating a microprocessor that copies the x86 design. Today, probably yes, because the patents have probably expired. But if I had done it when it first appeared on the market, maybe they would have sued my ass. As they did, IIRC, with AMD some years ago. They lost that lawsuit btw. Not that it makes a huge difference. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
M. Fioretti wrote: In "Free Software, Free Society", R.M. Stallman "talks about the perversion of the original intent of patent and copyright law. For those of us in the US, our constitution states clearly that these are granted for the benefit of society. Most other countries say something similar". http://gnu.open-mirror.com/doc/book13.html I never said anything to the contrary. Maybe you keep looking only at the majority of a small part of them. I could sell to you something I made which in itself is extremely simple, and can be reverse-engineered in seconds. But in practice it can be manufactured only with some very special machinery. Which I have no obligation to sell you. I'd patent that machinery. Without patents, then, *if* you are lucky, you can re-invent that machines in one year, for the common good. Or it may take yoy, say, 10 years. Or, for the common good, we use patents which force me to explain now what I did and how, and you to wait 5 years, instead of risking 10. Then the argument simply shifts to the design of the machine. Spending many years designing your machine in seclusion is less effective than designing it in small steps and sharing those. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:30, Daniel Carrera wrote: > M. Fioretti wrote: > >>I can accept a copyright-style protection for your actual work. > > > > Stallman teaches us that copyright and patents are deeply different > > beasts, so we shouldn't mix them, but, in the interest of a > > stimulating and friendly discussion, I'll byte. > > Yes, indeed. I should have written the above more carefully. > > I believe your position is best shown in this example: > > But if I had finished yesterday, after years of labor, the formula for > > the film you used, maybe spending a lot of money, you copied the > > formula today and, without even really understanding it, began to sell > > tomorrow films at a cheaper price because you have no R&D costs to > > recover, I'd be mightily pissed. That's why patents were invented. > > Now, I'm going to say something very radical: I disagree. > > "What? Is Daniel crazy? Did he just say not to reward hard work?" > > I'm not crazy yet :-) and I do see where you're comming from. But I > think I have an interesting, and outside-the-box thought here: > > What you just described could be called a "big bang" development model. > That is, an inventor works in secrecy for a long time, and one day > announces to the world this one massive invention. I believe that this One NZ inventor - Richard Pierce - who believed in this "working-in-secret" has the distinction of never having his inventions in the fields of aviation or anything else, actually get taken up anywhere. So as an inventor he's incredible, as a practical success - he wasted his life. > development model should be discouraged in favour of the "small step" > model. Similar to the FOSS mantra "release early, and release often". > The scientific community has been following it for a long time. And > historically, most breakthroughs come from this model. > > A useful historical analogy is alchemy vs chemistry. Alchemy was > developed in the big-bang model. People worked in isolation for long > periods of time. During alchemy, very few advances were made. It wasn't > until people started sharing ideas early and often that real progress > was made. Once this happened, progress was very rapid, and gave rise to > what we now call chemistry. > > Patents discourage small-step development in favour of the less > productive big-bang development. > > Cheers, > Daniel. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish - Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? You ask, what is the most important thing? Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:23, Daniel Carrera wrote: > Chris BONDE wrote: > > Both copyrights and patents are monopolies on ideas, just a different way > > of expressing the idea. > > In which way is a copyright a monopoly over an idea? A copyright on a document or work of art protects the expression of the ideas in it. It in no way asserts the unique ownership of that idea. To give an example, Tolkien has some rather nasty characters with big teeth - the orcs. The copyright on his text asserts his "ownership" of the combination of characters and situations in his texts. In no way does it prohibit others from writing similar texts - as long as they do not use his characters without explicit agreement, or use exactly the same situations, locations, etc. A patent is a monopoly on a development of an idea - not on that idea itself. Software patents are monopolies on ideas themselves. I blew a fuse at Newforge today over this self-same idea http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/05/05/30/1155209.shtml?tid=147 "Patent law provides for the object to be patented, to be presented in prototype form, and its details divulged so that anyone with an inkling of technical know-how can reproduce it. But patent law also provides that anything worth patenting must be non-trivial. "Now software patent attorneys apparently are satisfied with submitting patent applications without the object of the patent, the software, to be presented in prototype form, ie, in full source code form, and its details so divulged together with all and any relevant pieces of documentation. "In other words, software patent attorneys have done the otherwise unthinkable - they have NOT contested the claim that software patents are trivial and trivially-implementable, because they are seeking protection on the bare idea without reference to any implementation. If their only evidence is the idea that such-and-such, and they are seeking protection on the very idea itself and not on any specific implementation, they must believe that any specific implementation is trivial. "And if it is trivial to implement software on the basic idea, then it is not worthy of any protection whatsoever, because it adds nothing to industry." Wesley Parish > I believe that "an expression of an idea" and an "idea" are very > different. I accept that the former should be "protected", but not the > latter. > > > Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing > > their idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent). > > That is neither the intention, nor the effect of patents. The intention > of patents was to encourage people to work on developing ideas with the > promise that, in return, they would be granted a temporary monopoly. > > Cheers, > Daniel. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish - Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? You ask, what is the most important thing? Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Tue, 31 May 2005 15:38, M. Fioretti wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2005 20:23:13 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Chris BONDE wrote: > > >Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their > > >idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent). > > > > That is neither the intention, nor the effect of patents. > > As far as I know, it indeed *is*. I (government): > > 1) make sure that everybody can learn all the details of new >technologies by *forcing* inventors to disclose what they did. > 2) keep inventors motivated to keep inventing while giving away by >granting them a temporary monopoly. > > > The intention of patents was to encourage people to work on > > developing ideas with the promise that, in return, they would be > > granted a temporary monopoly. > > No. Without patents people would have invented and sold anyway, just > keeping the secret on how they did stuff. Meaning that their monopoly, > without the patent papers which are mandated just to share knowledge > as *early* as possible, could have lasted even longer than a patent > duration. Patents were a means of breaking the monopoly of the Guilds, and by forcing their hidden knowledge out into the open, it gave various unspeakable forms of politician, eg, the Kings of England, a way of extracting further moneys. It also sped up the diffusion of knowledge, but that was merely a secondary effect. Breaking the Guilds and ensuring they couldn't get their act together was a more major part of it - now you have the patent system in the sworn service of the Guilds again. > > Marco Wesley Parish -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish - Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? You ask, what is the most important thing? Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
--- Joseph Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What a joke the patent office is. I think I'll try for a patent that > covers when some object strikes another object causing signals to be > sent down a wire that produces an object on a screen. > > Ha! then I'll own the keyboard! Pay up suckers!! you should first go and check out the existing patents on keyboards, and then check out the specific ones for mobile devices... esp. teh ones by 'research in motion'. > JB > Sander .sigless ___ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
--- Joseph Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wonder if it cost money to apply for patents? > yes, of course > What's frustrating is I've look at a couple of articles regarding this > and the general stance of the patent office is let the courts decide. > Total B.S. its their job to review the patents for clear innovation, not > to hand them out for ever 'different' idea that comes out. What a bunch > of morons. > uhh... please get a bit more fuller view of the situation before ranting, ok? > JB > Sander .sigless ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
--- Eric Hines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 05/30/05 10:57, you wrote: > >Eric Hines wrote: > > > >>Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one > > > >I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a > >monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous. > > Patent monopoly rights are very similar to copyright monopoly rights--just copyright rights are not actually monopoly rights, not even in the US and certainly not elsewhere. Patent roihgts are not really monopoly rights either. Specificly, they don't allow you to make or own anything, they merely allow you to prohibit others from doing so. > need some (not so minor) tweaks: shorter lifetime for the monopoly (at > least in the US, this needs to be applied to copyrights, too); mandatory > licensing, similar to copyright fair use requirements. > Sander .sigless ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I read this patent and I think it covers every conceivable method of > communication between computers done by applications, connected by any > means. If this patent is enfoceable, Microsoft would own the methods of > communicating on any form of communication means applications could > communicate with each other. Claim 1 defines this. > uh, no, not really. please read some more patents and get an understanding on how what is written in the patent application messhes together to form the patent. > The USPTO does not enforce patents and patents are worthless until they > stand up to a challenge in court. > Nonsense. Most patents, including ones on which millions of dollars are paid for licences every year never get challenged in court. > This patent looks to be largely unenforceable. Who are they going to > take to court? Everybody on the internet or a network who is running > applications that communicate with each other? > whoever violates in their opinion the things that patent really is about. > Yes, the USPTO has really show its intelligence on this one. > > Alex Janssen Sander .sigless ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with you, Daniel, about improvements, but, this patent is try > to stake a claim on something that we have all been doing ever since we > created two applications on two networked computers that communicated > via some protocol. Read claim 1 and think about how broad it is. > Or possibly you didn't understand the patent? > Alex Janssen Sander .sigless ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
--- Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Hines wrote: > > >> I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a > >> monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous. > > > > Patent monopoly rights are very similar to copyright monopoly > > rights > > No, they are *very* different. Copyright covers works, patents cover > ideas. The things you listed (lifetime, licensing) are quite superficial No. You can't patent ideas. You can patent inventions, which, while requiring ideas are in itself just ideas. Sander .sigless ___ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
--- Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > M. Fioretti wrote: > > > Maybe you meant _software_ or _algorithm_ _only_ patents, not all > > possible patents in every field, didn't you? > > I used the word "idea" and "idea" is precisely what I mean. Ideas are > not constrained to software. If I draw a painting about a dragon, I > should not be able to prevent you from drawing your own painting about a > dragon, even though that's not an algorithm, or software. > no problem with patents or copyrights here > > Patents were born as monopolies over real _inventions_, not ideas. You > > could patent a physical, working prototype of bulb lamps or > > antigravity engines, > > If you invent a new light bulb or an antigravity engine I should be able > to use the ideas behind them to make my own bulb and antigravity engine. > I can accept a copyright-style protection for your actual work. If you > take a beautiful photograph of half-dome I understand if you don't want > me to make copies of it. But I can still go to half-dome myself and take > my own photograph. > again, no problem with patents or copyrights > > Today the concept is wildly and frequently abused, no doubt, but > > that's no reason to negate its validity, when applied properly, is it? > > I question the general validity of patents. Suppose you design a better > keyboard, so that it's much easier to learn. Should you be granted a > monopoly on making keyboards with that design? I don't think so. You are > free to disagree. We can just agree to disagree on that. > Why shouldn't you be able to patent it? After all, its rather likely that somebody else can come up with a much better design for a keyboard in time. > Cheers, > Daniel. > Sander .sigless ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Daniel, > > All I was pointing out was that MS didn't even do what you suggested. > You said "since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications of > old ones" and that is true. > They did not invent anything, although there patent would lead you to > believe otherwise. *grin* > So please englighten us, what about the patent is all that old? /me hates defending MS ... > Cheers back at you, > > Alex > Sander .sigless ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
--- Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, very large particle accelerators are a lot more expensive than > cars and microprocessors and they don't use the restrictive model (some > new fuels are cheaper, others aren't). They still grow progress in > incremental steps. It's also interesting to note that new fules, cars > and microprocessors also don't have the secretive model you described, But they do. Have you checked out the processor architecure and VLSI process related patents lately? there is a very large set of them and it keeps growing. > and this lack of secrecy or monopoly has been the source of inmsense > growth in new fuels, cars and microprocessors. This has been the case Wrong. > for as long as there have been projects that require high expenditures > (several hundred years, beginning with large telescopes for astronomy). > And they have all been done without secrecy or monopoly, and they have > all grown inmensely because of the lack of secrecy and monopoly. > yes, but how manyof these have been done with private funding that has been required to return a profit? Sander .sigless ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
--- Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > x86 processor, solar cells, fusion technology, cars, fuel cells. > But Daniel, all of these are positively *BURIED* in patents. > > The architecture of a new > > microprocessor can be drawn on a piece of paper, > > The issue is cost. That drawing (which would not fit on any piece of > paper I know of) is very expensive to do. The point is not whether you > need a huge facility to design a microprocessor, but whether there is a > heavy capital investment before you get any money back. > There is - which is (among other things) why there is a large amount of patents relating to this. > > Cheers, > Daniel. > Sander .sigless ___ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 21:46 +0100, Sander Vesik wrote: > --- Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > x86 processor, solar cells, fusion technology, cars, fuel cells. > > > > But Daniel, all of these are positively *BURIED* in patents. Software is different from other commodities. Patents on other commodities might or might not be vital. They certainly are not vital for software to flourish. Evidence? The whole of the education software market in the UK developed with out any patents. So why introduce something in Europe that we have got along quite nicely without for so long? The US might want to waste its resources on lawyers and litigation, some of us over here have no desire to go down that route. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMSL - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Tue, May 31, 2005 01:30:51 AM -0400, Daniel Carrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > >The architecture of a new microprocessor can be drawn on a piece of > >paper, > > The issue is cost. That drawing (which would not fit on any piece of > paper I know of) is very expensive to do. The point is not whether > you need a huge facility to design a microprocessor, but whether > there is a heavy capital investment before you get any money back. What is the difference? The point is that if you only design it without manufacturing at least a prototype you'll never know for sure that it works, and of course there is a huge capital investment to build a silicon foundry, much before it starts to make money. > >>So yes, actually, it definitely scales, all the way up to the > >>largest projects ever made. > > > >Like what? The pyramids and the gothic cathedrals? Things that, > >like accelerators and the telescopes you also mentioned, had no > >private use? > > Where does "private" come from? Sorry, I meant "personal". Cathedrals and other temples are not built to be used by a single person for his own private business. > >>The thing about using patents to "protect" invention is actually a > >>very recent aberration in a few fields, > > > >The polio vaccine and the Internet are even more recent. Being > >recent does not automatically makes something wrong or worst of > >what existed before, > > That's not the point I was making. I never said "new = bad" and I > don't know how you got that impression. >From your sentence above: "The thing about using patents to "protect" invention is actually a very recent aberration in a few fields". > I was saying that most progress hasn't come from patents. I was > saying that heavy capital investment to produce science is nothing > new and patents are. Heavy capital investment isn't new, but it has been for a long time reserved, for any reasons, only to religious or politic, anyway monolithic and centralized, administrations for which mere profit was not *the* goal. Yes, in that context patents wouldn't mean much. > But in general, the x86 architecture has been more open than the Mac > architecture and this has been a driving reason why that architecture > took off and now dominates the market, instead of the comparatively > closed Mac architecture. So the basic point is still valid. The more > closed system did worse. Or, maybe, "both systems were closed by lots of patents, and the one that made the smartest use of them (certainly not for the common good and universal love) managed to keep control to make more money". Ciao, Marco -- Marco Fiorettimfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ [media giants] have no idea how to do business with resourceful human beings rather than passive vegetables. So they run to [the] government for protection." -- Doc Searls on the SSSCA, in Linux Journal - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
M. Fioretti wrote: That's not the point I was making. I never said "new = bad" and I don't know how you got that impression. From your sentence above: "The thing about using patents to "protect" invention is actually a very recent aberration in a few fields". Trust me, I didn't mean to imply "new = bad" and I still don't know how that came accross. The fact that an aberration came out recently does not mean that all that is recent is an aberration. Heavy capital investment isn't new, but it has been for a long time reserved, for any reasons, only to religious or politic, anyway monolithic and centralized, administrations I'm pretty sure that rich people who are not political or religious institutions have been around for a long time. In any event, political and religious groups are not what I have in mind. I'm talking about private individuals who are rich, and spend money on "science" (before the name as such appeared) and don't see a need to exclude others from using the knowledge they discover. Or, maybe, "both systems were closed by lots of patents, and the one that made the smartest use of them (certainly not for the common good and universal love) managed to keep control to make more money". Fair enough. But the smart use of them involved making it easier for others to use them. Look, you've made a lot of good points and I don't want to deny them. But at least I hope I've successfully questioned the "common wisdom" that patents for /inventions/ are necessarily good and will encourage progress. At the very least, you've limited your claim to inventions that require heavy capital investment. Likewise, I'm sure there is at least are at least some scenarios where patents might actually encourage invention. My goal was mostly to shake the belief that patents, when applied correctly (no software, no genetics, etc) must be good for invention. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Nicolas, I'm bringing the discussion back to the list, were I wanted to keep it. It is only by mistake (damned webmail) that I replied to you and not to OO.o in the message to which you answered below. On Tue, May 31, 2005 12:10:04 PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Mar 31 mai 2005 11:51, Marco Fioretti a écrit : > > > >> On Mar 31 mai 2005 5:27, M. Fioretti a écrit : > >> > >> > You can do it with small material things which can be built > >> > with *very* little space and money, or in "environments" where, > >> > again unlike software, everybody plays by the same rules. But > >> > you can't "release early and often" new fuels, cars, > >> > microprocessors, or the extremely complex machinery needed to > >> > build even one single working prototype. Not when you want to > >> > actually build and sell many units. > >> > >> I stumbled yesterday on a documentary on the super sabre, where > >> they were explaining the builder had been very open with > >> competitors on all the problems encountered and the solutions > >> found. > > > > May I ask you some concrete example, that is to quote exactly who > > was open about what, why and in which way? Just to be sure we are > > talking of the same things. > > They were finding new problems and new solutions. > They shared them with the whole industry because they worried less about > someone else cashing on their work than stalling the US war effort during > the Corea war (technically their planes were inferior to the ones of their > opponents). What does "shared" mean above? Is it "shared" as in "we will publish everything in the libraries of the whole world, without patents or any other restriction, who cares if 5 years from now the Russians copy the plane _legally_ or the Europeans build their own version without buying it from any US company"? or is it "shared" as in "we will patent everything and then some, then sign a cross licensing deal to use each other patent's for free (standard practice among multinationals) for a limited time, and jump together to the throat of everybody else trying to copy our technology, because: The minister said we better hurry, if he is kicked off, so we are, and We can overprice everything anyway making a cartel, since no external competitors would be accepted? in other words, is that a proof of something? > (in mass market terms : brand protection trumps secrecy/patent > protection any time) Right. Little guy invents great thing. Big company copies it because it wasn't patented. Now both manufacture the same thing, but the small guy goes bankrupt because everybody wants the big brand. I know things would end bad for the little guy anyway (it costs too much to sue) but in the patent-less scenario he would be screwed _legally_, even if lawyers worked for free. Ciao, Marco -- Marco Fiorettimfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ Don't you wish you had more energy... or less ambition? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Tue, May 31, 2005 21:46:03 PM +1200, Wesley Parish ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > One NZ inventor - Richard Pierce - who believed in this > "working-in-secret" has the distinction of never having his > inventions in the fields of aviation or anything else, actually get > taken up anywhere. So as an inventor he's incredible, as a > practical success - he wasted his life. Any URL for this guy? Couldn't find any info from Google :-( Ciao, Marco -- Marco Fiorettimfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ There are tasks that cannot be done by more than ten men, or less than one hundred - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Tue, May 31, 2005 01:34:50 AM -0400, Daniel Carrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > M. Fioretti wrote: > > >In "Free Software, Free Society", R.M. Stallman "talks about the > >perversion of the original intent of patent and copyright law. For > >those of us in the US, our constitution states clearly that these are > >granted for the benefit of society. Most other countries say something > >similar". http://gnu.open-mirror.com/doc/book13.html > > I never said anything to the contrary. You said, in the previous message, "I'm pretty sure that the intention was (2), not (1)", (1) being that patents exist to benefit society. > >I could sell to you something I made which in itself is extremely > >simple, and can be reverse-engineered in seconds. But in practice > >it can be manufactured only with some very special machinery. Which > >I have no obligation to sell you. I'd patent that machinery. > Then the argument simply shifts to the design of the machine. > Spending many years designing your machine in seclusion is less > effective than designing it in small steps and sharing those. Define "effective". If I am a genius, able to work it out 20 minutes a day in six months, I won't have wasted anything. And if I were so disgustingly greedy to want not to become a billionaire, the hell with that, but to just pay my mortgage and afford a nice vacation every summer, then doing it myself and patenting it would be damned effective, if not the only realistic way to achieve the goal. Note that my scheme doesn't exclude yours. There is no reason to patent everything you do. Project A pays the mortgage, project B is a pet activity to do with friends online on saturdays. Ciao, Marco -- Marco Fiorettimfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ [Crash programs] fail because they are based on the theory that, with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby a month.Wernher von Braun - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Tue, May 31, 2005 19:28:51 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >Heavy capital investment isn't new, but it has been for a long time > >reserved, for any reasons, only to religious or politic, anyway > >monolithic and centralized, administrations > > I'm pretty sure that rich people who are not political or religious > institutions have been around for a long time. Of course. But if they do it for profit, they will only shell the money out if there is the possibility (through patents) to get more back. If they do it for fun, I don't want to depend on them, that is to wait until I find one with the same taste. Assuming they exist, and won't prefer to spend their money buying Da Vinci codes, divorcing from the next Ivana Trump or similar amenities. > I'm talking about private individuals who are rich, and spend money > on "science" (before the name as such appeared) and don't see a need > to exclude others from using the knowledge they discover. Unfortunately, very, very few people with this sensibility get rich. Better not to risk to delay progress by relying only on them. > Look, you've made a lot of good points and I don't want to deny > them. But at least I hope I've successfully questioned the "common > wisdom" that patents for /inventions/ are necessarily good and will > encourage progress. I hope I've successfully questioned the wisdom, common in Free SW circles, that all patents for any invention (excluding SW, genes, drugs) are necessarily harmful and will slow down progress. > At the very least, you've limited your claim to inventions that > require heavy capital investment. No, that was only part of my examples, or at least of my thought. If I invent something truly revolutionary and useful spending just 10 Euros, I want both: the possibility to give it to everybody now for free and the possibility to make 10 Euros, thanks to patent law, before giving it away to everybody for free and the freedom to choose by myself which one to pick. Ciao, Marco -- Marco Fiorettimfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ We have to pursue this subject of fun very seriously if we want to stay competitive in the 21st century. -George Yeo, Singapore's Minister of State for Finance. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Sander Vesik wrote: --- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I read this patent and I think it covers every conceivable method of communication between computers done by applications, connected by any means. If this patent is enfoceable, Microsoft would own the methods of communicating on any form of communication means applications could communicate with each other. Claim 1 defines this. uh, no, not really. please read some more patents and get an understanding on how what is written in the patent application messhes together to form the patent. Claim 1 stands alone. It was awarded alone. Others may depend on it, but it depends on none. The USPTO does not enforce patents and patents are worthless until they stand up to a challenge in court. Nonsense. Most patents, including ones on which millions of dollars are paid for licences every year never get challenged in court. It is up to you to enforce your patent, through the courts if necessary. The patent office only grants patents based on unique teachings disclosed by them. This patent looks to be largely unenforceable. Who are they going to take to court? Everybody on the internet or a network who is running applications that communicate with each other? whoever violates in their opinion the things that patent really is about. They can do that if they wish to spend the money. MS has plenty. Doesn't mean their patent will stand up. The patent is only enforceable if a court agrees that it is and issues an order for the defendant to cease infringing or the defendant negotiates prior to a court decision. Cheers, Alex Janssen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Sander Vesik wrote: --- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Daniel, All I was pointing out was that MS didn't even do what you suggested. You said "since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications of old ones" and that is true. They did not invent anything, although there patent would lead you to believe otherwise. *grin* So please englighten us, what about the patent is all that old? Well, I looked at "arbitrary annotated source code" as defining any data structure(object) and "format of a document having a serial format" as governed by this source code. I've been doing that since I learned to create records in a database over 20 years ago. Maybe I'm over simplifying this claim. Cheers, Alex Janssen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
M. Fioretti wrote: Of course. But if they do it for profit, they will only shell the money out if there is the possibility (through patents) to get more back. Look, I don't question that patents let companies make more money than they would otherwise. What I'm saying is that (1) they can still make money without and more imporantly (2) progress is faster without. Unfortunately, very, very few people with this sensibility get rich. Very few people get rich through patents for that matter. Better not to risk to delay progress by relying only on them. I'm confident that progress is faster without secrecy and without inhibiting building upon previous work. I hope I've successfully questioned the wisdom, common in Free SW circles, that all patents for any invention (excluding SW, genes, drugs) are necessarily harmful and will slow down progress. I had *never* heard that notion before. My opinions certainly don't come from experience in the Free SW community. They come from my experience in the scientific community. No, that was only part of my examples, or at least of my thought. If I invent something truly revolutionary and useful spending just 10 Euros, I want both: The issue is not what you as an inventor want. The issue is whether patents tend to speed progress or not. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
M. Fioretti wrote: In "Free Software, Free Society", R.M. Stallman "talks about the perversion of the original intent of patent and copyright law. For those of us in the US, our constitution states clearly that these are granted for the benefit of society. Most other countries say something similar". http://gnu.open-mirror.com/doc/book13.html I never said anything to the contrary. You said, in the previous message, "I'm pretty sure that the intention was (2), not (1)", (1) being that patents exist to benefit society. No, (1) was "make sure that everybody can learn all the details of new technologies by *forcing* inventors to disclose what they did." and (2) was "keep inventors motivated to keep inventing while giving away by granting them a temporary monopoly." (2) is a way to "benefit society". Define "effective". For this discussion, a more effective system is that which produces the greatest ammount of innovation. If I am a genius, Then you would be the exception, and not a suitable example for deciding how to encourage innovation. Most innovation doesn't come from geniuses. Note that my scheme doesn't exclude yours. There is no reason to patent everything you do. Ok, I'm glad. Look, as I said earlier, I can accept that there might be instances where patents might, over-all, help more than harm. My point is that I think for the most part, they do more harm than good. That the extra motivation does not compensate for the less efficient system. The point I've tried to make is to reject the notion that properly implemented patents necessarily promote innovation. Not that they *never* do. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sander Vesik wrote: > > >--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> I read this patent and I think it covers every conceivable method of > >>communication between computers done by applications, connected by any > >>means. If this patent is enfoceable, Microsoft would own the methods of > >>communicating on any form of communication means applications could > >>communicate with each other. Claim 1 defines this. > >> > >> > >> > > > >uh, no, not really. please read some more patents and get an understanding > >on how > >what is written in the patent application messhes together to form the > >patent. > > > > > Claim 1 stands alone. It was awarded alone. Others may depend on it, > but it depends on none. It doesn't. In the end, nothing in teh patent "stands alone". But fine, lets assume it did stand alone. Claim 1 of that patent is: % 1. A method for serializing an object instance to a serial format, the method comprising steps of: generating a mapping between an arbitrary annotated source code file and a schema, the arbitrary annotated source code file containing at least one programming type that describes a shape of an object instance and the schema describing a format of a document having a serial format, the mapping defining a correspondence between the shape of the object instance and the format of the document having the serial format; and converting an object instance corresponding to the arbitrary annotated source code to the serial format by converting at least one of a public property, a public field and a method parameter of the object instance to a document having the serial format based on the mapping. % Now you should either point out as to how what you have been saying aplies to this or say that you were talking about something you have no idea of. Among other things , you should point out how this relates to any general communication between computers. Sander .sigless ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sander Vesik wrote: > > >--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Daniel, > >> > >>All I was pointing out was that MS didn't even do what you suggested. > >>You said "since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications of > >>old ones" and that is true. > >>They did not invent anything, although there patent would lead you to > >>believe otherwise. *grin* > >> > >> > >> > > > >So please englighten us, what about the patent is all that old? > > > > > Well, I looked at "arbitrary annotated source code" as defining any > data structure(object) and "format of a document having a serial format" > as governed by this source code. I've been doing that since I learned > to create records in a database over 20 years ago. > Sure, it also uses age-old words like 'and' that have been in use for hundreds of years :P > Maybe I'm over simplifying this claim. > you seemto be seeing just soe fragments and not teh whole - recognising well-known tree species but not that you have wondered up to a forest you havne't seen before ;-) Its not that teh patent is something incredibly novel or innovative or that parts of it (or possibly all) probably won't be upheld in court or that there definitely won't be prior art - its just that it is not (as far as software patents go in this regard) somehow entirely bogus or preposterous or would cover all (or even a fraction of) computer-computer communication as people have been claiming. > Cheers, > Alex Janssen > > Sander .sigless ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Hey, guys should not we take this to social? It is becoming less and less discussing. Chris > M. Fioretti wrote: > > > You can do it with small material things which can be built with > > *very* little space and money, or in "environments" where, again > > unlike software, everybody plays by the same rules. But you can't > > "release early and often" new fuels, cars, microprocessors, or the > > extremely complex machinery needed to build even one single working > > prototype. Not when you want to actually build and sell many units. > > Actually, very large particle accelerators are a lot more expensive > than cars and microprocessors and they don't use the restrictive model > (some new fuels are cheaper, others aren't). They still grow progress > in incremental steps. It's also interesting to note that new fules, > cars and microprocessors also don't have the secretive model you > described, and this lack of secrecy or monopoly has been the source of > inmsense growth in new fuels, cars and microprocessors. This has been > the case for as long as there have been projects that require high > expenditures (several hundred years, beginning with large telescopes > for astronomy). And they have all been done without secrecy or > monopoly, and they have all grown inmensely because of the lack of > secrecy and monopoly. > > So yes, actually, it definitely scales, all the way up to the largest > projects ever made. The thing about using patents to "protect" > invention is actually a very recent aberration in a few fields, most > notably the pharmaceutical industry (and the pharmaceutical industry > uses labs that are cheaper than particle accelerators or fusion > reactors). It is a lot less common that it might seem at first. But > truth is, most discovery is not done in the big-bang model. Not in the > past, and not today. > > > > Historically, yes. It was a simpler world, with simpler technology > > to discover. > > 1) Proportionally, telescopes and other technology of the time was > still quite very expensive. > > 2) What I said still applies to the modern world. > > > Again, it would be wonderful if all inventions could happen in the > > way you describe. > > They can. > > And I'm sure that the benefit that might be derived from the > finnancial incentive is far outweight by the slow down in discovery > due to government imposed monopolies. > > > And I surely want to see a world where as much > > scientific research as possible is funded by governments and other > > non-profit institutions. for the common good. > > Don't confuse the small-step development model with aulterism. > Perfectly selfish companies can bring about discovery without patents, > and earn money. And indeed, discovery is faster. A good example of > this is, ironicaly, in the computer industry. Microprocessors are not > packed with patents. Nothing prohibits you from creating a > microprocessor that copies the x86 design, inspite of the fact that it > took time, effort and money to make. But you don't see the > microprocessor industry stagnant. In fact, you see the opposite, it's > seen fantastic growth. > > Now, what would happen if (say) Intel had been granted a monopoly on > the x86 chip model? Then AMD would not have been able to compete with > them by copying the model, which would have removed a motivator for > Intell to improve the technology further. And today microprocessors > would not be nearly as advanced as they are today. > > The same holds true for cars, new fuels, and many other things that > require heavy investment. > > > But I am convinced that > > *real* patents, as they were meant to be, would NOT hurt or slow > > down that process, and stimulate a lot of activity in the meantime. > > I have no doubt that if Intel had gotten a patent on the x86 chip > design, that would have severely hurt the development of > microprocessors. > > Likewise, I've seen sound medical research been hurt bye either > patents or patent-like provisions from NAFTA. There was a case where > an American company found a very expensive, and accurate method of > detecting a type of cancer (I forget the details). A Canadian company > found a method that was only about 80-90% accurate (based on looking > at proteins, I remember that bit, it was an indirect method) but was > less than 1/10th the cost. The American company successfully sued the > Canadian under NAFTA provisions and forced it to stop. Notice, this > was a completely different system of diagnosing the same illness. > > I can't believe that this sort of system stimulates progress. > > Cheers, > Daniel. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 20:23:13 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Chris BONDE wrote: > > > >Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their > > >idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent). > > > > That is neither the intention, nor the effect of patents. > > As far as I know, it indeed *is*. I (government): > > 1) make sure that everybody can learn all the details of new >technologies by *forcing* inventors to disclose what they did. 2) > keep inventors motivated to keep inventing while giving away by >granting them a temporary monopoly. > > > The intention of patents was to encourage people to work on > > developing ideas with the promise that, in return, they would be > > granted a temporary monopoly. > > No. Without patents people would have invented and sold anyway, just > keeping the secret on how they did stuff. Meaning that their monopoly, > without the patent papers which are mandated just to share knowledge > as *early* as possible, could have lasted even longer than a patent > duration. > > Marco > Well put. Certain companies have trade secrets which are kept secret for much longer than necessary. If these where released then further improvement could have been done hence better for all. However, the implimentation of the patent scheme has changed. Each country has a different way of handling the patent. Some charge large fees. Some charge yearly renewal fees with the fee increasing each year. Then others are almost a registration service. Chris - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Tue, May 31, 2005 21:23:23 PM -0700, Chris BONDE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 1) Please, NEVER retransmit pages and pages of text only to add a couple of lines. Always trim as much as possible! Thanks > Hey, guys should not we take this to social? No, why? First of all I'm not on that list. I am only interested in discussing what impacts OO.o adoption. And wrong ideas on patents are darn relevant to this, so I don't see why this particular thread is off topic. Ciao, Marco -- Marco Fiorettimfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ ...the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. (Calvin) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
My bad - I misspelled his surname - it's Pearse. http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/pearse1.html http://www.nzedge.com/heroes/pearse.html http://chrisbrady.itgo.com/pearse/pearse.htm http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/Gallery/Pearse/Pearse.html http://www.destination.co.nz/temuka/pearse.htm http://www.auckland-airport.co.nz/NewsHistory/aviators.php?pearse http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/geoff.rodliffe/ http://www.answers.com/topic/richard-pearse http://library.christchurch.org.nz/Childrens/FamousNewZealanders/Richard.asp http://www.enzed.com/hist.html These should do. But the important thing is that he never made got anywhere in his endeavours - partly because he never made any contact with the outside world until very late on, partly because New Zealand never had time for anyone who was slightly eccentric. It's a sad story - and they're now trying to capitalise on his inventiveness now, when they had no time for him while he was alive. Wesley Parish On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:47, M. Fioretti wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2005 21:46:03 PM +1200, Wesley Parish > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > One NZ inventor - Richard Pierce - who believed in this > > "working-in-secret" has the distinction of never having his > > inventions in the fields of aviation or anything else, actually get > > taken up anywhere. So as an inventor he's incredible, as a > > practical success - he wasted his life. > > Any URL for this guy? Couldn't find any info from Google :-( > > Ciao, > Marco -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish - Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? You ask, what is the most important thing? Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
My patent attorney and I had a conversation about claims standing alone recently and apparently if they can be infringed alone they can also be awarded alone and alone prevent you from using what is claimed without license. This I'm fairly sure of. As to communication between computers, I'll admit, that one is a little far fetched. In fact it is not even existent. I'll have to say that I think I've confused another patent and this one. I think an IBM patent on VPN. There from came my thoughts about communication. My apologies to all who read my messages. GeeZ, talk about embarrased. :-[ I have been reading too many patents on differing technologies lately. No excuses. I would have to say I typed before I thought. I'll check my references more thoroughly before I open my trap next time. Thanks for catching me on this, Sander. Sander Vesik wrote: --- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sander Vesik wrote: --- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I read this patent and I think it covers every conceivable method of communication between computers done by applications, connected by any means. If this patent is enfoceable, Microsoft would own the methods of communicating on any form of communication means applications could communicate with each other. Claim 1 defines this. uh, no, not really. please read some more patents and get an understanding on how what is written in the patent application messhes together to form the patent. Claim 1 stands alone. It was awarded alone. Others may depend on it, but it depends on none. It doesn't. In the end, nothing in teh patent "stands alone". But fine, lets assume it did stand alone. Claim 1 of that patent is: % 1. A method for serializing an object instance to a serial format, the method comprising steps of: generating a mapping between an arbitrary annotated source code file and a schema, the arbitrary annotated source code file containing at least one programming type that describes a shape of an object instance and the schema describing a format of a document having a serial format, the mapping defining a correspondence between the shape of the object instance and the format of the document having the serial format; and converting an object instance corresponding to the arbitrary annotated source code to the serial format by converting at least one of a public property, a public field and a method parameter of the object instance to a document having the serial format based on the mapping. % Now you should either point out as to how what you have been saying aplies to this or say that you were talking about something you have no idea of. Among other things , you should point out how this relates to any general communication between computers. Sander .sigless ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Now having re-read the proper patent. I still don't see how they could be awarded a patent on what appears to be nothing more that converting a data structure defined in one file to a serial stream in another file. Sounds like storing a record in a database to me. :-\ I think Borland was doing this back in the early 90s in BP7, storing object instances on a data stream. I'll have to check on that. But it seems so overly simple. Like someone getting a patent on how you dump cerial into a bowl in the morning changing its format and then back into the box when you change your mind. You've done it thousands of times and now someone comes along and gets a patent on it. Wouldn't this procedure be considered in the public domain? Alex Janssen Sander Vesik wrote: So please englighten us, what about the patent is all that old? you seemto be seeing just soe fragments and not teh whole - recognising well-known tree species but not that you have wondered up to a forest you havne't seen before ;-) Its not that teh patent is something incredibly novel or innovative or that parts of it (or possibly all) probably won't be upheld in court or that there definitely won't be prior art - its just that it is not (as far as software patents go in this regard) somehow entirely bogus or preposterous or would cover all (or even a fraction of) computer-computer communication as people have been claiming. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Probably, but you would have to challenge it in court to make it stick. Mike > -Original Message- > From: Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 7:05 PM > To: discuss@openoffice.org > Subject: Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent > > > Now having re-read the proper patent. I still don't see how they could > be awarded a patent on what appears to be nothing more that converting a > data structure defined in one file to a serial stream in another file. > Sounds like storing a record in a database to me. :-\ I think Borland > was doing this back in the early 90s in BP7, storing object instances on > a data stream. I'll have to check on that. But it seems so overly > simple. Like someone getting a patent on how you dump cerial into a > bowl in the morning changing its format and then back into the box when > you change your mind. You've done it thousands of times and now someone > comes along and gets a patent on it. Wouldn't this procedure be > considered in the public domain? > > Alex Janssen > > > Sander Vesik wrote: > > >>>So please englighten us, what about the patent is all that old? > >>> > >>> > >you seemto be seeing just soe fragments and not teh whole - > recognising well-known > >tree species but not that you have wondered up to a forest you > havne't seen before > >;-) > > > >Its not that teh patent is something incredibly novel or > innovative or that parts of > >it (or possibly all) probably won't be upheld in court or that > there definitely > >won't be prior art - its just that it is not (as far as software > patents go in this > >regard) somehow entirely bogus or preposterous or would cover > all (or even a > >fraction of) computer-computer communication as people have been > claiming. > > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
It covers practically everything you do with data on a computer, right from the earliest stored procedure Eniac/whathaveyou right up to the most minimal CE or embedded piece of code that runs your morning wake up radio or beeps at you from your wristwatch. Do a google on (fraudulent misrepresentation crime act penalties) It's time to put this sort of sh*t back where it belongs. Wesley Parish On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:04, Alex wrote: > Now having re-read the proper patent. I still don't see how they could > be awarded a patent on what appears to be nothing more that converting a > data structure defined in one file to a serial stream in another file. > Sounds like storing a record in a database to me. :-\ I think Borland > was doing this back in the early 90s in BP7, storing object instances on > a data stream. I'll have to check on that. But it seems so overly > simple. Like someone getting a patent on how you dump cerial into a > bowl in the morning changing its format and then back into the box when > you change your mind. You've done it thousands of times and now someone > comes along and gets a patent on it. Wouldn't this procedure be > considered in the public domain? > > Alex Janssen > > Sander Vesik wrote: > >>>So please englighten us, what about the patent is all that old? > > > >you seemto be seeing just soe fragments and not teh whole - recognising > > well-known tree species but not that you have wondered up to a forest you > > havne't seen before ;-) > > > >Its not that teh patent is something incredibly novel or innovative or > > that parts of it (or possibly all) probably won't be upheld in court or > > that there definitely won't be prior art - its just that it is not (as > > far as software patents go in this regard) somehow entirely bogus or > > preposterous or would cover all (or even a fraction of) computer-computer > > communication as people have been claiming. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish - Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? You ask, what is the most important thing? Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
One problem is the junk patent which is far too vague and covers obvious developments and covers prior art. Two perl modules come to mind right off "Storeable" and "Data::Dumper";, I'm sure there are other serialization modules in C libraries or even Pascal if one wants examples going back to the 80's or late 70's. The other is the general problem of sw patents. Which cost millions to over turn. There was a conference on the topic in Brussels last year in November and the lawyers there indicated that based on actual costs, it runs about $4 million to throw out a bad patent. So what it alsmost comes down to is a contest of which team has more money. SW Patents are a threat to *all* small and medium businesses. SMB is anything with < 1 billion per year -- so that means pretty much all European business. And most of those don't have a spare $4 million every quarter to throw out the bad patents. A third problem is that MS is putting on a huge marketing / mindshare campaign right now and is doing everything possible to distract or confuse the public in regards to OpenOffice and OpenDocument. -Lars Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Software patents harm all Net-based business, write your MEP: http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep6/owa/p_meps2.repartition?ilg=EN On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Alex wrote: Now having re-read the proper patent. I still don't see how they could be awarded a patent on what appears to be nothing more that converting a data structure defined in one file to a serial stream in another file. Sounds like storing a record in a database to me. :-\ I think Borland was doing this back in the early 90s in BP7, storing object instances on a data stream. I'll have to check on that. But it seems so overly simple. Like someone getting a patent on how you dump cerial into a bowl in the morning changing its format and then back into the box when you change your mind. You've done it thousands of times and now someone comes along and gets a patent on it. Wouldn't this procedure be considered in the public domain? Alex Janssen Sander Vesik wrote: So please englighten us, what about the patent is all that old? you seemto be seeing just soe fragments and not teh whole - recognising well-known tree species but not that you have wondered up to a forest you havne't seen before ;-) Its not that teh patent is something incredibly novel or innovative or that parts of it (or possibly all) probably won't be upheld in court or that there definitely won't be prior art - its just that it is not (as far as software patents go in this regard) somehow entirely bogus or preposterous or would cover all (or even a fraction of) computer-computer communication as people have been claiming. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 20:12 -0700, Mike White wrote: > Probably, but you would have to challenge it in court to make it stick. Which is a major problem because the expense of doing that eliminates the majority of SMEs from ever even thinking about it. Even Local Education Authorities with 100 schools wouldn't do it over a famous case here in England because of the expense. Central government had to step in and that is very rare. Since the main competing companies were all small businesses a bogus patent ran for years and cost the schools a lot of money. Software patents are too easily open to this type of abuse. There appears to be an asymmetry in patent offices granting patents yet not having the power to revoke them. Rather than courts deciding, the patent office should have the power to retrospectively review the evidence and then revoke a patent. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMSL - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
I know most of you will think this idea is lame and far fetched and I'm just a wishful thinker. Would it be possible that we, as a group with all our collective backgrounds in software development, could actually gather enough irrefutable evidence so that it might be presented to a judge to prove this patent is bogus and should not have been issued? Alright! I'll just bend over and you guys can kick. Go ahead ... ;-) Alex Janssen Lars D. Noodén wrote: One problem is the junk patent which is far too vague and covers obvious developments and covers prior art. Two perl modules come to mind right off "Storeable" and "Data::Dumper";, I'm sure there are other serialization modules in C libraries or even Pascal if one wants examples going back to the 80's or late 70's. The other is the general problem of sw patents. Which cost millions to over turn. There was a conference on the topic in Brussels last year in November and the lawyers there indicated that based on actual costs, it runs about $4 million to throw out a bad patent. So what it alsmost comes down to is a contest of which team has more money. SW Patents are a threat to *all* small and medium businesses. SMB is anything with < 1 billion per year -- so that means pretty much all European business. And most of those don't have a spare $4 million every quarter to throw out the bad patents. A third problem is that MS is putting on a huge marketing / mindshare campaign right now and is doing everything possible to distract or confuse the public in regards to OpenOffice and OpenDocument. -Lars Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Software patents harm all Net-based business, write your MEP: http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep6/owa/p_meps2.repartition?ilg=EN On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Alex wrote: Now having re-read the proper patent. I still don't see how they could be awarded a patent on what appears to be nothing more that converting a data structure defined in one file to a serial stream in another file. Sounds like storing a record in a database to me. :-\ I think Borland was doing this back in the early 90s in BP7, storing object instances on a data stream. I'll have to check on that. But it seems so overly simple. Like someone getting a patent on how you dump cerial into a bowl in the morning changing its format and then back into the box when you change your mind. You've done it thousands of times and now someone comes along and gets a patent on it. Wouldn't this procedure be considered in the public domain? Alex Janssen Sander Vesik wrote: So please englighten us, what about the patent is all that old? you seemto be seeing just soe fragments and not teh whole - recognising well-known tree species but not that you have wondered up to a forest you havne't seen before ;-) Its not that teh patent is something incredibly novel or innovative or that parts of it (or possibly all) probably won't be upheld in court or that there definitely won't be prior art - its just that it is not (as far as software patents go in this regard) somehow entirely bogus or preposterous or would cover all (or even a fraction of) computer-computer communication as people have been claiming. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Your intent is good, but since it takes a few million dollars to overturn a dud patent yet only a few thousand to apply for one, it's possible that just shooting down bad patents may not be a viable long term strategy. ;) However, shooting down this one specifically, might be a way to garner more press for OOo if it's done right. -Lars Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Software patents harm all Net-based business, write your MEP: http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep6/owa/p_meps2.repartition?ilg=EN On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Alex wrote: I know most of you will think this idea is lame and far fetched and I'm just a wishful thinker. Would it be possible that we, as a group with all our collective backgrounds in software development, could actually gather enough irrefutable evidence so that it might be presented to a judge to prove this patent is bogus and should not have been issued? Alright! I'll just bend over and you guys can kick. Go ahead ... ;-) Alex Janssen Lars D. Noodén wrote: One problem is the junk patent which is far too vague and covers obvious developments and covers prior art. Two perl modules come to mind right off "Storeable" and "Data::Dumper";, I'm sure there are other serialization modules in C libraries or even Pascal if one wants examples going back to the 80's or late 70's. The other is the general problem of sw patents. Which cost millions to over turn. There was a conference on the topic in Brussels last year in November and the lawyers there indicated that based on actual costs, it runs about $4 million to throw out a bad patent. So what it alsmost comes down to is a contest of which team has more money. SW Patents are a threat to *all* small and medium businesses. SMB is anything with < 1 billion per year -- so that means pretty much all European business. And most of those don't have a spare $4 million every quarter to throw out the bad patents. A third problem is that MS is putting on a huge marketing / mindshare campaign right now and is doing everything possible to distract or confuse the public in regards to OpenOffice and OpenDocument. -Lars Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Software patents harm all Net-based business, write your MEP: http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep6/owa/p_meps2.repartition?ilg=EN On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Alex wrote: Now having re-read the proper patent. I still don't see how they could be awarded a patent on what appears to be nothing more that converting a data structure defined in one file to a serial stream in another file. Sounds like storing a record in a database to me. :-\ I think Borland was doing this back in the early 90s in BP7, storing object instances on a data stream. I'll have to check on that. But it seems so overly simple. Like someone getting a patent on how you dump cerial into a bowl in the morning changing its format and then back into the box when you change your mind. You've done it thousands of times and now someone comes along and gets a patent on it. Wouldn't this procedure be considered in the public domain? Alex Janssen Sander Vesik wrote: So please englighten us, what about the patent is all that old? you seemto be seeing just soe fragments and not teh whole - recognising well-known tree species but not that you have wondered up to a forest you havne't seen before ;-) Its not that teh patent is something incredibly novel or innovative or that parts of it (or possibly all) probably won't be upheld in court or that there definitely won't be prior art - its just that it is not (as far as software patents go in this regard) somehow entirely bogus or preposterous or would cover all (or even a fraction of) computer-computer communication as people have been claiming. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
Alex wrote: I know most of you will think this idea is lame and far fetched and I'm just a wishful thinker. Would it be possible that we, as a group with all our collective backgrounds in software development, could actually gather enough irrefutable evidence so that it might be presented to a judge to prove this patent is bogus and should not have been issued? Alright! I'll just bend over and you guys can kick. Go ahead ... ;-) Alex Janssen It's possibly a little late to do it cheaply in the US because it's been approved. I am amazed that no one saw it and mounted an objection during the initial process. However, the NZOSS (New Zealand Open Source Society www.nzoss.org.nz ) has retained some lawyers and managed to get a delay in IPONZ making a decision so that they can prepare and present a case against this at least in NZ. Any prior art or other assistance would be appreciated by the team I'm sure. The mail list is [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Graham Lauder OpenOffice.org MarCon New Zealand (http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html) INGOTs Certification Assessor Trainer www.theingots.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
