Re: ???In Technology Wars, Using the Patent as a Sword??? - New York Times Feature
Hi Nadav, please fix the handling of Unicode characters in the Subject: line of the messages you reply to. Currently, it replaced them with question marks. This has been an ongoing problem with your E-mail client for many years now. Regards, Shlomi Fish On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 15:09:55 +0200 Nadav Har'El wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012, Shlomi Fish wrote about "???In Technology Wars, > Using the Patent as a Sword??? - New York Times Feature": > > rover missions. Last year, for the first time, spending by Apple and > > Google on patent lawsuits and unusually big-dollar patent purchases > > exceeded spending on research and development of new products, > > according to public filings. > > This is not entirely surprising. As an example, IBM is well-known for > its research arm, and many people assume that IBM spends a fortune on > its R&D. But a few years ago, I attended some IBM customer > conference, where an IBM executive stood up and told everyone, > proudly, that the previous year, IBM bought small companies for X > billions of dollars, which was more than it spent on its own research > arm. [SNIPPED] -- - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Original Riddles - http://www.shlomifish.org/puzzles/ The cool thing about Vim is — you find something interesting with every typo. — Su‐Shee on Freenode’s #perl . Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: “In Technology Wars, Using the Patent as a Sword” - New York Times Feature
Shlomi Fish wrote: “Pearl” was chosen after the "Parable of the Pearl" from the Gospel of Matthews: If we are being pedantic, it's "The Gospel of Matthew", or "Matthew's Gospel". There was only one of them. (Matthew or gospel). Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379 "Owning a smartphone: Technology's equivalent to learning to play chopsticks on the piano as a child and thinking you're a musician." (sent to me by a friend) ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: “In Technology Wars, Using the Patent as a Sword” - New York Times Feature
Hello Amos, On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:12:05 +1100 Amos Shapira wrote: > On 11 October 2012 19:41, Shlomi Fish wrote: > > > Just a note: one should never write perl or Perl in all-capital > > letters: > > > > http://perl-begin.org/learn/Perl-perl-but-not-PERL/ > > > > Writing "PERL" is usually an indication that the person does not > > really know what they are talking about. > > > > But it's an acronym (for "Pathologically Eclectic Rubish Lister") :) > “Perl” is not an acronym, but a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym , and the name Perl was chosen first, as a compromise for the fact that Larry Wall wanted to call his language "Pearl", but there was a previous language named that - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEARL_%28programming_language%29 . He later came up with two possible expansions for "Perl", but they are not the origin: * Practical Extraction and Report Language * Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister “Pearl” was chosen after the "Parable of the Pearl" from the Gospel of Matthews: http://www.java-samples.com/showtutorial.php?tutorialid=1437 Regards, Shlomi Fish > --Amos -- - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Escape from GNU Autohell - http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/anti/autohell/ A kid always wishes they were older until they are 18. Afterwards, they always wish they were younger. Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: “In Technology Wars, Using the Patent as a Sword” - New York Times Feature
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote: > Hi Geoffrey, > > On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:02:18 +0200 > "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote: > > > Shlomi Fish wrote: > > > > > One proponent of software patents on this list is Geoffrey, who > > > claims it helped protect some obscure startups against people > > > copying their ideas. However, given the huge and increasing > > > spending on patent litigation, the problem of patent trolls and the > > > fact that “In particular, between 1987 and 1994 , software patents > > > issuance rose 195%, yet real company funded R&D fell by 21% in > > > these (software) industries while rising by 25% in industries in > > > general.” (see http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/innovation.html ). > > > > Just to amplify that fact, the cost of the computer I used in 1979 to > > do operating system development was about $5 million dollars. It was > > a dual processor system and on Sunday mornings, I got one of the > > processors to myself if I needed it. This was back in the days when > > you single stepped an operating system by pushing a button on the > > console. > > > > By 1989, a similar system was about $250,000. > > > > By 1994, everyone was doing their development on SUN computers at > > $10,000 each, or developing for Windows or BSD on 486 and pentium > > computers, which sold for $2,000. > > > > So the cost of development shifted from hardware in the 1970's to > > salaries in the 1990's. During which time the salaries in dollars > > (not adjusted) doubled. > > > > Note that in 1979 I did my software development in BAL and PL/I until > > around 1991 or 1992, and from there on in C and later in PERL. > > > > Just a note: one should never write perl or Perl in all-capital letters: > > http://perl-begin.org/learn/Perl-perl-but-not-PERL/ > > Writing "PERL" is usually an indication that the person does not really > know what they are talking about. > > Or that the person is using a Hebrew keyboard, in which it is customary to use shift to type English capital letters in the middle of writing Hebrew. In some malfunctioning R2L systems, it is the only way to get English characters into Hebrew text without messing up the directions. > Regards, > > Shlomi Fish > > > -- > - > Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ > Parody of "The Fountainhead" - http://shlom.in/towtf > > Q2: Busy people are unproductive. We are very productive and so we’re never > busy. > — Star Trek, “We, the Living Dead” by Shlomi Fish > > Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . > > ___ > Linux-il mailing list > Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il > http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il > -- Orna Agmon Ben-Yehuda. http://ladypine.org ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: “In Technology Wars, Using the Patent as a Sword” - New York Times Feature
On 11 October 2012 19:41, Shlomi Fish wrote: > Just a note: one should never write perl or Perl in all-capital letters: > > http://perl-begin.org/learn/Perl-perl-but-not-PERL/ > > Writing "PERL" is usually an indication that the person does not really > know what they are talking about. > But it's an acronym (for "Pathologically Eclectic Rubish Lister") :) --Amos ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: “In Technology Wars, Using the Patent as a Sword” - New York Times Feature
Hi Geoffrey, On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:02:18 +0200 "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote: > Shlomi Fish wrote: > > > One proponent of software patents on this list is Geoffrey, who > > claims it helped protect some obscure startups against people > > copying their ideas. However, given the huge and increasing > > spending on patent litigation, the problem of patent trolls and the > > fact that “In particular, between 1987 and 1994 , software patents > > issuance rose 195%, yet real company funded R&D fell by 21% in > > these (software) industries while rising by 25% in industries in > > general.” (see http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/innovation.html ). > > Just to amplify that fact, the cost of the computer I used in 1979 to > do operating system development was about $5 million dollars. It was > a dual processor system and on Sunday mornings, I got one of the > processors to myself if I needed it. This was back in the days when > you single stepped an operating system by pushing a button on the > console. > > By 1989, a similar system was about $250,000. > > By 1994, everyone was doing their development on SUN computers at > $10,000 each, or developing for Windows or BSD on 486 and pentium > computers, which sold for $2,000. > > So the cost of development shifted from hardware in the 1970's to > salaries in the 1990's. During which time the salaries in dollars > (not adjusted) doubled. > > Note that in 1979 I did my software development in BAL and PL/I until > around 1991 or 1992, and from there on in C and later in PERL. > Just a note: one should never write perl or Perl in all-capital letters: http://perl-begin.org/learn/Perl-perl-but-not-PERL/ Writing "PERL" is usually an indication that the person does not really know what they are talking about. Regards, Shlomi Fish -- - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Parody of "The Fountainhead" - http://shlom.in/towtf Q2: Busy people are unproductive. We are very productive and so we’re never busy. — Star Trek, “We, the Living Dead” by Shlomi Fish Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: ???In Technology Wars, Using the Patent as a Sword??? - New York Times Feature
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 07:23:51PM +0200, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: > Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > >> | >> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/google-closes-12-5-billion-deal-to-buy-motorola-mobility/ >> | (last visited May 24, 2012). Google has since said that of the $12.5B, >> $5.5 were >> | for patents, which is still a staggering sum. > > No, it's not. It's actually a meager sum when you consider that they > bought more than 17,000 active and 7,500 pending patents. > > Google calculator tells me that's $265,000 for each patent, which is > pretty cheap considering it supposed to cover the costs of the > developers, patent fees, lawyers, etc. Patents also expire after a certain period. Patents may also be pure crap that will not stand in court. As for covering developer time and lawyer time: why was this time spent in the first place? This is part of the overhead of the company. Why would you expect such activity to be profitable? -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il || a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il || best tzaf...@debian.org|| friend ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: ???In Technology Wars, Using the Patent as a Sword??? - New York Times Feature
Tzafrir Cohen wrote: | http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/google-closes-12-5-billion-deal-to-buy-motorola-mobility/ | (last visited May 24, 2012). Google has since said that of the $12.5B, $5.5 were | for patents, which is still a staggering sum. No, it's not. It's actually a meager sum when you consider that they bought more than 17,000 active and 7,500 pending patents. Google calculator tells me that's $265,000 for each patent, which is pretty cheap considering it supposed to cover the costs of the developers, patent fees, lawyers, etc. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379 "Owning a smartphone: Technology's equivalent to learning to play chopsticks on the piano as a child and thinking you're a musician." (sent to me by a friend) ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: ???In Technology Wars, Using the Patent as a Sword??? - New York Times Feature
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:09:55PM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012, Shlomi Fish wrote about "???In Technology Wars, Using > the Patent as a Sword??? - New York Times Feature": > > rover missions. Last year, for the first time, spending by Apple and > > Google on patent lawsuits and unusually big-dollar patent purchases > > exceeded spending on research and development of new products, > > according to public filings. > > This is not entirely surprising. As an example, IBM is well-known for its > research arm, and many people assume that IBM spends a fortune on its R&D. > But a few years ago, I attended some IBM customer conference, where an IBM > executive stood up and told everyone, proudly, that the previous year, > IBM bought small companies for X billions of dollars, which was more than > it spent on its own research arm. > > So for some reason, big American corporations feel very good (and proud) > about spending huge amounts of money on mergers and acquisitions. They > feel like such mergers can never fail (although many are spectacular > failures). I think many of these so-called patent buyouts are yet another > type of merger - e.g., consider Google's buy of Motorola Mobility, is it a > merger or patent purchase? I found what I belive to be a draft of the Stanford article: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/law/ipsc/Paper%20PDF/Chien,%20Colleen%20-%20Paper.pdf Specifically it refers to the purchace of Motorola Mobility: | Google Official Blog, We’ve acquired Motorola Mobility, | http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/weve-acquired-motorola-mobility.html | (last visited May 24, 2012); Jenna Wortham, Google Closes $12.5 Billion Deal to | Buy Motorola Mobility, | http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/google-closes-12-5-billion-deal-to-buy-motorola-mobility/ | (last visited May 24, 2012). Google has since said that of the $12.5B, $5.5 were | for patents, which is still a staggering sum. > > I don't think any of these companies are spending more on actual litigation > than on product development. If this were true, we would have seen > these companies having more lawyers than developers. I don't think this > is the case. The sums of money involved don't actually include any type of Patent Oriented Development: - Development resources spent to work around patents the company is not licensed to use. - Development and legal reosurces spent working on getting patents rather than getting products. > I also don't think it is the case that these companies are > paying billions of dollars blackmail to patent trolls - I've yet to see > a patent troll on the list of the world's richest people. Patent Trolls are a indeed managable parasites. But, as the article states, the damage is a tax. And those who can least aford to pay it are small companies. The article begins with an example of a company killed using a false patent suit (hinting it is indeed a useful blackmail weapon). -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il || a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il || best tzaf...@debian.org|| friend ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: ???In Technology Wars, Using the Patent as a Sword??? - New York Times Feature
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012, Shlomi Fish wrote about "???In Technology Wars, Using the Patent as a Sword??? - New York Times Feature": > rover missions. Last year, for the first time, spending by Apple and > Google on patent lawsuits and unusually big-dollar patent purchases > exceeded spending on research and development of new products, > according to public filings. This is not entirely surprising. As an example, IBM is well-known for its research arm, and many people assume that IBM spends a fortune on its R&D. But a few years ago, I attended some IBM customer conference, where an IBM executive stood up and told everyone, proudly, that the previous year, IBM bought small companies for X billions of dollars, which was more than it spent on its own research arm. So for some reason, big American corporations feel very good (and proud) about spending huge amounts of money on mergers and acquisitions. They feel like such mergers can never fail (although many are spectacular failures). I think many of these so-called patent buyouts are yet another type of merger - e.g., consider Google's buy of Motorola Mobility, is it a merger or patent purchase? I don't think any of these companies are spending more on actual litigation than on product development. If this were true, we would have seen these companies having more lawyers than developers. I don't think this is the case. I also don't think it is the case that these companies are paying billions of dollars blackmail to patent trolls - I've yet to see a patent troll on the list of the world's richest people. That being said, I do agree with you that the whole patent system is rotten to its core, and has become nothing more than a game that you are forced to play if you want to stay in business; Since everyone is also playing the same game, you don't get any edge by playing it, but you at least get to stay in business (which you won't if you refuse to play the game). Nadav. -- Nadav Har'El| Tuesday, Oct 9 2012, 23 Tishri 5773 n...@math.technion.ac.il |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Ms Piggy's last words: "I'm pink, http://nadav.harel.org.il |therefore I'm ham." ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: “In Technology Wars, Using the Patent as a Sword” - New York Times Feature
Shlomi Fish wrote: One proponent of software patents on this list is Geoffrey, who claims it helped protect some obscure startups against people copying their ideas. However, given the huge and increasing spending on patent litigation, the problem of patent trolls and the fact that “In particular, between 1987 and 1994 , software patents issuance rose 195%, yet real company funded R&D fell by 21% in these (software) industries while rising by 25% in industries in general.” (see http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/innovation.html ). Just to amplify that fact, the cost of the computer I used in 1979 to do operating system development was about $5 million dollars. It was a dual processor system and on Sunday mornings, I got one of the processors to myself if I needed it. This was back in the days when you single stepped an operating system by pushing a button on the console. By 1989, a similar system was about $250,000. By 1994, everyone was doing their development on SUN computers at $10,000 each, or developing for Windows or BSD on 486 and pentium computers, which sold for $2,000. So the cost of development shifted from hardware in the 1970's to salaries in the 1990's. During which time the salaries in dollars (not adjusted) doubled. Note that in 1979 I did my software development in BAL and PL/I until around 1991 or 1992, and from there on in C and later in PERL. So I say that he is wrong, and there was much more innovation and therefore more patent applications because the cost of software development plummeted. It even went farther down as cheap markets, e.g. Israel, India and China opened up. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379 "Owning a smartphone: Technology's equivalent to learning to play chopsticks on the piano as a child and thinking you're a musician." (sent to me by a friend) ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
“In Technology Wars, Using the Patent as a Sword” - New York Times Feature
Hi all, LWN.net mentions here - http://lwn.net/Articles/518936/ - that the New York Times published a feature against software patents: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?_r=0 It also gives one especially damning quote: « In the smartphone industry alone, according to a Stanford University analysis, as much as $20 billion was spent on patent litigation and patent purchases in the last two years — an amount equal to eight Mars rover missions. Last year, for the first time, spending by Apple and Google on patent lawsuits and unusually big-dollar patent purchases exceeded spending on research and development of new products, according to public filings. » I have not read the feature itself yet, but I believe it will be nothing new to most people on this list. One proponent of software patents on this list is Geoffrey, who claims it helped protect some obscure startups against people copying their ideas. However, given the huge and increasing spending on patent litigation, the problem of patent trolls and the fact that “In particular, between 1987 and 1994 , software patents issuance rose 195%, yet real company funded R&D fell by 21% in these (software) industries while rising by 25% in industries in general.” (see http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/innovation.html ). Geoffrey, would you like to change your opinion now? Regards, Shlomi Fish -- - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ UNIX Fortune Cookies - http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/fortunes/ Why can’t we ever attempt to solve a problem in this country without having a “War” on it? -- Rich Thomson, talk.politics.misc Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
