Steve Gibson has just released a good podcast about the evil's of software
patents:
http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm#93
He covers the problems of patents in general and gives a very clear analysis
of the recent 'linux infringes 235 of our patents' claim by Micro$oft. Skip
the f
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:26, Robert Fisher wrote:
> On that Wiki page the word "Transcluded" is used. I have never heard of it
> and although google throws up several pages using the word
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Transcluded could not find it.
>
> Translation anyone?
Inclusion of i
On that Wiki page the word "Transcluded" is used. I have never heard of it
and although google throws up several pages using the word
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Transcluded could not find it.
Translation anyone?
Rob.
Richard Tindall said:
> Richard Tindall wrote:
>
>> suit-asserti
Richard Tindall wrote:
suit-assertion (asset-grabbing profiteering)
- otherwise known as pirates.
Temporal authority has always been thus.
For means to take them on, see the Wiki
http://clug.net.nz/index.php/MeetingSchedule
Go the ABs!
- Chilled-Out.
--
Never engage in a battle of wits w
which to argue sense.
The absolute crock that is software patents is exposed like this:
Claimant M(S) has registered programme-sentence "The cat is on the mat,
sitting".
Claimant N(V) is prevented not only from registering - but even from
*using* - the programme-sentence "The cat
RMS is surprisingly level headed!
Steve
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,1510566,00.html
--
Windows: Where do you want to go today?
MacOS: Where do you want to be tomorrow?
Linux: Are you coming or what?
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:42, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:15, Lindsay wrote:
> > Patents
> > The only way to fight back against these software patent advocates is to
> > think up idea's, get together with friends and supporters and patent all
> &g
to patent
> an idea - you've already done it.
to late. all the needed ideas ARE ALREADY PATENTED.
i don't know about the state in NZ, but in europe (despite
softwarepatents not being legal) and the US and many other places all
those patents are gone.
software always operates on a global lev
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:15, Lindsay wrote:
> Patents
> The only way to fight back against these software patent advocates is to
> think up idea's, get together with friends and supporters and patent all
> your idea's. That way, when these multinational rat-bags go to pat
Patents
The only way to fight back against these software patent advocates is to
think up idea's, get together with friends and supporters and patent all
your idea's. That way, when these multinational rat-bags go to patent
an idea - you've already done it.
Its cheaper to patent
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:28:00AM +1300, yuri wrote:
> > Patents - victory for common sense in Europe it seems
> Don't you mean "victory for *good* sense"
> I'm, afraid it's not necessarily common.
actually it is more common than you may thing.
every common p
On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 04:13:12PM +1300, Nick Rout wrote:
> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/18/138220
> Good to see huh?
yes, but beware, it's not over yet.
we have won a battle, but we have not yet won the war.
greetings, martin.
--
cooperative communication with sTeam |
> Patents - victory for common sense in Europe it seems
Don't you mean "victory for *good* sense"
I'm, afraid it's not necessarily common.
Yuri
--
** WARNING to mailing list repliers **
Gmail over-rides "Reply-To:" field. Check your "To:" address before
sending reply to this post.
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 22:45 +1300, Wesley Parish wrote:
> But when a Sun Vice-President makes the statement that software and hardware
> have become increasingly intertwined these days, and so software patents are
> a natural development from patenting the hardware (discussion in Gro
e-dream again.
>
> No, not in Europe, not just yet anyway.
> The European Union has decided not to cast software patents into statute
> law just yet.
>
> I have no real objection to a patent for a _really_ clever implementation
> of a distinctly non-trivial algorithm, particula
Union has decided not to cast software patents into statute law
just yet.
I have no real objection to a patent for a _really_ clever implementation of a
distinctly non-trivial algorithm, particularly if the software controls a
complex industrial process or similar, but storing a database index point
It may come down to how corrupt officials are Nick and who offers the
biggest 'back-hander." The hopes of seeing 'justice done' may be but a
pipe-dream again.
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 18:33 +1300, Nick Rout wrote:
> errr sorry if i missed your point.
>
> anyway, an important topic for computer ent
errr sorry if i missed your point.
anyway, an important topic for computer enthisiasts, but particulalry
the free/open world that linux and its friends inhabit.
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 18:19 +1300, Lindsay wrote:
> No, you missed the point Nick. I'm not biased "that the lawyers will
> get a seco
No, you missed the point Nick. I'm not biased "that the lawyers will
get a second bite at the cherry." They have to earn a living too!
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 17:46 +1300, Nick Rout wrote:
> If you are saying you don't have a view on software patents you should
> do a
If you are saying you don't have a view on software patents you should
do a little research IMHO. They will not improve your computing
experience.
OTPH if you really think the ability to buy goods online should be
limited to the one entity that wants to hold the patent on the concept,
an
Being unbiased myself, I guess the lawyers for both sides will be
pleased Nick. They'll have a second bite of the cherry . . . .
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 16:13 +1300, Nick Rout wrote:
> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/18/138220
>
> Good to see huh?
>
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/18/138220
Good to see huh?
--
Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/18/138220
Good to see huh?
--
Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:
> Can they patent it if other people are already using it?
>
>
> From: Paul William <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: CLUG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: OT american patents
> >Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:14:29 +1300
>
Subject: Re: OT american patents
>
>
> Can they patent it if other people are already using it?
>
>
> >From: Paul William <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: CLUG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: OT american patents
> &g
Can they patent it if other people are already using it?
From: Paul William <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CLUG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT american patents
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:14:29 +1300
Hi guys,
I read on /. that MS has patented the
user-is-typi
Hi guys,
I read on /. that MS has patented the
user-is-typing-a-message-notification IM feature used by jabber and
other IM systems. If a US patent is taken out can it be enforced in NZ?
I an NOT asking for legal advice - just interested
I would really miss the user-is-typing-a-message-notif
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 17:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Aren't SuperWaba, Sable and Kaffee Free?
>
> None of them are actual java and they don't include the java class
> library. Kaffee is close, but does not include fundemental classes such
> as BigInteger.
They seem to work over here
Vik :v)
> Aren't SuperWaba, Sable and Kaffee Free?
None of them are actual java and they don't include the java class
library. Kaffee is close, but does not include fundemental classes such
as BigInteger.
Looks like the vote has been delayed.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/32614.html
--
I'm not worried about Artificial Intelligence, when they invent
Artificial Stupidiy, then I'll be scared.
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 10:57, Zane Gilmore wrote:
> Vik Olliver wrote:
> > Two things I can see coming of this:
> >
> > 1. Hardware that can be reprogrammed to run, amongst other things, Java
> > bytecode like the last 3 ARM CPUs.
> >
> > 2. The need for a Java bytecode Linux.
> The what?
Tha Jaz
Zane Gilmore wrote:
Vik Olliver wrote:
Two things I can see coming of this:
1. Hardware that can be reprogrammed to run, amongst other things, Java
bytecode like the last 3 ARM CPUs.
2. The need for a Java bytecode Linux.
The what?
The *need*?
Why would someone put an Open and free operating syst
Vik Olliver wrote:
Two things I can see coming of this:
1. Hardware that can be reprogrammed to run, amongst other things, Java
bytecode like the last 3 ARM CPUs.
2. The need for a Java bytecode Linux.
The what?
The *need*?
Why would someone put an Open and free operating system in a proprietary
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 13:41, Lee Begg wrote:
> There are open source CPUs. I know of two, the Freedom processor and the
> OpenRISC 1000.
>
> The freedom processor is not going to be useful for quite some time.
>
> The OpenRISC has actually run in hardware (FPGA). It is quite a nice
> processo
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 23:28, Shane Hollis wrote:
> ...
>
> >and plans to incorporate surveillance chips in all new Intel-based
> > (Pentium) computers from 2005 in order to ensure "security" for users.
>
> Watch AMD suddenly gain market share ... Intel would have to be nuts is
> there an open sou
...
>and plans to incorporate surveillance chips in all new Intel-based (Pentium)
>computers from 2005 in order to ensure "security" for users.
Watch AMD suddenly gain market share ... Intel would have to be nuts is
there an open source CPU?
Hi all, I thought some of you might find this
interesting...
from: http://www.indymedia.org
More links and pics from the above address
Kerry
Netwide Protests against EU Software Patents
The cream of Europe's politicized programmers took to
the streets in Brussels in a protest that co
Software will be illegal and even
MS needs to pay a lot of Money, to legalize their Software (if they get the
licences). Online-Shops will die at all, maybe email too. All this is
currently patented, but those patents aren't legal in europe.
...ok, that was the worst case, but close to t
38 matches
Mail list logo
