Hi,
my primary goal was not to discuss about patents.
I just think that WebObjects is a WOnderfull technology, very well
integrated solution ( EOF+WO )
I've spent 10 years developping with WO, but for 3 years now I'm
working with Flex.
Nice technology, server side agnostic, you can use whatever you
wants on the server side,
and to be honest less I work on the server better am I, J2ee is
simply a nigthmare,
non-ecolgic technology, you needs so much time and energy for
simple things with WO.
EOF is much more simplier than Hibernate
WebObjects is much more simpler than JSF, WebFlow and all Spring
technologies and concepts ( Inversion of Control ) you don't needs
100 jars to do web application.
Apple may benefits from WebObjects Halo effect, if they decide to
opensource the technology.
Patents, is just money, and it seems that Apple has some cash in
Bank ( 30 B$, today Apple is bigger than IBM, and SUN is in my point
of view the Lehman Brother of IT ).
I know that the community, Mike, Chuck, Pascal, Anjo and ... ,
are doing great work to promote WO, but I not totally agree the way
they do it.
I give enough money to Apple, buying Macs, iPhone, iPods and iTunes
Music
( I'm very happy client, http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/
MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?i=191345352&id=191345213&s=143442 ),
I don't wants spent time to do the marketing of a non opensourced
product (WebObjects), marketing they have never done.
The question I'm asking to myself and you , what could we do to
convince Apple to opensource WebObjects ?
Why Apple is doing opensource for some technologies , WebKit, Grand
Central Dispatch ... but not for WO ?
Perhaps someone inside Apple may publicly give us some good reasons ...
Cheers,
Stephane
Le 16 sept. 09 à 09:48, Q a écrit :
On 16/09/2009, at 7:02 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
If you were well-versed in ANY field, wouldn't your scenario
equally be true? If I'm a mechanic and you come up with a new
engine design, once I see what you've done and how you've done it,
it's probably pretty easy for me to make one ... I have no idea
about Pharma, but I presume that once a drug is released, it's
probably pretty easy for generics to replicate it. It does seem
there should be some consideration for that, and the patent system
is the current answer to that. Why should software be in some
other category?
Also, re: MP3/JPEG (and things like RSA fall into this category
too) -- It's grunt work to do it once someone already has defined
a spec, or figured it out and you cheat off their paper, but it's
no small feat to come up with it in the first place. This is sort
of the point, it seems to me. Stealing the idea is always easier
than making it first, so we have patents to give incentive to
people to bother coming up with it first. There's obviously a
failure window in the patent system for the guy who truly
independently develops it, but I don't really see a way to close
that gap -- i think it's a weakness you have accept for the
greater good of the imperfect system.
Personally I have no issue with the concept of software patents in
general, it's how they are often used I object to.
Patents should be a way to protect yourself from having to compete
against your own invention in a commercial market. Ie. Patents
should exist for the purpose of protection from direct competition
and utilising an idea or invention with exclusivity, not a way of
extracting the maximum amount of revenue from everyone who finds
value in your IP in some way.
For example, you invent the next big thing in facial recognition.
You should be able to patent your invention for that purpose to
allow you to use it in your own or your partners / customers
products with exclusivity for a set period of time. If your
competitors want to use it too, then the patent affords you the
control to allow or deny their ability to use your invention to
compete with you for that specified purpose for a limited amount of
time. Just because you have a patent doesn't mean you should be
able to prevent someone else from using your original idea in a new
and creative but totally non competing way, like say in the
autofocus function of a video camera.
What you shouldn't be allowed to do is to patent something for an
abstract use case and never actually use it for anything of value,
instead you use the patent as a tool to extort royalties from
others that want to use this IP, and would inevitably have invented
the same thing but were not the first to do so. This behaviour of
holding IP to ransom prevents other people from being able to take
a good idea and turning it into something even better, or combining
it with other ideas and using it in a way the original creator
could never have dreamed of by themselves.
It's a bit of a grey area when your business is selling things like
video/audio codecs, or compression and encryption libraries.
Mind you, I'm not even saying I'm for them at the moment -- I'm
pretty well on the fence about it. I'm certainly not for the way
they are currently implemented/granted in the US, but a bad
implementation doesn't necessarily make the entire concept wrong.
Certainly in the US, the current implementation of the system
(both in granting and in enforcement/litigation) greatly favors
the big guy.
Out of curiosity, are you against traditional patents? I still
can't reconcile a meaningful difference -- i recognize there
probably IS a difference, but I just haven't been able to come up
with a lucid explanation of the difference.
ms
On Sep 15, 2009, at 4:42 PM, Anjo Krank wrote:
Sorry, can't resist :) From what I understand is that your
supreme court basically said that everything man-made under the
sun should be patentable. Recently even they finally came to
their sense and said it had to have some physical component.
The reason (as I understand it) is that patents are *not* for the
benefit of the holders. They are to get holders to disclose on
their stuff and to get a limited monopoly in return. This is to
*promote* innovation so that others can simply look at the patent
and build from that.
I find it pretty hard to imagine a concept in IT that is hard
enough for someone well-versed in the field (not IT, the special
application) that you can't come up with too once you see it can
be done. The reason being it's pretty cheap. Look at MP3 for
example, or JPEG. Once you got the idea that you *can* compress
images or sounds with some math crap, it's only grunt-work to do
it. LAME took about a year from a crappy patch-set to the final
product.
Cheers, Anjo
--
Seeya...Q
Quinton Dolan - [email protected]
Gold Coast, QLD, Australia (GMT+10)
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/
stephane.guyot11%40wanadoo.fr
This email sent to [email protected]
IBCM : International Bank of Chatenay-Malabry http://www.kiva.org/
lender/stephane4127 - Click on Map View
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [email protected]
