|
More Blepp and News on Software Patents in Europe |
|
Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 01:06 PM EDT
|
Gregory Blepp will participate in a panel discussion in Munich on May 12th, during a demonstration against software patents. Of course, he will not be participating on that side of the matter, I presume. As you may have heard, the news from Europe is that it looks like software patents may become a reality there after all: "The EU Council of Ministers seems determined to prove that the EU is a
democracy only on paper. This Wednesday, the Irish Presidency has
managed to secure a qualified majority for a counter-proposal on the
software patents directive, with only a few countries - including
Belgium and Germany - showing resistance. The new text proposes to
discard all the amendments from the European Parliament which would
limit patentability. Instead the lax language of the original
Commission proposal is to be reinstated in its entirety, with direct
patentability of program text fragments added as icing on the cake. The
proposal is now scheduled to be confirmed without discussion at a
meeting of ministers on 17-18 May, unless one of the Member States
changes its vote."
Here is the text of the agreement. Here are the minutes of the negotiations.
Groklaw's Christoph Schaefer reports on Blepp news from German-language news sources that Blepp has been saying that SCO is not against open source:
"'We never dreamed it was possible that the matter would take on such proportions,' explained Gregory Blepp, Vice President of SCO during CeBIT.
"'We had a licence contract with IBM about their Unix variation AIX, and we are firmly convinced IBM violated this contract.' The accusation: lines of code, copyrighted by SCO, were made available to the Open Source community under the General Public Licence (GPL) and slipped into Linux by IBM. 'We, as a small company, couldn't allow such conduct on the part of a contractual partner,' Blepp justified litigation.
"He made clear, it was IBM at first, which made a big thing about it and alarmed the Open Source movement. 'Yet, we don't reject Open Source in general,' Blepp states, 'we just want everything happening legally.' It had to do with charcteristics of the American legal system, that evidence (the code in question, for instance) was withheld as long as possible. In early stages of such legal procedures, large amounts of documents were exchanged. 'We have become a transparent company. There's nothing about us, IBM doesn't know,' the US manager of German origin underlines the current situation of SCO." That sounds good, the transparent-to-IBM part. There is more than one way to gain transparency. Microsoft has picked off another SuSE guy. The former SuSE sales manager Karl Aigner was recently hired by Microsoft and will be responsible for Data Center Solutions. Aigner was one of the driving forces behind Munich's switch to Linux. Back to Blepp's comments, here is an interesting bit: "When SCO then asked for licence fees, some decided to wait for the end of the lawsuit against IBM. 'But these are two kettle of fish,' Blepp says. 'With IBM we have a quarrel about contracts, but apart from that, everybody using our code in Linux has a copyright problem.' And this copyright has to be sued for, of course, just to remain credible. As American law is based to a large extent on precedence, some exemplary judgements would be sufficient, Blepp explains." Similar statements here:
http://www.manager-magazin.de/ebusiness/cebit/0,2828,288966,00.html: "The process against IBM at present still is in the 'Discovery' phase, explains Gregory Blepp, Vice President international from SCO and thus for the license politics of the enterprise responsible, in the discussion with manager magazin.de. 'We want that DaimlerChrysler acknowledges that it uses our code', says Blepp." Heh heh
http://www.silicon.de/cpo/_cfg/print.php?nr=13496: " Blepp explained additionally that SCO was certain that its chances of success in the Daimler case were 100 per cent. And also with the law case with IBM he is
confident." That seems to bode well for IBM.
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/artikel/801/30771/
Heise had a story on Blepp, from the suitcase story days, that had a sentence about Spanish law, and I wonder if anyone can translate that section better than my computer? Here is the hint from the Heise article:
"For months the SCO investor Baystar Capital is to
require itself a more professional occurring in Europe. Blepp, which
refers a substantially higher fee than original with the entrance
agreed upon of Baystar of the SCO Group, is more operational readiness
level to show and the clearly hard requirements of the SCO Group
represent. So Baystar emissaries are in this week with resident of
Munich venture financial sources to have called and about earlier work
samples of Blepp have inquired. . . .
"Hopes of Gregory Blepp for a stronger operational readiness level of
SCO in Europe rest now on an appraisal of a Spanish law office given
in job. It is to prove that the arguments stated by Novell are invalid
to stored European or international right in the controversy over the
exclusive holder of a right shank also after that somewhat different
for the protection of the mental property."
[original German:
"Für Gregory Blepp kommt die Veröffentlichung dieser Unstimmigkeiten durchaus ungelegen. Seit Monaten soll sich der SCO-Investor Baystar Capital ein professionelleres Auftreten in Europa wünschen. Blepp, der mit dem Einstieg von Baystar von der SCO Group ein erheblich höheres Honorar als ursprünglich vereinbart bezieht, soll mehr Präsenz zeigen und deutlich härter die Ansprüche der SCO Group vertreten. So sollen Baystar-Emissäre in dieser Woche bei Münchner Venture-Kapitalgeber angerufen und sich nach früheren Arbeitsproben von Blepp erkundigt haben.
. . .
"Die Hoffnungen von Gregory Blepp auf eine stärkere Präsenz von SCO im europäischen Raum ruhen nun auf einem in Auftrag gegebenen Gutachten einer spanischen Rechtsanwaltskanzlei. Es soll beweisen, dass die von Novell vorgebrachten Argumente im Streit um die alleinige Rechtsinhaberschaft auch nach dem etwas anders gelagerten europäischen beziehungsweise internationalen Recht zum Schutze des geistigen Eigentums ungültig sind." ] As always, my computer translation does not leave us without a laugh. Here is how it translates this headline stating, I think, that SCO was ordered to show the code:
"SCO muss Code-Hosen herunterlassen"
"SCO must lower code trousers"
Here is a translation from Christoph: "Blepp's prospects for a stronger presence of SCO in Europe are now based on an expert's opinion, which was commissioned to a Spanish firm of solicitors. It is expected to prove that Novell's arguments in the quarrel about the exclusive legal ownership are invalid in European and international law, which is different [compared to the United States], as well." And an alternative:
"Blepp is hoping that the works of a Spanish law firm, which is currently
furnishing an expert opinion, may finally allow him to show more presence in
Europe. The report has been ordered by Blepp to prove that Novell's claims about
the sole ownership of the copyrights are invalid according to European and
international Laws."
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 01:52 PM EDT |
Go Here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:03 PM EDT |
I dont think this is a done deal yet PJ.
There is still much opposing left to do.
Admittedly we are fighting an uphill battle.
Paul, UK.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: icorson on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:05 PM EDT |
So... Does the spanish tanslation mean that Baystar wants sco headed in Europe
as the patent laws are more laxed and they Baystar/SCO, or BaySCO if you will,
can get better recourse for their "lawsuit"? Im confused.. Every
translator I used came out sorta like PJ's.
One thing I hope Europe realizes is that this Patent thing only really benefits
US companies. They will patent everything and the European companies will be
caught with their collective pants down and get royally screwed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:32 PM EDT |
This is actually a correct translation of the German
headline. The German saying "die Hosen herunterlassen
müssen" ("to have to drop ones trousers") means "to be
forced to show what you were trying to hide". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
We had a licence contract with IBM about their Unix variation
AIX, and we are firmly convinced IBM violated this contract.' The accusation:
lines of code, copyrighted by SCO, were made available to the Open Source
community under the General Public Licence (GPL) and slipped into Linux by
IBM.
Copyrighted by SCO??? Where the heck was
that in the Court filings? Did I take a nap or
what??
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac
Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:51 PM EDT |
For Gregory Blepp, the disclosure of the disagreements is throughly poor timing.
SCO investor Baystar has been voicing its wishes for months for a professional
entrance into Europe. Blepp, who thanks the intervention of Baystar, is getting
a demonstrably higher fee than he had negotiated earlier, is to show a greater
profile and is to take a harder and more explicit line in expounding SCO's
views. Apparently, Baystar emissaries contacted VC outfits in Munich this week
and asked for confirmation of Blepp's earlier track record.
Greogry Blepp's hopes of a stronger profile for SCO in Europe rest on an opinion
given by a Spanish court. This opinion apparently proves that Novell's arguments
in the dispute about sole ownership are also incompatible with the somewhat
different European interpretation on international law on the subject of
protecting IP.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:52 PM EDT |
Here a translation for that piece of German text, hope this is better than the
babelfish one. This is not a literal translation, though, my knowledge of the
English language is not that good *ggg*
"Blepp can't really be happy about those confusing facts becoming publicly
known. Baystar is claimed to have been wanting SCA to follow a more
'professional' approach for months. Blepp, having received a big pay rise since
Baystar invested in SCO, should show his face more often and shall intensify his
work presenting SCO's claims. It is heard, that Baystar officials have inqired
several Munich-based investor companies to get samples of Blepp's work
results..."
"Blepp is hoping that the works of a Spanish law firm, which is currently
furnishing an expert opinion, may finally allow him to show more presence in
Europe. The report has been ordered by Blepp to prove that Novell's claims about
the sole ownership of the copyrights are invalid according to European and
international Laws."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:53 PM EDT |
We were in Ireland in 2001 and heard the story over and over again of how MS
single-handedly revived the Irish economy and made Ireland to center of the
computer trade in Europe. But it wasn't out of the generosity of Gates heart.
Ireland had the worst employment and lowest wages. And set up enterprise zones
so the benefits were enormous. So small wonder the Irish President wants to
help MS.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: moogy on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 03:17 PM EDT |
"'With IBM we have a quarrel about contracts, but
apart from that, everybody using our code in Linux
has a copyright problem.'"
SCOG was ordered by the court to provide, with
specificity, all IP claims they have against Linux.
That discovery would necessarily include any
copyright claims, and is now supposedly complete.
The time to face this issue is now and the place is
the IBM case where all the discovery for this issue
has been done. It has not been done in any other
case therefore, it is NOT more efficient for the
courts to stay IBM's motion for a Declaratory Judgment
while other cases would still have to go through the
SCOG delay games on providing the discovery.
Of course, SCOG never raises the issue that Linux
contains their copyrighted code, right?
---
Mike Tuxford - irc.fdfnet.net #Groklaw
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, then you win. --Gandhi
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 03:19 PM EDT |
Could some kind of protest in the form of an action and/or a strike be a
possible solution? To show just how numerous and concerned this group really is?
I know, developers have to eat, but I more and more get the feeling that all
that is being done has little or no effect. Sorry if I may seem pessimistic...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
Quote from above:
"That sounds good, the transparent-to-IBM
part. There is more than one way to gain transparency. Microsoft has picked off
another SuSE guy. The former SuSE sales manager Karl Aigner was recently hired
by Microsoft and will be responsible for Data Center Solutions. Aigner was one
of the driving forces behind Munich's switch to Linux."
This
is interesting. Microsoft hires the person that probably caused them the most
headache when they were trying to win the Munich desktop OS contract (remember,
Steve Ballmer made a trip to Munich for just this reason).
It seems to
me that Mr. Aigner is in quite the negotiating position. I wouldn't doubt if
his salary is in the several hundred thousand per year, with added millions in
options.
However, this also raises a point. It shows how easy
someone can be bought. Cold, green cash, as Microsoft knows, can go a long way
towards convincing someone to come to the "dark side." Greed, my friends, is
uglier than a down-and-out junkie.
Personally I would have stuck with
my morals and avoided working for Microsoft. Any company with such reckless
disregard for US laws, and the truth (think "Get the Facts") should be avoided
in my book. Million of dollars or not, my conscience and mental well-being are
more important than having a second house on the lake.
--- ...then
Kathie Lee says, "What do you mean there's no such thing as Tuesday Night
Football?!" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
Spain just had a change in government - Maybe they will affect this patent
problem with reason?
Does anyone know the position of the NEW Spanish government with regards to Open
Source, Linux, Software Patents, etc.
They certainly did not see eye to eye with the US on other matters... Maybe they
are on the side of logic regarding Software Patents as well?
Anyone know?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 04:45 PM EDT |
I'd love to feel that confident over nothing too! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 05:36 PM EDT |
If Europe is going to allow all these patents of software parts, choose some and
file for some patents right now, as soon as you can, before all the good ones
are gone. This is a real economic opportunity, and don't let just the large
corporations get money from this. Get some for yourselves. Patent whatever you
have written or seen or bought. If everybody does this, it will really clog up
the system. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Everybody Submit your Patents Right Now, before all the good ones are taken - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 05:59 PM EDT
- Decisions, decisions, ... - Authored by: snorpus on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 06:16 PM EDT
- Everybody Submit your Patents Right Now, before all the good ones are taken - Authored by: AdamBaker on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 06:55 PM EDT
- Everybody Submit your Patents Right Now, before all the good ones are taken - Authored by: Simon G Best on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 09:13 PM EDT
- Everybody Publicize your Prior Art Right Now, before all the good ideas are patented - Authored by: CnocNaGortini on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 05:04 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 06:04 PM EDT |
* Taken from xawtv-3.5.9 source 8/15/01 by George Staikos
<staikos@kde.org>
* No licence in file so assumed GPL as per the COPYING file.
* s/kv4lsetup/v4l-conf/g for historical purposes.
*
* Updated to xawtv-3.9.0 2/12/04 by Dirk Ziegelmeier <dziegel@gmx.de>
*/
/*
* Set the framebuffer parameters for bttv.
* tries to ask the X-Server if $DISPLAY is set,
* otherwise it checks /dev/fb0
*
* (c) 1998-2001 Gerd Knorr <kraxel@bytesex.org>
*
* Security checks by okir@caldera.de
*/
#ifdef __STRICT_ANSI__
#define FOO__STRICT_ANSI__
#undef __STRICT_ANSI__
#endif
#include <asm/types.h>
#ifdef FOO__STRICT_ANSI__
#define __STRICT_ANSI__
#undef FOO__STRICT_ANSI__
#endif
#ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H
#include <config.h>
#endif
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <strings.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/ioctl.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <linux/vt.h>
#ifdef HAVE_GETOPT_H
# include <getopt.h>
#endif
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 06:05 PM EDT |
After SCO has become just a bad memory, perhaps the groklaw community can find
purpose in ferriting out examples of prior art to pound and pulverize pesky
patents.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: snorpus on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 06:08 PM EDT |
I think we can leave our tinfoil hats in the closet on this
one.
Microsoft has picked off another SuSE guy. The former
SuSE sales manager Karl Aigner was recently hired by Microsoft and will be
responsible for Data Center Solutions. Aigner was one of the driving forces
behind Munich's switch to Linux.
Let's not forget that SuSE
has been recently purchased by Novell. Even in relatively friendly takeovers,
there's always going to be some shuffling of personnel. Perhaps Aigner saw the
handwriting on the wall, perhaps he was kindly given six months to seek another
position, or maybe he's wanted all his professional career to work for
Microsoft.
Or it could be that if he rose any further with SuSE/Novell, it
would require relocation to Utah.
There are any number of benign reasons for
the move, including that Microsoft, intending to become more friendly to FOSS,
wants to bulk up its staff with FOSS-aware management, management who actually
understand the difference between "free beer" and "free
speech". --- 73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
Blepp seems to have replaced Darl as the big-mouthed SCO idiot. I don't think
this is coincidental. The judge has told SCO to keep it's mouth shut, and so
has Baystar.
So why is Germany letting this go on? I thought SCO was supposed to be fined
alot of money everytime they spread FUD in Germany?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 07:47 PM EDT |
Is it no coincidence that hard on the heels of the revival of the threat of
software patents in Europe, SCOX start a new line of FUD based on this.
SCOX certainly have been paying attention to Monopoly$oft's recent actions where
if they can't bully a favourable court decision in the US they go to Europe
& exploit the system there instead.
At this point I think this is more an annoyance than anything as SCOX appears to
be running out of time & money, but who knows what sculduggery is going on
behind the scenes...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jmaurer on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
People seem to fear that the patent dispute in Europe has been decided with the
recently published preparations for the next Council meeting. That does not
appear to be the case.
I'm not an expert on the EU. However, I'm German, so
the EU does affect my daily life. Since some of Groklaw's US readers may not be
well acquainted with the system of government of the European Union, I'll start
with a few general remarks.
The European Union was originally founded in
1952 as a free trade zone for coal and steel. Founding members were France,
West Germany, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands, and Belgium. With various
additional treaties, more and more European nations joined the EU, and more and
more sovereign rights of the member nations moved to supranational bodies.
Nowadays, the EU issues regulations for all aspects of life, including such
diverse topics as categories for eggs, coordination of air traffic control, and
crash test criteria for cars, all allegedly to foster free trade.
The
European Union has various institutions, among them the European Parliament
(proportional representation, vote every
five years), the Commission (the
European "government"; one representative from each member nation, organized
in
departments such as Agriculture, Competition, Transportation and Energy
etc.), the Council (the assembly of the heads of government (Prime Ministers) of
all member nations),
European Court of Justice, etc. When making a law
(usually
named "directive"), a complicated procedure of consultation between
the Parliament, Council, and Commission is executed.
When the directive is
finally issued, it is usually in the form of an instruction to the national
legislative bodies to make national law compliant with the directive, by a given
date. For the patent regulations, this is different. A European Patent Office
has long been established, which is a supranational office, so national law has
no say there, except for the fundamental issue of ensuring that European patents
have the same level of protection as national patents. Which types of patents
can be issued is not of concern to the national law. Thus, any EU directive
concerning patentability of software, once issued, would become effective
relatively quickly.
Let's have a look at the process, as described in the
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.
Rules 63 to 66 deal with
the "first reading, committee stage". The committee can make amendments, but
needs to talk to the Commission and the Council (Rule
66(1)):
Before the committee responsible proceeds to the final vote
on a Commission proposal, it shall request the Commission to
state its
position on all the amendments to the proposal
adopted by the committee, and
the Council to comment.
Rule 69 has more on that. Now, Rule 73
deals with the approval of the Council of the amended proposal. It looks like
we're now at this stage, specifically, that the approval of the Council is not
going to happen.
In any case, Rule 79 says
The committee
responsible, a political group or at least
forty Members may, in writing and
before a deadline set by
the President, table a proposal to reject the common
position of the Council.
From what I've heard, there should be
at least forty people in the European Parliament that are knowledgeable enough
to actively bring forward such a motion. Getting some public attention may help
as well.
Jens Maurer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 11:57 PM EDT |
> The proposal is now scheduled to be confirmed without discussion at a
meeting of ministers on 17-18 May, unless one of the Member States changes its
vote.
Can anybody explain what this means? Does it mean the draconian patent law is
going to accepted ("confirmed") without public voting at all?
Also, it makes me wonder how the decision was made within each of the Member
States. Clearly, the decision process wasn't public, or else why there was no
publicity about it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eric76 on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 12:24 AM EDT |
"When SCO then asked for licence fees, some decided to wait for the
end of the lawsuit against IBM. 'But these are two kettle of fish,' Blepp says.
'With IBM we have a quarrel about contracts, but apart from that, everybody
using our code in Linux has a copyright problem.' And this copyright has to be
sued for, of course, just to remain credible. As American law is based to a
large extent on precedence, some exemplary judgements would be sufficient, Blepp
explains."
There is, of course, SCO code in Linux. They put it
there under the GPL with the full knowledge of what they were doing.
The real
question, of course, is "Apart from code that was contributed to Linux by Santa
Cruz Organization or Caldera, does SCO have any legitimate claims at all?" If
they did, I would think that we would have seen it already. Either they would
have showed it or someone else would have ferreted it out.
The longer their
kettles of fish are out in the sun far too long, the stronger the stink. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 05:13 AM EDT |
This is exactly what we needded: have someone from SCO stating
that IBM contributed SCO copyrighted code in GNU/Linux. So now,
let's remember that SCO explicitely stated in their court documents
that the matter with IBM was just a breach of contract and that all
issues concerning copyrights will be resolved in the Nevada case.
Marvelous! So here Blepp-my-hero says IBM infriged SCO copyrights,
BUT at the same time SCO is saying that these copyright problems
should NOT be dealed with IBM but... with an end-user...
This is becoming really interesting now... SCO reminds me of the
wasps I used to place, when I was a kid, in the middle of anthills...
It was horribly fun to watch the wasps trying to escape from their
inevitable fate...
SCO is the wasp, we, as lots of individuals, make up the anthill...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:49 AM EDT |
OK, I've read the agreement. For those who haven't, these 2 paragraphs seem the
most important to me:
Article 4
Conditions for patentability
In order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must be susceptible
of industrial
application and new and involve an inventive step. In order to involve an
inventive step, a
computer-implemented invention must make a technical contribution.
Article 4a
Exclusions from patentability
A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical
contribution merely
because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable
apparatus. Accordingly,
inventions involving computer programs which implement business, mathematical or
other methods
and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions
between a
program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is
run shall not be
patentable.
As I read that, 99.99999% of all software is un-patentable and that includes
things like office applications. Nowhere does the directive make any reference
to file formats or data structures that I can see so I assume that this
directive does not affect their patentablity or otherwise (whatever that may
be).
Please, please, please, can someone point me to the text which allows the
claimed unlimited software patentability?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 10:55 AM EDT |
<<"Blepp's prospects for a stronger presence of SCO in Europe are now
based on an expert's opinion, which was commissioned to a Spanish firm of
solicitors. It is expected to prove that Novell's arguments in the quarrel about
the exclusive legal ownership are invalid in European and international law,
which is different [compared to the United States], as well.">>
What does Spain have to do with this? The APA was done in the US, not Spain or
Europe. Like geesh, we could argue about how copyright law differs in Zimbabwe
or Australia, but that doesn't mean diddly to the APA done here in the US.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bonzai on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 12:01 AM EDT |
On the list of speakers at the panel discussion in Munich on May 12th it
says:
Gregory Blepp (Vorstand, VSI; Vice President, The SCO
Group)
Blepp was made chairman of a
study group called 'Fachgruppe Softwareindustrie' at dmmv (Deutscher
Multimedia Verband (dmmv) eV, home page) but
now
it seems he is also a 'vorstand' (manager/member of the board) of VSI
(Verband der Softwareindustrie Deutschlands eV, home
page).
Blepp was also invited to a discussionforum on April 1st called
"Open Source - Kult oder Wirtschaftsfaktor" (Open Source - Cult or Economic
Factor) in Freiburg (Germany). In his speach he mentioned the
"Unsicherheitsfaktoren" (doubt factors) IT-decisioinmakers face when it comes to
Open Source solutions. During the discussion the expected critical questions
about the "SCO vs Linux" fight didn't come because Blepp said at the start of
his speach er nicht in seiner Funktion als Vizepräsident von SCO
Deutschland eingeladen wurde, sondern als Vertreter des dmmv, wo er als
Fachgruppen-Vorsitzender und Gesamtvorstandsmitglied
fungiert
or in English he was not invited in his function
of VicePresident of SCO Germany but as representative of dmvv where he is
Chairman of a study group and member of the entire Board
To
read on the site of the organization where he is a member of the board that he
is 'VicePresident of SCO Germany' is kind of weird. In COMPUTERWOCHE you can read: "Neuer Mann fürs Grobe ist nämlich der
einstige Suse-Manager Gregory Blepp, der zwar in München ein Büro hat, aber als
Vice President International bei SCOsource in Lindon, Utah, angestellt ist."
('Although Gregory Blepp, a former Suse manager who is the new man to do the
dirty work, has an office in Munich, the Vice President International at
SCOsource is officially working in Lindon, Utah'). So he is not working for SCO
Germany and that's probably why they think they can get away with making these
statements in Germany. But according to dmmv he is working for SCO Germany? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: joeblakesley on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 09:04 AM EDT |
This is crazy. Information (or algorithmic) patents, as are being proposed by
the €C, are wrong and do not make sense.
You cannot patent data or information (that is what "copyright" is
for): you cannot patent algorithms; you cannot patent naturally-occurring DNA
sequences or organisms; you cannot patent laws of nature or science; you cannot
patent numbers; you cannot patent formulae or algorithms; you can patent
literature (e.g.: the idea of a boy-meets-girl plot line); you cannot patent a
computer program or algorithm (or its "plot"). You cannot patent any
of these, because they are *not* *inventions*. You, also, cannot patent things
that have prior art. The proposals the €C have been putting forward are pretty
vague, but they seem to allow the patenting of such things.
Another thing about patents (especially information patents)is that they are a
serious restriction of civial liberties: they allow a non-governmental
organisation or company (with enough money for the bribes^Wpatent payment fees)
to stop--on pain of imprisonement--any citizen from performing a certain action
(e.g.: communicating, running some software, reproducing [see DNA patents] or
potentially getting out of bed in the morning).
TRIPS does not require information patents("the TRIPS lie"); they
actually violate TRIPS . Also, 5 out of the 15 governments of member states are
against this (i.e.: those who are not receiving brown envelopes from Dubya or
Sir. Gates). There were massive protests against it outside parliament.
Parliament voted overwhelmingly against it. All the computer-industry consortia
and EU-based companies are against it. All the users of software and EU
citizens who know about this are against it. All the programmers are against
this. Is this democracy? How can a few civial "servants" at the €C
(commision) over-rule all that just because it will help...ummmm...Microsoft,
TSG,...ummm....
Also, apparently, Microsoft's in-house shill/astro-turferat the €C, Mario Monti
has the cheek to bring up his so-called "punishment" of Microsoft
(i.e.: trying to destroy M$'s competitors in exchange for a minor fine) as an
example of why we should trust the €C to not let companies abuse this proposed
information-patent legislation.
---
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|