|
|
| EU Software Patent Last-Minute News |
 |
|
Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 02:01 PM EDT
|
I have just gotten a report on the debate over the EU software patent directive. "In a dramatic debate today, it became clear that there could be a majority
for *complete rejection* of the directive."
Details will follow on http://www.ffii.org. Business Week has a piece Official: EU software patent law in danger: Klaus-Heiner Lehne, a German member of the parliament's conservative faction who is also coordinator of the assembly's powerful legal committee, said Tuesday that rejection of the bill was a "very real possibility." The Register confirms. Sounds good. I'm sure those dudes will think of something, though, so I am waiting with caution.
Some links I was just sent, if you want to follow along closely:
You can watch today's debate in the EU Parliament on
http://media.vrijschrift.org/europarl050705.wmv. I know. Windows Media. Sigh.UPDATE: A reader points out that you can get ogg and mp3 here.
The pictures of the demonstration in Strasbourg.
You can watch
the vote tomorrow live here.
The actual vote will take place tomorrow between
noon and 1 pm CET (Wednesday). And just in case you were wondering why all this was necessary in the first place, when it's obvious no one wants this directive as is but Microsoft and pals, read The Wall Street Journal's article, "Politics, Business Mix Freely
In Europe Parliament --
Patent-Law Reversal Shows
How Members' Outside Jobs
May Aid Corporate Interests", by Mary Jacoby and Glenn R. Simpson, which you can access, if you have a subscription, from this page.
It begins like this: In his job with a leading German patent-law firm,
Klaus-Heiner Lehne advises corporate clients on European Union policy.
In his second job, as a member of the European Parliament, Mr. Lehne
also shapes policy: In June, he helped rewrite a patent proposal more to
the liking of big software makers.
Two other European legislators from Germany who have favored stronger
software-patent protections also have industry ties. One works with
another top patent-law firm, and another sits on the board of U.S.
software giant Veritas Software Corp. and holds options to buy 85,416
shares of Veritas stock, according to U.S. securities filings.
All three illustrate how weak ethics and disclosure laws in Brussels,
the seat of EU institutions, allow legislators to influence the outcome
of debates without their connections receiving attention from the public
or their colleagues. In this case, stronger patent protections that
earlier had been rejected by Parliament were revived after a campaign
led by Microsoft Corp., SAP AG, Siemens AG, Nokia Corp. and other
companies with portfolios of software patents. . . .
Mr. Lehne said he wasn't required to advise fellow members of
Parliament about a potential conflict during committee debate on the
software legislation, because EU law requires notification only if the
member has a direct financial interest at stake. You know what I've been starting to think about? I learned from the AMD press conference that any anticompetitive action can be used in an antitrust complaint. If, down the road, Microsoft does attack GNU/Linux on patent infringement grounds, why isn't all this lobbying and undermining an example that could be used to demonstrate antitrust violation? Ditto on the standards wars. CNBC Europe will be discussing the directive on "Morning Exchange" at 10:30 AM GMT tomorrow with lobbyist David Chan. Here's a German language article in Der Spiegel on the debate. Here's a good article in French. The Wall Street Journal has this interesting tidbit as well: A few big U.S. companies, including International Business Machines
Corp., Sun Microsystems Inc. and Red Hat Inc., also oppose strengthening
patent laws in Europe. Forbes tells it more simply, reprinting from AFX News:
The bill's rapporteur, former French prime minister Michel Rocard, argued against patents for software, saying: 'What is immaterial is not technical and should not be patentable.'
He said that what was at stake in the bill was the free movement of ideas, respect for competition and the protection of individuals and small firms in the face of big multinational companies. Mr. Lehne, the Journal tells us, "emerged as leader of the drive for language sought by big tech
firms that would establish their ability to obtain certain types of
software patents. In addition, he offered more than a dozen pro-patent
amendments of his own, many of which were approved by the panel." To see all the amendments proposed, go here, and if you wish to read
FFII's take on them, go to
this page. Take a look particularly at proposed amendment 68 (and definitions in Amendment 69 and 70). My understanding is that is the one favored by IBM, with grudging support from Red Hat, Oracle and Sun. And yes, on this issue, Sun has been helpful, not hurtful, from all I've heard. The amendments FFII view as most important are the amendments to Articles 3, 4.1,
4.2, 5.2 and 6a. By the way, FFII says that MEPS are apparently no longer reading email about the directive. You can only reach them in Strasbourg by phone or fax. I want to thank everyone who sent me all this fascinating material. Groklaw is Groklaw because of you.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: gakulev on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 02:13 PM EDT |
Some commentators view Lehnes position with caution, suggesting his primary
objective would be to avoid the more stringent restrictions on patentability
suggested by Rocard in his compromise paper.
---
Gakulev
May the source be with you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seanlynch on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
Please list any corrections under this thread.
Thank you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Griffin3 on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
| With lickable clinks, please! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Meta, problem with Groklaw - Authored by: Arker on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 06:59 PM EDT
- Russian Astrologer Sues Over NASA Comet Probe - Authored by: Kosh Nanarek on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 08:53 PM EDT
- Wallpaper for Doe's - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 11:43 PM EDT
- Microsoft places smear job of FFII in TechCentralStation - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 03:51 AM EDT
- Price of SCOX shares - Authored by: troll on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 04:47 AM EDT
- Defeated!! - Authored by: peshwali on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 08:08 AM EDT
- Current events, calendar. - Authored by: gnuadam on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 10:48 AM EDT
- Bob Mims on last Friday's ruling - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 11:01 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
If I were a MEP, I'd be real concerned about how the Committee has been running
roughshod over Parliment. I would kill this bill simply to send a message to the
Committee to be more co-operative rather than adversarial.
Of course, I'm not European and it follows I can't be a MEP.
But still, the Committee's behavior has been egregious in the extreme.
I hope Parliment does the 'right' thing and kills this bill outright.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: clark_kent on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 03:26 PM EDT |
"You can watch today's debate in the EU Parliament on
http://media.vrijschrift
.org/europarl050705.wmv.
I know. Windows Media. Sigh."
Three
possible solutions for Linux... (I can't test them right now.)
1)
(Linux) MPLAYER - with the WMV9 codecs (With the correct script, I can watch
videos from launch.yahoo.com
2) (Linux) MPLAYER on Linspire with
commercial WMV codecs
3)
Win4Lin - Home Version -
Last time I bought it for $29.99; load your fav Win 95, 98, ME (with proper
licensing of course) right on Linux. Really cool. Windows constrained. Gives
Bill control of a process, not a PC.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rcbixler on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
Le
Parlement européen va se prononcer sur la
"brevetabilité" du logiciel
(The European parliament is going
to decide on the
patentability of software)
Summary: it has some
good quotes like "If Gutenberg had
patented
the printing press, then we
would not have books today."
It also tells of a small Belgian business that
launched a
service by mobile telephone and received a payment demand
from a
competitor because they had a US patent. They say
"If it was valid in Europe,
I would have had to stop
(the service) because I could not afford to pay."
Finally, there is a Czech "eurodeputy" who says that "We
do not have the big
businesses to support the logic of
patents." All in all, a pretty informative
article which
also doesn't miss the pro-patent arguments.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Chris Lingard on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
The pro-patent supporters will probably try and destroy the Act, if there is
any chance of the amendments being accepted. An amended Act is useless to big
business as it will allow open source and freedom to flourish. Big business
want a market where they choose what is supplied.
If the Act is
destroyed then each country can introduce their own legislation. As Reuters report; lack of legislation allows the current confusion to
continue.
What should happen in a fair and honest Europe; would be for
the Commission to introduce legislation that is acceptable to the electorate.
Commissioner Charlie McCreevy has spitefully refused to introduce new
legislation. Charlie McCreevy is supposed to represent Ireland, (Microsoft's
tax haven), and it is his current responsibility to introduce legislation.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 03:39 PM EDT |
In the age of the rise of Feudalism in Europe, long ago, the powerful grouped
togeather and enslaved the common man.
Such software patents serve only to repeat the ability for the powerful patent
holders with the armies of lawyers to enslave the common man, only this time in
a digital age.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 04:08 PM EDT |
The Progress of this Bill (Directive) has demonstrated very clearly what a
stinking corrupt mess of a political elite pushing their own vested interests
and those of their paymasters through the European Union is.
Europe has a complete disconnect with the citizens of Europe.
I guess it has been happening for ages but they only just got to my interest
group
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: meshuggeneh on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 04:16 PM EDT |
Some guy from ACT ("with the charm of a Use-Car Salesman") claims
("without proof") the sw-patent opponents are leaving dead cats on the
doorsteps of officials.
Haha. Reminds me of the recent Enderle article.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belphanior on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 04:52 PM EDT |
Currently the legal situation concerning software patents is unclear;
meanwhile the EPO has been allowing as many patents as they think they can
get away with!
As opponents of SW-patents we want a directive that
clearly forbids such patents, to stop the current EPO practice.
This new
move to reject the bill seems to be coming from the people who want
software patents; IOW they're afraid Rochard's recommendations to amend the bill
will be followed and are trying to prevent that.
The way I see it we
want this bill be accepted with the amendments. Having it thrown out
would only mean a new bill to forbid software patents would have to be made, to
tie the EPO's hands [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: CyberCFO on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
are only available using Microsofts patented xml .doc format. The opened well
enough in OO.o to read the text, but there were a lot of xml tags visible
because OO.o didn't know what to do with them.
Ooops, did I just infringe a patent?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: codswallop on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 05:32 PM EDT |
<<If, down the road, Microsoft does attack GNU/Linux on patent
infringement grounds, why isn't all this lobbying and undermining an example
that could be used to demonstrate antitrust violation?>>
It probably can if it involves foreign governments, but with the US government,
this argument is blocked by the Noerr-Pennington rule. Lobbying the government
and its agencies cannot be an antitrust violation. The Supremes have spoken.
---
IANAL This is not a legal opinion.
SCO is not a party to the APA.
Discovery relevance is to claims, not to sanity.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: star-dot-h on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 06:00 PM EDT |
It's ok. The best way of scotching this directive is to present it as part of
the attempted Anglo-Saxon takeover of Europe. Then just sit back and watch teh
seismic shift in the official position of the French and Germans.
I cannot for the life of me think why the EFF Europe branch has not played this
card already.
---
Free software on every PC on every desk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 06:14 PM EDT |
I've just heard that the EPP is going to vote for postponing the whole software
patent thing until after the new european patent system is created (which should
be quite a while).
Yay, things are looking up.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 01:35 AM EDT |
| The Melbourne Age has linked, from their
home page, an article by Richard Stallman on the software patent craziness. This on
the heels of LiveLAMP. Way to
go, Victoria! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 02:54 AM EDT |
| From an LWN story on SAP which turned into a discussion of software
patents:
http://lwn.net/Articles/142489/
Poster A: "SAP is evil" [...]
Poster B: "SAP is great" [...]
"They ran
two full pages ads this week, and two last week, in a prominent EU newspaper
asking for patents on 'computer-implemented inventions'. So whenever an MEP said
'this directive is not about software patents, it's about computer-implemented
inventions', we could take out our copy of the ad and say 'so why has a company
that makes nothing but software spent 28,000 euro to place these ads?'"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 02:56 AM EDT |
The way that the pro-patent lobbyists have done a complete turnaround and now
want to scrap the measure rather than accept a bunch of limiting ammendments
shows very clearly what they really wanted.
They obviously knew all along what the phrase "computer related
inventions" really meant, in spite of their statements to the contrary, and
when it started looking like their opponents were actually going to be able to
clarify that phrase to reject pure software patents, they suddenly decided that
it was better to have no law at all. Hmm.
So what happened to all of their other arguments about "unifying European
patent policy" and such? It clearly doesn't seem to have been all that
important to them in the end, does it?
---
SCOdenfreude n. Pleasure derived from witnessing the misfortunes of a certain
unpopular software company.
m(_ _)m[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hingo on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 03:02 AM EDT |
Just thought I'll add some new info while Americans are at sleep. Everybody who
knows more than me is busy lobbying anyway, so I'll share what I
know.
First of all, at least Finnish MEP:s are reading and responding
to email. But it's only a couple of hours until the vote, so it might not be
worth it anymore.
And no it's not a trick. Last night EPP and the
Socialists (two biggest coalitions) decided to reject the directive altogether,
I've heard this from two MEP:s directly and other reliable sources (Effi.org) as
well.
So isn't rejection what the MS camp wanted? Yes, but only
because we won!!. A no swpats amended directive would have cemented our
vicotry for the next 100 years, now they can claim the issue as still unresolved
and try again later. Expect software patents to sneak into shady areas of the
"Community patent" directive coming up in a few years.
It is worth
remembering, that in 2003, rejecting the directive was something we prayed for.
Thanks to the EP doing it's job (listening to us, not money) there evolved the
possibility of completely amending the directive to really, for real, yes it's
true, affirmatively say that softwarepatents are never and never where legal.
Sure that would have been great, but rejecting the original directive already
seemed like a hard goal then. So there should be much rejoicing... soon,
tonight...
So what does it mean? It means that everything will
be like before. Software patents are not legal in Europe, but the EPO and
national patent offices to varying extents will continue granting them to MS and
cell phone makers. They will use them to present statistics on how innovative
they've been, and maybe threaten some competitors, but probably not dare take
their chances in court.
Probably the pro-swpat lobbyists are now going
to go after each national parliament, and maybe some countries like Ireland and
Britain might introduce some legislation to their wishes, but many member states
will not. And competitively it will be stupid to do so, if other countries
continue without swpats. I have hard to believe that even Nokialand^H^H^H^H^H^H
err... mean Finland would pass such a law on their own, since it would be
pointless without the rest of EU.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 03:59 AM EDT |
| It's here (in
French).
It's by Pat Cox and Rudy Provoost, and it is very dishonest,
making a confusion (a deliberate one, I think) between patent and financial
incentive for intellectual creation. For instance, the authors elaborate on how
SAP would be very unhappy if the 850 millions euros they invest on research was
spent for nothing, and their 6500 software designers could'nt get paid for what
they do.
Yes, this is dishonest to the point of disgust. The good side is that
several reader talkbacks say so, and very strongly, which shows that a few
people, not only understand the issues, but are ready to speak up.
Christophe
Thill - Paris (France)
chris@cinebis.org
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: warner on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 05:08 AM EDT |
n/t
---
free software, for free minds and a free world.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
| 648 voted for rejection, 18 against, according to heise.de's forum! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous Coward on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 07:41 AM EDT |
What happens reminds me of guerilla warfare.
Where the only thing the guerilla's need to do is not lose. And in this case we
got the otherside into a stalemate.
The problem being that now 25 nations will be pressured in gettting some form of
this legislation enacted.
And that is where the next set of battles will be. The good thing is that the
governments of those states are closer to the people so generally it should be
easier to pressure them into not accepting this kind of law. On the other hand
it will be harder since the discrepancy of power that can be brought to bear on
the governments is larger.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: paivakil on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 07:42 AM EDT |
The vote is defeated. See here.
Excerpts
STRASBOURG (Reuters) - The European
Parliament voted to throw out a controversial EU bill to harmonise the patenting
of software-related inventions on Wednesday after lawmakers said it pleased
nobody in its present form.
The assembly voted by 648 to 14 with 18
abstentions to reject the law and stop a version of the legislation, already
approved by the European Union's 25 member states, from becoming law.
br>
The
European Commission which drafted the bill said it respected the decision and
that it would not put forward any new proposed legislation in this area.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 08:03 AM EDT |
I would like to send a thank you letter to the MEPs I have been in contact with
throughout this whole debate. Is there a list available of who voted what so I
can check they actually did vote the right way?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seantellis on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 08:06 AM EDT |
EU
Parliament bins software patent bill
Love that
title. ---
Sean Ellis (sellis@geo-removethis-cities.com) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 08:06 AM EDT |
So, with the 97% against vote, would it be correct to say that both sides choose
for the 'lesser of two evils'?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 08:07 AM EDT |
| 648 of 680 votes for dropping the whole process (for now). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fjalvingh on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 08:10 AM EDT |
The EU Parliament has REJECTED the patent proposal with an incredible 648 votes
of the total 680 votes! Only 14 votes were in favor of the proposal, 18
abstained.
I wonder if they voted for the right reasons (it can also be part of a
"power play" between the Comission and the Parliament) but at least
for now the proposal is gone![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 08:13 AM EDT |
| It's over!
With 648 against 14 from 680(18 without opinion) votes the
"Patent-Law" was buried. Here is a link for German speaking visitors
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/61446 .
See you [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 08:29 AM EDT |
This is great news, but it's only the first battle.
What I really think the next move should be is to go on the offensive. Instead
of waiting for the ProPats to try again, we anti-software-patent supporters
should initiate their own version of a new unified patents directive that
includes the restrictions we want right up front.
Even if it never gets passed, it would be nice to see the opposition placed on
the defensive for once. Also, it would provide plenty of opportunity for
educating the public on the real effects of software patents on business and
society. And if it actually did get passed, then the "war" would
basically be won; the keep-trying-until-it-passes threat would be eliminated.
It's time to use the system to try to fix the problem, not just fight to keep it
from getting worse.
---
SCOdenfreude n. Pleasure derived from witnessing the misfortunes of a certain
unpopular software company.
m(_ _)m[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 08:37 AM EDT |
It took us long enough !.
But finally the EU is starting to realize that they have to listen to the people
who they WORK FOR.
It took a serious blow to its "consitution" and an ungodly torrent of
criticsism on several subjects, but they finally GOT IT !!! Amazing !.
I Think all of us in Europe are starting doing a pretty nice job in raising our
infant government bodies to become a competent fullgrown institution that we
were promised years ago.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rm6990 on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 08:46 AM EDT |
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REJECTS SOFTWARE PATENT DIRECTIVE!!!!
Link here!
Red
Hat and Sun issue joint press release! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: marbux on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
| This is going to have an impact far beyond Europe. For example, it will
undoubtedly make it easier for other countries to resist U.S.-style software
patent regimes, since the goal of international patent "harmonization" just went
belly-up. It will also spark more FOSS political activism in non-European
countries.
I'd really like to read other people's insights on the
international repercussions.
---
Retired lawyer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 10:07 AM EDT |
| Read about it on BBC or on El
Reg
Cheers! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 10:09 AM EDT |
Florian Mueller, a software developer and one of the most outspoken
campaigners against the directive, said the rejection was a relief. "What I'm
most angry about is the fact that the Commission and most country governments
lied to the people of Europe about the purpose of this directive," he told
eWEEK.com. "For me personally, it [will] be really nice to wake up without
having to worry about the status of this legislative process."
Campaigners
noted that the Parliament called in February for the legislative process to be
restarted, a request rejected by the Commission. The Commission was perceived by
many MEPs (Members of European Parliament) to be unwilling to engage in any kind
of dialogue with the Parliament—the only of the three major EU legislative
bodies that is democratically elected—and this contributed to Parliament's
decision on Wednesday, according to observers.....
eweek
Small companies celebrate decision
“It is
really quite amazing. For the first time you see a group of SMEs have this kind
of political strength in the face of the council and quite strong proponents of
the directive,” said David Chan, technical strategist at Clocksoft, a
West-Midlands based IT company.
“In the UK it is not that bad to stay with
the status quo, as there is case law that clearly defines some software as not
patentable. You are still going to have the European Patent Office and the UK
Patent Office issuing patents on pure software, but it is not likely that they
would stand up in court,” he added.....
Financial Times
Brian S.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 10:11 AM EDT |
| ITS REJECTED !!! 648 to 14 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: waltish on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 10:54 AM EDT |
I think the amended version even though it had some good points was still a bit
of a last minuit cobbled toghther thing.
MSoft so wanted SWpats in place before Longhorn came out.
We get time now, That is a good thing, also some Companys that were holding back
implementation of OSS/FOSS will feel less reticent to do so.
OSS/FOSS gets time to reach Critical mass, younger more tech savy MEPs get a
chance to accend, Europe gets more time to see what a debarcle SWpats are in
America.
Linux OSS/FOSS gets time to increase its mindshare among the general public.
In a battle one of the principles in to get and retain the iniciative ,, The pro
SWpat side has lost the initiative and must now scrabble to regain it... its up
to us to not let them.
Given a year or two the OSS/FOSS movement may if we sustain the pressure and
keep educating, migration assisting and converting users ... may well become a
Juggernaut that wont be so easily attacked again.
I cant help think the proSWpats side have made a mistake, they should have taken
what they could get and worked on changing it bit by bit, All or nothing will
cost them as they have burnt some briges in their push to get it through now
and then called it off, cause it wasn,t exactly what they wanted.
In a battle the time to counter attack is when the attacker has lost the
iniciative and given ground.
I am so happy about the result of todays Vote Viva FOSS Viva OSS Viva Libre.
---
To speak the truth plainly and without fear,Is powerfull.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 11:24 AM EDT |
I am glad its dead, even with the amendments it was still going to be to
complicated. If the legal mind can twist the phrase "as such" to mean any thing
they want i would have hate to see what they would have done with such a big
document.
How much you want to bet
that it will be back again in some form?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 11:53 AM EDT |
Enderle talking though a drunken haze as always.
As far as I remember, all Palmisano did was sponsor the uptake of Linux at IBM.
On the other hand, Caldera's CEO, at the same time, who not only commited the
crime of being a linux company, stated publicly soemthing along the lines of
"we want to put more unix into linux".
This is one card that if played by SCO only can backfire, because it would be so
transparent to a jury.
Why is company A suing company B for doing something(not proven), but publically
has stated it was going to do the same thing? If it is indeed was true (far from
proven) that IBM put UNIX in Linux, which was Caldera's stated goal, Caldera
should have thanked IBM for it, since it saved Caldera the effort.
I think a jury will quicly find thatthis lawsuit, si about nothing, except a
bunch of clowns who failed in their business, and I find it likely that a jury
will award damages in such a way to make sure that those clowns never will have
enough money for another lawsuit(for the torture of anoyther jury). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
