decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Tomorrow's Conference "Solutions to the Software Patents Problem" Will be Live Streamed ~pj
Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 05:58 PM EST

I'm so happy to tell you that tomorrow's conference on what to do about software patents, Solutions to the Software Patents Problem, at the Santa Clara Law's High Tech Law Institute will be live streamed for those of us who can't make it in person.

[ Update: I am disappointed to see that you are supposed to download Microsoft Silverlight to participate. I will not do that, as I stopped using Microsoft products years ago. I do see that you can at least listen eventually if you have YouTunes, via subscribing free to YouTunesU via Universities, Santa Clara. You can also use Mono if, unlike me, you are willing. If this isn't a clear and obvious demonstration of why proprietary anything is a royal pain, I don't know what else to say. I view Mono as having patent issues, ironically enough, as does Microsoft. Ironically Santa Clara has just provided a clear illustration of precisely what is wrong with software patents. Most people these days use their smartphones or tablets for this sort of thing, and that means Microsoft is the very last on the list of marketshare. Extrapolate, please. It's no longer the case that if you pick only Microsoft, you've reached most people. The world has changed. Not to mention but it's precisely users of Free operating systems who are the most interested in this topic. Microsoft thinks the patent system is just fine. So, now I see why Richard Stallman refused to allow his talk to be live streamed this way. That ought to have let Santa Clara know that this is a valid and real issue to a large number of people, including me. My readers are expressing deep disappointment. I feel it too.]

[ Update 2: A Groklaw member, gibus, reports: "You can watch the conference with Free software (mplayer, vlc...) on mms://ammsmedia.scu.edu/mobile2 "]

I confess I begged for this, because I know a lot of you are seriously interested in this topic but can't make it there. So thank you Santa Clara Law. Here's where you go tomorrow, and it runs all day from 8:50 am to 5:30 pm Pacific time, minus one talk at 9 AM.

You can also ask questions, and they'll try to get to them as time allows by emailing or tweeting. I'll show you the announcement in full, with all the details. Michael Risch and Colleen Chien will be speaking, as will James Bessen, and Eben Moglen and Dan Ravicher and Google's Kent Walker and the Honorable Paul Grewal, Northern District of California, the magistrate judge on the Apple v. Samsung litigations there, and Stanford's Mark Lemley and Keith Bergelt of Open Invention Network and Julie Samuels of EFF and Pamela Samuelson of UC Berkley School of Law and many more. It's going to be something.

I know we will have a couple of attendees from Groklaw there in person, and I know you wish you could be there too. So do I. But I'm very grateful that they are streaming this and that they will make the talks available in a few weeks as well, in case you can't devote the whole day to it all at once. I can't think of any legal topic I care about as much as this one right along through here, and it's been a long slog just to get the topic stage front and center. And here it is.

Here's the announcement:

"Can't Make Tomorrow's Conference on Software Patents? Watch Online!"

November 15, 2012 at 10:11 AM

We're excited for our big conference tomorrow, Solutions to the Software Patent Problem.

We're pleased to announce that we will be streaming the event for those of you who can't join us in person. Go to http://ammsweb.scu.edu/webcasts/mobile2/Solutions_Software_Patent_Problem/index.htm Streaming viewers can participate in the conversation by emailing their questions to HTLI.SCU@gmail.com or tweeting questions to @SCUHTLI (we'll also take questions using the #htli hashtag). We can't promise we'll get to all of the submitted questions, but we'll treat them equally to questions from the in-person audience. In addition, streaming viewers can participate in our online polls.

The stream will run the entire day of the conference (8:50 am to 5:30 pm Pacific time). However, in accordance with his wishes, we will not be streaming Richard Stallman's presentation (roughly 9 am to 9:20 am Pacific). We plan to video-record the day's proceedings and post the recordings in a few weeks.

You can read Richard Stallman's talk, which was published on Wired already to whet our appetite for the conference, and I think you would agree that what he wrote was well worth considering in this context. That's putting it mildly. So... tomorrow!

  


Tomorrow's Conference "Solutions to the Software Patents Problem" Will be Live Streamed ~pj | 67 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
RMS solution in Europe
Authored by: gibus on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 06:43 PM EST

You can read some details about how RMS' proposal works on FSF End of Software Patents blog.

Also, we have tried with RMS to draft his proposition into an amendment on the European Unitary Patent Regulation.

Unfortunately EU legislators are about to trash the article which this amendment was supposed to be applied. By the way this removal will make the whole regulation illegal, and this drafting effort will eventually result in a missed opportunity. Nevertheless, it can be a good basis to use for imposing in US or EU legislation such an exclusion of software from the threat of patents.

And as repeatedly said on Groklaw, it ain't over until it ain't over. EU citizen can still call Members of the European Parliament, free of charge and firms (not necessary European firms, US firms are also affected by the unitary patent for their operations in Europe) can still endorse this resolution, already signed by about 600 IT companies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tomorrow's Conference "Solutions to the Software Patents Problem" Will be Live Streamed ~pj
Authored by: jimrandomh on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 06:43 PM EST

The primary problem with software patents, as I see it, is that they're too often used for barratry and racketeering, and no amount of prior diligence can make you safe. As the role of software increases in society, this is changing from a regulatory issue to a more basic issue of justice and fairness, which incremental changes cannot fix.

Nothing short of a radical shift in the balance of power between plaintiffs and defendants, or the complete and retroactive elimination of software patents, can restore my faith in the US judiciary.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 07:04 PM EST
:-)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 07:05 PM EST
;-)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 07:06 PM EST
:-D

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Stuff Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 07:07 PM EST
:-|

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wonder if FOSSPatents will cover it?
Authored by: calris74 on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 09:52 PM EST
Nah - it's not litigation - Boring!

More likely, it threatens Florian's entire business model, so
best not to draw undue attention to it ;)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Restricted viewing
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 12:00 PM EST
I'm a little disappointed at the moment...

Download the free Silverlight plug-in.
Doesn't look like I'll be watching. :-(

j

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prejudicial?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 02:20 PM EST
Isn't it likely to make a problem to have "the Honorable Paul Grewal,
Northern District of California, the magistrate judge on the Apple v. Samsung
litigations" speaking at this conference, when he, as described here as
that judge, apparently has some opinion on the question (or why would he be
speaking?), as prejudiced one way or the other?
(Apologies for that convoluted sentence)
This would imply bias and/or prejudice re: judgments reached in the case,
wouldn't it? If so, it may trigger retrial petition (under a different judge)
by the loser!

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Prejudicial? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 03:50 PM EST
Risch conflates an idea with its implementation
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 03:17 PM EST
In his comments on obviousness and sufficient disclosure Risch seems to think
that just because an *idea* is obvious to an engineer, it will also be obvious
how best to *implement* that idea. This leads him to say something which, in my
view, is patently ridiculous: (paraphrased) if every (patentable) idea is
obvious to engineers then you can't argue that there isn't sufficient disclosure
because how to implement it is obvious. These are two orthogonal issues.

I think he needs to address this fundamental logical fallacy, and it would be
nice if he chose to do it here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )