|
|
| 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!
|
|
|
|
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
- Restricted viewing - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 12:05 PM EST
- Richard Stallman, the first speaker, agrees with you. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 12:11 PM EST
- Restricted viewing - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 12:15 PM EST
- Restricted viewing - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 12:22 PM EST
- This is rediculous - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 12:30 PM EST
- Restricted viewing - Authored by: PJ on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 01:09 PM EST
- Another stream is available - Authored by: gibus on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 03:59 PM EST
- thanks! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 04:18 PM EST
- Another stream is available - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 06:37 PM EST
| |
| 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
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
