|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|