|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 11:03 PM EST |
I suppose Google could stop indexing any sites in Australia (.au). This could
safeguard them from similar lawsuits. I'm not sure Australians would like it
though.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 01:16 AM EST |
Seems the gang of 5 is a little confused.
Microsoft is suing Motorola, because they don't want to pay the FRAND rates, but
when Samsung tries to avoid negotiate new FRAND terms Ericsson sues them.
So do they want FRAND agreeements to hold or not?
Or do they prefer android companies spend money on legal fees rather than
R&D and will argue either side to achieve their goals.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nick_UK on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 04:33 AM EST |
But does tobacco kill as many people as politicians do (and could a court order
tell these people not to lie also)?
Nick[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TheOldBear on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 10:19 AM EST |
The blog posting and comments thread shows that the
two
worlds are not
communicating
The author [Michael Risch] posted as a
comment:
A few comments here, and I plan to put an update in
the main body of the
post:
TJ - Of course I'm painting with too broad a brush -
it is a blog post, after all,
not a journal article. But I don't think I'm far
off the mark. I do make clear that
a) bridging is easier if you would bar
software patents, and b) utilitarians can't
agree on the right outcome. It's
all still within the utilitarian framework.
As for the "show me a beneficial,
non-obvious software patent" comments, I
had that debate at Groklaw - there's
no room (and I don't have the time) to do
it again here!
More in the main
body.
I may have missed this on Groklaw, but has there been a
single example
presented of a patented piece of software being useful?
Useful in
this context
would be seeking out the patented material by
searching the published claims
for the patent, then either licensing the patent
or implementing the invention
described in an expired patent.
This would
specifically exclude the common case where the notification
that a patent claim
may apply is being the target of a lawsuit. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 10:21 AM EST |
Dr. Michael Risch deserves a great deal of credit for the
effort and lengths
he has gone to trying to understand the
broad range of views against software
patents shared by most
Groklaw members and commenters. He has certainly earned
my
respect for his efforts, even thought it appears we haven't
convinced
him.
He has clearly read all or most of our comments to his Groklaw
post, and listened to
"our side" closely at the Santa Clara Law School
conference.
What more can we expect of a man than this?
In the end, it
does not matter if he is convinced. What
matters is what we all think, as
citizens. If each of us
expends even a tiny fraction of the effort Dr. Rich has
gone
to to arrive at an informed opinion, and we all take a vote,
it is that,
the sum total of all our thoughts that should
prevail.
However, going
back to Dr. Rich's efforts to understand
"our" point of view - I have a tiny
suggestion that he may
find helpful. When discussing the Santa Clara Law School
conference, it appeared logical and convenient to many to
speak in terms of
the views of "two opposing sides" on the
issue of software patents. Then to
continue the discussion
labels are required state which side is being referred
to at
any given moment.
Now it seems easy to find a label for the side
that
believes that software patents are beneficial, (even if some
tweaking to
patent law could improve their benefit). Dr.
Rich refers to them as the
"utilitarians". "On the one hand,
you have the utilitarians, who believe that
the costs of
patenting might be worth the benefits of patenting".
A
label for the other side is not so easy. For this side,
Dr. Rich calls them
"friends of free software". "On the
other hand, you have what I'll call the
friends of free
software (more fully called FOSS - Free and Open-source
Software)".
This label may not be helpful to Dr. Rich. Take me for
example. I am a programmer, and dead against software
patents. However, I
could hardly be called "a friend of free
software". In fact, I am a friend of
proprietary software!
That is how I make my living.
Now I do have
enormous respect for FOSS, and recognize
its profound significance and
importance. I'll certainly
never be "an enemy of free software", that's for
sure.
I just want Dr. Rich to understand, one doesn't need to
be a "a
friend of free software" to be against software
patents. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 10:46 AM EST |
With the tobacco story and the Apple v Samsung case in
the EU have the world's judges found a new sanction?
--- There is
nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 10:36 PM EST |
link
This is the best article on software patents I have
ever seen.
--- Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more
contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 05:00 AM EST |
When many people disagree with you, they "monopolising" opinion-making
XD?
So where are the FairSearch guys on this :p.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|