[News] Google Shuts Down Open Source Project
Roy Schestowitz
gaia - opensource 3D interface to the planet
,----[ Quote ]
| Meet gaia, an attempt to reverse engineer famous Google Earth and
| implement its functionality in open, portable, customizable and
| extendable way.
|
| 25 November 2006, we've got the letter from Michael Jones, the
| Chief Technologist of Google Earth, Google Maps, and Google Local
| search, requesting us to cease reverse engineering and improper
| usage of licensed data that Google Earth use. We understand and
| respect Google's position on the case, so we've removed all
| downloads from this page and we ask everybody who have ever
| downloaded gaia 0.1.0 and prior versions to delete all filesc
| oncerned with the project, which include source code, binary
| files and image cache (~/.gaia).
|
| The project may continue it's life as opensource 3D earth
| viewer with GPS support, but without support Google Earth
| imagery. We are sorry.
`----
Mark Kent
Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> espoused:
I didn't think that reverse engineering was wrong? I don't believe that
it is here, anyway. The only bit to be concerned about would be if
google had paid money for a map of somewhere with a restrictive usage
licence?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Penalty for private use.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> I didn't think that reverse engineering was wrong? I don't believe that
> it is here, anyway.
It isn't, but from what I understand, they were using their client to
connect to the google servers and download THEIR images.
Which is just a tad cheeky without asking permission first, if you think
about it.
> The only bit to be concerned about would be if google had paid money for a
> map of somewhere with a restrictive usage licence?
Exactly
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Kent
spi...@freenet.co.uk <spi...@freenet.co.uk> espoused:
> Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> did eloquently scribble:
>> I didn't think that reverse engineering was wrong? I don't believe that
>> it is here, anyway.
>
> It isn't, but from what I understand, they were using their client to
> connect to the google servers and download THEIR images.
>
>
> Which is just a tad cheeky without asking permission first, if you think
> about it.
>
>> The only bit to be concerned about would be if google had paid money for a
>> map of somewhere with a restrictive usage licence?
>
> Exactly
Okay, but a lot of the maps have no such licence.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>>> map of somewhere with a restrictive usage licence?
>>
>> Exactly
> Okay, but a lot of the maps have no such licence.
It's not the maps, it's the satelite images.
If you look at the bottom of the google earth screen when you're flying
around, you'll notice there's always one message or another showing where
those images came from.
Mark Kent
>>>> The only bit to be concerned about would be if google had paid money for a
>>>> map of somewhere with a restrictive usage licence?
>>>
>>> Exactly
>
>> Okay, but a lot of the maps have no such licence.
>
> It's not the maps, it's the satelite images.
>
> If you look at the bottom of the google earth screen when you're flying
> around, you'll notice there's always one message or another showing where
> those images came from.
>
Indeed, but many of them are free, are they not?
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>> around, you'll notice there's always one message or another showing where
>> those images came from.
>>
> Indeed, but many of them are free, are they not?
I have no idea, but I imagine a lot of them aren't.
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
Mark Kent
>>> If you look at the bottom of the google earth screen when you're flying
>>> around, you'll notice there's always one message or another showing where
>>> those images came from.
>>>
>
>> Indeed, but many of them are free, are they not?
>
> I have no idea, but I imagine a lot of them aren't.
>
So the solution is to differentiate appropriately?
flatfish+++
> Google has sent a cease and desist.
>
> gaia - opensource 3D interface to the planet
>
I'm sure all 3 people using gaia are going to be upset.
Hadron Quark
What gets me is the way people think its a bad thing for google to stop
these clowns stealing all their innovative work. nice one google : keep
the nerds away.
Ian Semmel
"Mark Kent" <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g3cl34-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> espoused:
>> Google has sent a cease and desist.
>>
>> gaia - opensource 3D interface to the planet
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| Meet gaia, an attempt to reverse engineer famous Google Earth and
>>| implement its functionality in open, portable, customizable and
>>| extendable way.
>>|
>>| 25 November 2006, we've got the letter from Michael Jones, the
>>| Chief Technologist of Google Earth, Google Maps, and Google Local
>>| search, requesting us to cease reverse engineering and improper
>>| usage of licensed data that Google Earth use. We understand and
>>| respect Google's position on the case, so we've removed all
>>| downloads from this page and we ask everybody who have ever
>>| downloaded gaia 0.1.0 and prior versions to delete all filesc
>>| oncerned with the project, which include source code, binary
>>| files and image cache (~/.gaia).
>>|
>>| The project may continue it's life as opensource 3D earth
>>| viewer with GPS support, but without support Google Earth
>>| imagery. We are sorry.
>> `----
>>
>> http://gaia.serezhkin.com/index.html
>
> I didn't think that reverse engineering was wrong?
Sometimes it's called theft. Stealing the intellectual property of others.
NoStop
What, now Google owns the Earth? Once I saw a photo of MY house on Google
Earth. I don't remember giving Google permission to photograph my house.
The landscaping around my property was MY creation and I own the IP rights
to that creative layout. Do you think Google is in infraction on my IP
rights? Where does all this bullshit end?
Cheers.
--
Linux is ready for the desktop! More ready than Windoze XP.
http://tinyurl.com/ldm9d
"Computer users around the globe recognize that the most serious threats to
security exist because of inherent weaknesses in the Microsoft operating
system." McAfee
NoStop
Google should be the last company in this world to complain about someone
stealing its innovative work. It's whole business plan has been based on
scouring the Net to pickup other's innovative work! They even go so far as
to include my most innovative landscaping techniques within their photos
used in Google Earth and I certainly can't remember giving Google
permission to do that. "Intellectual property rights" is just plain
bullshit from the get-go. No one, let along any corporation can possibly
claim property rights on technology or thought that has only come about
though generations of previous social innovation. But of course the
neoliberals and their quest to commercialize the world for their own
private greed has made this silliness law. Those laws need to be struck
down.
flatfish+++
Yep.
Between this incident, libdvdcss and the Linux geeks turning on Novell, it
should be more than enough to solidify Linux's fate in the corporate
setting.
Lawyers simply are afraid of the mess that Linux really is and that is how
they advise their clients.
Mark Kent
Ian Semmel <anyone...@NOJUNKrocketcomp.com.au> espoused:
Only by people who are ignorant.
> Stealing the intellectual property of others.
>
There's no such thing as intellectual property.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
You will lose an important disk file.
Michael Panev
> What gets me is the way people think its a bad thing for google to stop
> these clowns stealing all their innovative work. nice one google : keep
> the nerds away.
Kind of a strange thing to hear from an Emacs freak:
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)
Mike
Hadron Quark
Why?
I dont agree with people hard work being copied and re-engineered without
the necessary licensing and cautions. It makes a mockery of commercial
companies hard work - and leads to diluted code bases none of which
actually work.
Rick
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:02:52 +0100, Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> flatfish+++ <flat...@linuxmail.org> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 06:12:45 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Google has sent a cease and desist.
>>>>
>>>> gaia - opensource 3D interface to the planet
>>>>
>>> I'm sure all 3 people using gaia are going to be upset.
>>>
>>>
>> What gets me is the way people think its a bad thing for google to stop
>> these clowns stealing all their innovative work. nice one google : keep
>> the nerds away.
>
> Yep.
>
> Between this incident, libdvdcss
Oh, the horror of it all... I mean really, why should I expect to be able
to play a DVD on my computer that plays on a Mac, a Windows machine or my
DVD player. After all, I only bought the DVD.
> and the Linux geeks turning on Novell,
yeah.. that's it. That hs to be it, in your work... only 'geeks' can be
unhappy about this...
> it
> should be more than enough to solidify Linux's fate in the corporate
> setting.
.. except that there are a lot of people in the corporate setting that are
well of Microsoft's habit of eating its ... 'partners'.
>
> Lawyers simply are afraid of the mess that Linux really is and that is how
> they advise their clients.
Except that Linux really isn't a mess. Of course, you know that before you
spewed your tripe.
--
Rick
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>> Yep.
>>
>> Between this incident, libdvdcss
> Oh, the horror of it all... I mean really, why should I expect to be able
> to play a DVD on my computer that plays on a Mac, a Windows machine or my
> DVD player. After all, I only bought the DVD.
Indeed, terrible. Such a crime, being able to use something you bought.
Should be banned! BANNED I SAY! No-one should be allowed to actually make
use of their purchases.
>> and the Linux geeks turning on Novell,
> yeah.. that's it. That hs to be it, in your work... only 'geeks' can be
> unhappy about this...
>> it
>> should be more than enough to solidify Linux's fate in the corporate
>> setting.
> .. except that there are a lot of people in the corporate setting that are
> well of Microsoft's habit of eating its ... 'partners'.
Indeed. It's where most of microsoft software's come from. Stolen, bought
out or taken from free software.
>> Lawyers simply are afraid of the mess that Linux really is and that is how
>> they advise their clients.
> Except that Linux really isn't a mess. Of course, you know that before you
> spewed your tripe.
Well of course he does.
Only a dullard of extreme stupidity would fall for any of this FUD.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
flatfish+++
And the world is flat.
Man, what a real nutcase this Mark Kent turned out to be.
Ian Semmel
"Mark Kent" <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:740o34-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
In your case I would agree
Hadron Quark
He really believes that if someone works hard to discover something then
they shouldn't reap the rewards? Is he fucking retarded or something?
What planet does he live on??!?!??!?!?
I knew he was boring, but I never had him pegged for being so dumb. Well
not that dumb.
flatfish+++
Yea, I've always known he, Mark Kent, is a total bore but I never had him
Mark Kent, pegged as a moron.
I guess I was wrong because he, Mark Kent, is obviously not too bright.
Mark Kent
I've just looked in my case, it's a black Carlton with purple piping.
It's been around the world about 3 or 4 times now. What's in it which
you agree with?
flatfish+++
It's always funny when Linux geeks attempt humor.
They fail.
About 99 percent of the time they leave the audience wanting less.
Alexander Terekhov
Mark Kent wrote:
[...]
> There's no such thing as intellectual property.
Why don't you tell the US Supreme Court about this fact? (That
"there's no such thing as intellectual property"). It would certainly
be less confusing to everyone else: "As we read the Framers'
instruction, the Copyright Clause empowers Congress to determine the
intellectual property regimes that, overall, in that body's judgment,
will serve the ends of the Clause." Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186
(2003).
regards,
alexander.
Hadron Quark
Unbelievably the COLA gang believe this stuff : and Kier comes running
along and says "me too". Hilarious.
Tim Smith
The laws of the UK, the US, and approximately 200 other countries
disagree with you.
--
--Tim Smith
Mark Kent
Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> espoused:
Why do you think that "Copyright Clause" would be capitalised, and
intellectual property would not?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Be careful how you get yourself involved with persons or situations that
can't bear inspection.
flatfish+++
You have to understand that you are dealing with Mark Kent, a rabid,
crazed Linux zealot of the highest (or lowest, depending upon your
viewpoint) magnitude.
The people in comp.os.linux.advocacy actually believe this kind of stuff.
That place is like taking the Moonies and Hari Krishnas and rolling them
all into one sect!
Alexander Terekhov
Mark Kent wrote:
[...]
> Why do you think that "Copyright Clause" would be capitalised, and
> intellectual property would not?
Submit an answer to Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,
known as the Copyright Clause (or the intellectual property clause)".
Plus don't forget to patch
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/11/usc_sec_11_00000365----000-.html
and alike.
regards,
alexander.
Larry Qualig
Reminds me of the lazy idiots who sit on the sofa all day and eat
potato chips while watching Oprah and Judge Judy who think that working
citizens should give a portion of their paycheck to subsidize their
welfare lifestyle. These losers don't work, have no jobs or skills so
of course they want to reap the rewards of what others have worked for.
In Mark's case he is likely not 'the sharpest tool in the shed' and
will never be in a position to benefit from hard work, discovery,
innovation or any sort of intellectual property. So of course he
probably thinks that the work of others should be given to him for
free.
> What planet does he live on??!?!??!?!?
The same imaginary planet where all of the other idiots who think that
*everything* should be free and nobody should have the right to own or
control anything. Certainly not the planet we call Earth.
> I knew he was boring, but I never had him pegged for being so dumb.
> Well not that dumb.
It must be tough trying to make it through life as a dumb bore. No
wonder he spends all of his time here.
Day Brown
increasingly hard to defend. And that defense must be carried on in
courts. This is particularly glaring with software where lawyers,
judges, & juries, dont understand how code works, and dont really know
what the fuck they are deciding.
Athens didnt have a patent office. I dont see that it harmed their
innovation. When Sophocles produced a play, everyone knew who wrote it.
Open source worked for the Greeks, it'll work for us. (but not so well
for corporations)
Mark Kent
Day Brown <dayb...@hughes.net> espoused:
I fully agree with you, although my point was a slightly different one.
There is no definition of "intellectual property", it has no particular
meaning, it's a catch-all which is trendy at the moment, coined for the
reasons you are driving at above, of course.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Mark Kent
> [...]
>> Why do you think that "Copyright Clause" would be capitalised, and
>> intellectual property would not?
>
<snip avoidance>
Any answer?
flatfish+++
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> espoused:
>>
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Why do you think that "Copyright Clause" would be capitalised, and
>>> intellectual property would not?
>>
>
> <snip avoidance>
>
> Any answer?
Idiot.
Stop trying to turn the discussion around.
You're the moron who claims there is no such thing as intellectual
property.
Alexander Terekhov
Mark Kent wrote:
>
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> espoused:
> >
> > Mark Kent wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Why do you think that "Copyright Clause" would be capitalised, and
> >> intellectual property would not?
> >
>
> <snip avoidance>
>
> Any answer?
Intellectual property is a term for various legally protected
rights in ideas and their expression. It includes copyrights,
patents (in US, both stem from US Constitution's Copyright
Clause), trademarks (US Constitution's Commerce Clause), trade
secrets (evolved from the common law), among other rights.
Countries around the world recognize intellectual property
rights, although laws vary.
Intellectual property is a form of property which, like physical
property, can be bought or sold, inherited, licensed or otherwise
transferred, wholly or in part. Accordingly, some or all of the
rights may subsequently belong to someone other than the first
owner and may be shared.
Intellectual property is property, that is to say, it belongs to
someone who has the right to exclude others from using it without
his or her consent. Second, intellectual property has attributes
that distinguish it from personal property and real property --
that is why we have a different word for it. For example, the
enforcement of an owner's exclusive right to use physical
property may be accomplished more easily, as a practical matter,
than enforcement of an exclusive intellectual property right.
regards,
alexander.
Hadron Quark
You could have made it shorter.
"you're a moron"
for example.
--
This code passes Torvalds test grades 0, 1 and 2 (it looks ok, it
compiles and it booted).
-- Alan Cox
Mark Kent
Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> espoused:
>
> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> espoused:
>> >
>> > Mark Kent wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Why do you think that "Copyright Clause" would be capitalised, and
>> >> intellectual property would not?
>> >
>>
>> <snip avoidance>
>>
>> Any answer?
>
> Intellectual property is a term for various legally protected
> rights in ideas and their expression.
No, it's not. Copyright, patent and trademark have formal legal
definitions, intellectual property has no such definition.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Circumstances rule men; men do not rule circumstances.
-- Herodotus
Alexander Terekhov
Mark Kent wrote:
[...]
> | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Uh retard.
http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/question1.htm
Hth.
regards,
alexander.
Hadron Quark
"Intellectual property, often known as IP, allows people to own their
creativity and innovation in the same way that they can own physical
property. The owner of IP can control and be rewarded for its use, and
this encourages further innovation and creativity to the benefit of us
all."
You must remember Mark Kent never had an idea of his own, so its in his
interests to steal other peoples ideas. Funnily enough though, he
berates MS for supposedly stealing other peoples ideas.
Double standards on display in COLA again? Surely not....
Mark Kent
> [...]
>> | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
>
<snip>
You can be abusive all you like.
There is no formal definition of intellectual property, it's merely a
trendy catch-all term.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
DFS
> You must remember Mark Kent never had an idea of his own, so its in
> his interests to steal other peoples ideas. Funnily enough though, he
> berates MS for supposedly stealing other peoples ideas.
>
> Double standards on display in COLA again? Surely not....
Best to killfile certain non-contributing idiots: 7, William Poaster, Rick,
chrisv, Mark Kent, Roy Culley, probably Peter Kohlmann (who can't discuss
anything rationally).
It's my impression that, in any given month you, HQ, have posted more
original Linux-related content and topics than that group combined has in
2.5 years. I'm not exaggerating, either.
Hadron Quark
I love Linux. But I am not blind to its faults.
Hadron Quark
Normally I get accused of not even using Linux. The COLA gang are simply
deluded.
Larry Qualig
> >
> >> Google has sent a cease and desist.
> >>
> >> gaia - opensource 3D interface to the planet
> >>
> >
>
> What gets me is the way people think its a bad thing for google to stop
> these clowns stealing all their innovative work. nice one google : keep
> the nerds away.
What's funny is that if Microsoft had done this, they would once again
be labled here as being the "bad guy" and killing the competition,
being anti-competitive and whatever. But since Google is the one doing
this there are a million-and-one excuses for why it's within their
right to do so.
John Bailo posted this somewhere regarding MS and Google... there
really is *NO* difference between the two companies. They are both out
to maximize their own profits. As are IBM, Novell, Sun, Redhat and
every other public corporation.
The problem is that some people here are so blinded by the happenstance
that Google, Redhat, <insert name here> uses Linux that they wrongly
believe that a company is somehow altruistic.
Doug Mentohl
"According to Article 52(2) EPC, methods for doing business,
mathematical methods, presentations of information and programs for
computers shall not be regarded as inventions"
http://www.european-patent-office.org/news/pressrel/2000_08_18_e.htm
Alexander Terekhov
Doug Mentohl wrote:
[...]
> "According to Article 52(2) EPC, methods for doing business,
> mathematical methods, presentations of information and programs for
> computers shall not be regarded as inventions"
>
> http://www.european-patent-office.org/news/pressrel/2000_08_18_e.htm
"However,
Article 52(3) EPC stipulates that this provision shall exclude patentability
of the subject-matter or activities referred to only to the extent to which a
European patent application relates to such subject-matter or activities as
such.
It follows that, although methods for doing business, programs for
computers, etc., are as such explicitly excluded from patentability, a
product or a method which is of a technical character may be patentable,
even if the claimed subject-matter defines or at least involves a business
method, a computer program, etc."
See also
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/comp/replies/ibm_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/comp/replies/eicta_en.pdf
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
I especially like this:
-------
We trust that the Commission fully understands that, despite statements
to the contrary in some quarters, there is no consensus among economists
that patents inhibit innovation in the software sector. The study most
often cited by proponents of this argument (“Sequential Innovation, Patents
and Imitation”; J. Bessen/E. Maskin, 1997/1999) is inconclusive at best and
flawed in many respects. It relies largely on data from the 1970’s and
1980’s. In this dynamic and rapidly changing industry, public policy for
the 21st century should not be based on inconclusive results drawn from
data from an earlier era of information and communications technologies.
The authors claim that “standard arguments would predict that R&D intensity
and productivity should have increased among patenting firms” during the
period studied and that this increase did not occur, consistent with their
model, for several samples of software-related industries and firms after
1986. They conclude that this is an effect of an extension of patent
protection to many software ideas by a series of court decisions in the
early 1980’s, although there is no causal link demonstrated in the paper.
Moreover, “R&D intensity” is defined in the paper as “R&D spending relative
to sales” (page 18, para 3). As one can easily understand, the proposition
that R&D intensity should increase among patenting firms may be valid – for
one firm or a sample of firms – only within narrow limits. At some stage, a
steady state of R&D spending relative to sales will necessarily be reached.
A constant increase of R&D spending relative to sales would result in
losses and finally in bankruptcy of one firm or of all firms in a sample
when the “R&D intensity” continues to rise, finally eating up any profits.
Responsible management, therefore, must ensure that the “R&D intensity” is
kept relatively constant after a starting phase. To increase profits the
management should further tend to increase the R&D efficiency, that is the
R&D output relative to R&D spending, with the aim to decrease “R&D
intensity”. This principle applies whether there are patents or not.
Therefore, the effects shown in Figures 5 to 8 of the Bessen/Maskin study
seem to be explainable by the activities of responsible management in
firms regardless of the existence of patents for software related
inventions.
-------
Care to comment, Mentohl?
regards,
alexander.
flatfish+++
Time to get out the popcorn......
This is becoming interesting.
flatfish+++
Me too :)
> The COLA gang are simply
> deluded.
They are deluded.
The crap that passes for advocacy in comp.os.linux.advocacy is laughable.
Shysterwitch would be run out of just about any group on the net for
posting all that off topic crap like he does here.
Hadron Quark
Mark Kent being handed his ass on a plate yet again is interesting?
Maybe the first time it was. Anyway, Mark will retract back into Roy's
buttocks now he realises he's made another gargantuan gaff. And the COLA
gang are like Sharks - unlikely to give support to a wounded, bleeding
pack member - more likely to savage him publicly like Mark Kent and
Peter Köhlmann did to poor defenseless Kier the time Mark Kent
questioned Kier's "motives" for being in COLA.
Alexander Terekhov
Mark Kent wrote:
[...]
> There is no formal definition of intellectual property, it's merely a
So how would you, Kent, label a class of legally protected rights in
ideas and their expression to exclude non-owners from using it without
owner's consent?
It-drives-Moglen-mad property?
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/research-agenda.html
regards,
alexander.
Scott W
> flatfish+++ <flat...@linuxmail.org> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:33:43 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>> Ian Semmel <anyone...@NOJUNKrocketcomp.com.au> espoused:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Mark Kent" <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:g3cl34-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>>>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> espoused:
>>>>>> Google has sent a cease and desist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> gaia - opensource 3D interface to the planet
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>>| Meet gaia, an attempt to reverse engineer famous Google Earth and
>>>>>>| implement its functionality in open, portable, customizable and
>>>>>>| extendable way.
>>>>>>|
>>>>>>| 25 November 2006, we've got the letter from Michael Jones, the
>>>>>>| Chief Technologist of Google Earth, Google Maps, and Google Local
>>>>>>| search, requesting us to cease reverse engineering and improper
>>>>>>| usage of licensed data that Google Earth use. We understand and
>>>>>>| respect Google's position on the case, so we've removed all
>>>>>>| downloads from this page and we ask everybody who have ever
>>>>>>| downloaded gaia 0.1.0 and prior versions to delete all filesc
>>>>>>| oncerned with the project, which include source code, binary
>>>>>>| files and image cache (~/.gaia).
>>>>>>|
>>>>>>| The project may continue it's life as opensource 3D earth
>>>>>>| viewer with GPS support, but without support Google Earth
>>>>>>| imagery. We are sorry.
>>>>>> `----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://gaia.serezhkin.com/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't think that reverse engineering was wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes it's called theft.
>>>
>>> Only by people who are ignorant.
>>>
>>>> Stealing the intellectual property of others.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's no such thing as intellectual property.
>>
>> And the world is flat.
>>
>> Man, what a real nutcase this Mark Kent turned out to be.
>>
>
> He really believes that if someone works hard to discover something then
> they shouldn't reap the rewards? Is he fucking retarded or something?
>
> What planet does he live on??!?!??!?!?
>
> I knew he was boring, but I never had him pegged for being so dumb. Well
> not that dumb.
einstein discovered relativity just to get rich?
--
Scott W
Scott W
excellent point. the greatest things in the world were never made so that
the owner could get rich off it. they were invented to make the world a
better place.
--
Scott W
Scott W
>> Sometimes it's called theft. Stealing the intellectual property of
>> others.
>
> What, now Google owns the Earth? Once I saw a photo of MY house on Google
> Earth. I don't remember giving Google permission to photograph my house.
> The landscaping around my property was MY creation and I own the IP rights
> to that creative layout. Do you think Google is in infraction on my IP
> rights? Where does all this bullshit end?
>
> Cheers.
>
depending on what country you're in you may have a case. iirc, it's illegal
to take a photograph of somebody without their permission. if they request
it to be destroyed you are legally obliged to do so. i'd look into it in
the case of google earth but, frankly, i can't be bothered.
--
Scott W
flatfish+++
> Mark Kent being handed his ass on a plate yet again is interesting?
> Maybe the first time it was. Anyway, Mark will retract back into Roy's
> buttocks now he realises he's made another gargantuan gaff. And the COLA
> gang are like Sharks - unlikely to give support to a wounded, bleeding
> pack member - more likely to savage him publicly like Mark Kent and
> Peter Köhlmann did to poor defenseless Kier the time Mark Kent
> questioned Kier's "motives" for being in COLA.
How very true.
The COLA gang typically ignore threads where one of their own gets beaten
down.
They just "wish it into the cornfield" and make like it never happened.
What amazes me is how they turned on kier, much like a rabid dog, and yet
he still denies it.
And kier, when he isn't emotionally overreacting is one of the more sane
Linux advocates.
The bottom line is if you don't sing the entire Linux mantra,note for
note, you have no place in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Alexander Terekhov
Scott W wrote:
[...]
> > Athens didnt have a patent office. I dont see that it harmed their
> > innovation. When Sophocles produced a play, everyone knew who wrote it.
> > Open source worked for the Greeks, it'll work for us. (but not so well
> > for corporations)
>
> excellent point. the greatest things in the world were never made so that
> the owner could get rich off it. they were invented to make the world a
> better place.
http://www.charvolant.org/~doug/gpl/gpl.pdf
---------
3.1 Intellectual Property
Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided,
and left it in, he hath mixed his labor with, and joined to it something
that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.[15]
The implicit point of view contained in this essay is a Lockean one.
Producing a piece of software requires taking the state of nature, the
common heritage of software tools and techniques, and using them to
fashion something new.
To the extent that programming involves labor — and thinking is
certainly labor, ask any student — a piece of software is [intellectual]
property. To the extent that invention requires labor, an invention is
property. This state of affairs is recognized in intellectual property
law, such as copyright and patent law.
Nothing, of course, prevents the creator from choosing to place the
fruits of their labor in the public domain, for whatever reason they
choose. Or to place it under the GPL. But the choice to do so is theirs.
3.2 The Economic Arguments of the FSF
It is worth examining the economic arguments put forward by the FSF.
These arguments are largely intended to refute any benefit that non-free
software production might have on society at large. Unsurprisingly, I
find these arguments rather unconvincing.
In one article, economic arguments are crudely mischaracterized as a
form of holding-to-ransom.[28] This article claims that the economic
argument is constructed in terms of proprietary software versus no
software at all. However, the economic argument is largely concerned
with notions of allocation of resources. It’s more efficient, in terms
of producing software that users want to use, to have a feedback loop
connected to users (more on this in section 3.3.2). Specialization and
division of labor suggests that allowing professionalization will lead
to a greater output of higher quality software; the FSF allows
professionalization, but only in a restricted environment. Ricardo’s law
suggests that allowing professionals to specialize and trade will
provide a greater total output of all economic goods, not just
software.[24]
Another article cites the ready copyability of software as providing a
different economic model to book publishing.[29] This argument entirely
ignores the underlying costs of producing a book and considers only the
costs of producing a hard copy; it also ignores the existence of the
photocopier. The major investment in any creative work, be it a program,
book or piece of music, lies the in the process of creation. A book
needs to be written, edited, re-written, typeset, published. A program
needs to be written, debugged, packaged. All of these things involve
work; this is where the notion of ownership comes from, not the
duplication of the final piece.
Finally, there is the question of wasted effort. An example is given of
closed software requiring wasted make-work to provide a suitably adapted
version.[28] This is a reasonable criticism of closed software, although
not of all proprietary software (see section 3.4). However, if make-work
is regarded as a waste, then the GPL forces make-work for anybody
unwilling to accept the terms of the GPL; this aim is implicit in the
argument for GPLing libraries.[30] If closed software imposes a social
and economic cost, then so does the GPL.
3.3 Amateurs, Professionals and Patronage
The main benefit to society and the economy of such intellectual
property notions as copyright and patents is the creation or
encouragement of a class of professionals. Allowing somebody talented in
a certain field to make a living directly from that field has a number
of advantages: the most obvious is the ability of talent to concentrate
on what they are good at, rather than requiring them to undertake other
tasks to support themselves; additionally, specialization is permitted,
leading to a feedback loop where skills are honed and improved. Prior to
copyright, those wishing to be inventors, authors or other creative
artists had to either find a patron or have additional means.
3.3.1 Patronage
In the past, anybody not of independent means who wanted to create
something intended for general release needed to find a patron: a person
willing to foot the bills in exchange for some intangible return. Many
creator-patron relationships were very fruitful, with the patron acting
as a source of inspiration to the creator. However, unless they were
beings of considerable foresight, patrons intended to use their
association with artists and scientists to further their own political
ends.
Patronage is, today, a little more sophisticated. The general model is
endowments to a university or other institution which, in turn, makes
research and thought available to the public domain. The patrons derive
advertising and public relations benefits from their sponsorship. Most
governments recognize the benefits to be had from a stream of new ideas
and research moving into the public domain and provide some patronage
through funding arrangements.
This form of institute-based patronage seems to be the ideal for the
FSF; a community of public-spirited developers all working towards the
common good.
The first problem with this model is the restricted financing available.
Endowments from commerce essentially come out of a public relations
budget; necessarily limited. Support from the public purse runs into the
political problem of taxation levels and control. In theory, all
software could be publicly funded by using the sums spent on commercial
software. The rise in taxation, even if it were to take less than the
cost of commercial software would be politically unpopular. The lack of
control over what software is delivered is also likely to be a point of
resistance.
The second problem with this model is that of feedback. Microsoft at
least tries to find out what their customers want—even if it results in
obvious idiocies, such as talking paper-clips.[26] The institute-based
model has no feedback mechanism— or, even worse, a feedback mechanism
based on internal squabbles or the political aims of the patrons. The
result is that the software produced tends to reflect the interests of
the programmers, rather than the users. This is obvious in most
open-source: system programs, utilities and development tools abound;
applications—with the exception of every hacker’s favorite, games—are
harder to find. The GNU offerings are almost exclusively system and
development tools.
The open-source movement has provided the impetus for another form of
patronage. Companies such as RedHat or Linuxcare need free software to
succeed to be successful themselves. As a result, these companies hire
the producers of free software to ensure the supply, provide good public
relations and provide in-house expertise for the support operations that
make up the companies income. This is in addition to the general desire
on the company’s part to do the right thing; open-source is still a
social movement.
Eric Raymond argues that this form of patronage works, in part, because
the companies dispensing the patronage are leaders in the field, and
thus benefit in proportion.[20] If this is true, then it also represents
the break-point for this form of patronage. As the market becomes more
competitive, a significant free-rider problem appears: companies that do
not have the overhead of patronage and can offer the same services at
reduced cost.[13]
3.3.2 Amateurs
The alternative to professionalism or patronage is amateurism: doing
something for the sake of interest in doing it.
The word “amateur” has acquired a negative connotation over the years,
having overtones of “halfbaked” or “poorly done”. This extra baggage is
unfortunate; many amateurs are of the highest levels of skill and
dedication,5 and I don’t intend to suggest otherwise. A notable feature
of amateurs is that they can approach problems with an eclectic
viewpoint which may be absent from a purely professional approach.
However, an amateur production of anything, whether it be a software
package or theater production requires either independent means or
another source of income and a dedication to using one’s spare time in
the pursuit of the production to the exclusion of other activities.6
Open-source software is the beneficiary of a peculiar state in the
software industry: many of those who are amateur programmers by night
are professional programmers by day. Linux—and the Unix approach, in
general — has made amateur programming attractive. Rather than produce a
large, complex program requiring a huge team to produce and maintain,
small packages can be produced. Software can easily be divided into
front- and back-end parts, so that functionality can be produced and
tested, without the overhead of a GUI.
The upshot is that open-source, at present, gains the benefits of both
amateur enthusiasm and inventiveness and professional knowledge and
discipline (and income). This blessed state of affairs exists while
there is a pool of professional programmers able and willing to use
their spare time to produce open-source software. I would suggest that
the aims of the FSF will reduce this pool enormously, and the effects
will be catastrophic. Eric Raymond has argued that open-source culture
is essentially a gift culture; resources are in abundance and you gain
status by the bestowing of gifts on the community.[22] The absence of a
large supply of well-paying professional jobs in software—more or less
predicated on a large scale commercial industry— will re-introduce the
economics of scarcity to the software culture.
3.4 Patents Are Your Friends
Open-source software has an enviable reputation for reliability. The
usual reasons given for this reliability are that the presence of the
source code allows immediate analysis and rectification of any problem
and that the ability to contribute enhancements and bug-fixes vastly
expands the number of people working on and contributing to a piece of
code.[21]
Generally, the notions of open-source and non-proprietary software are
conflated — as opposed to closed, proprietary software. However, there
is no particular reason to do so. Instead, software can be categorized
using two axes: an open-closed axis and a free-proprietary one.[2] The
benefits accruing to open-source software are largely connected to the
open-closed axis. It is the making source code available that allows the
peer-review and correction feedback loop to take off.
Making software proprietary does stem the flow of contributions, of
course; nobody particularly wants to contribute to someone else’s profit
at their own cost. To offset this effect, open, proprietary software can
easily provide a renumeration model, offering payment or royalties for
contributions.
[...]
To see the benefits of patents (and copyright) in maintaining
information, a historical example might help. In the era of Shakespeare,
a would-be publisher only had to get hold of a manuscript, by fair means
or foul, to be able to copy and print it. (The first publication of
Shakespeare’s sonnets followed this pattern.) Similarly, any acting
troupe that could gain access to a play could perform it. As a
consequence, play manuscripts were deliberately obscured and divided up,
with an actor being given just his lines, along with suitable cues. The
natural result of this is that many Tudor and Jacobean plays exist only
in fragmentary form; we only have the works of Shakespeare today because
he was well-regarded enough for a syndicate to track down most of his
work and publish it in the first folio.[23, 3]
As another historical example, the technique of porcelain manufacturing
was almost lost to Europe. Saxony’s attempts to maintain a monopoly on
porcelain production led to obsessive secrecy and the intriguing that
secrecy brings. Information was kept in the player’s heads and withheld
for political advantage.[12]
True, patents carry an additional piece of economic baggage over and
above open-source: they encourage8 inventors to work on, and profit
from, their inventions. From an economic perspective, this is a quid pro
quo for having come forward in the first place, rather than keeping the
invention a secret.
Secrecy may not seem very relevant to software. In the general scheme of
things, true secrecy is difficult to achieve, as something, a program or
a file format has be be available and is vulnerable to reverse
engineering. This represents an annoyance, but not a block to the
dissemination of information. To prevent dissemination, if the
discoverer of a new algorithm so wishes, he or she can, to coin a word,
bureauise the algorithm: provide it only through the services of a
company to which you submit information for processing. Bureauisation
can occur whenever the process is complex, but the results simple.
Combinatorial problems take this form, for example optimal path
computation, or the prime factoring of large numbers.9 Bureauisation
represents an obvious social and economic burden, yet it is a natural
consequence of no intellectual property protection.
Ultimately, patents provide the kind of legal protection needed to allow
VAS vendors to open their source. Without some sort of protection,
secrecy and obscurantism, with their costs, rule. It is possible to
argue that the costs of intellectual property outweigh the costs of no
such protection. But I think the verdict of history is against that
argument.
---------
regards,
alexander.
Larry Qualig
It may have been an excellent point in the year 450 BC before large
corporations existed but the idea simply isn't practical in todays
world.
For starters most people here have the tendency to view patents and
'intellectual property' as offensive weapons that companies can thrust
on their competitors. While this is true to an extent, in practice
there isn't all that much of it happening. There are several 10's of
thousands of corporations in a gigantic international economy. Yet the
number of significant patent disputes is relatively small.
IMO the main reason that I'm for "reasonable/relevant patents" and
protection of intellectual property (IP) is that this is what gives
small startup companies and innovators a chance against the huge
conglomerates. Let's assume that you (Scott) spend years of time and
much of your own personal money developing a extremely fuel efficient
engine. An engine that generates more power, less heat, is more
reliable and efficient than anything ever built before. This engine
doesn't have any new parts/components... but it uses existing "off the
shelf" parts in an ingenious manner to accomplish this.
So in todays world you can do the following:
1) You patent your idea which gives you the rights and "ownership" of
your intellectual property.
2) You are able to license your revolutionary technology to BMW, Ford,
GM, etc and in return, these companies financially reward you for the
right to use what *you* created.
3) You have the option to get financing (venture capital) and start
your own engine factory.
All of this is possible because we have laws that protect intellectual
property (your invention). Without IP protection here's what would
happen.
1) You risk your own time and money and develop the technology.
2) Every automobile and engine company in the world gets to take it and
use it for free.
3) You would have ZERO chance of option #3 (your own company) because
the 'big companies' have a tremendous advantage over you and will have
manufactured thousands of engines before you can even sign a lease.
With a system like there would be virtually zero small companies. Any
technology/ideas that small companies develop would simply be taken and
used freely by large corporations. The large company would have every
advantage over the "little guy" and the small companies would never be
able to even get started, let alone compete.
Take drug companies as another example. In many cases drug companies
invest (risk) BILLIONS of dollars to develop, test and get approval for
a new drug or vaccine. Without IP rights there would be nothing to
prevent another company from stealing the drug the day it's released
and start selling their own version of it. Of course the company who
stole the drug doesn't have to recoup the BILLIONS in R&D that went
into the drug so they are able to sell it for less.
A system such as this obviously isn't feasible because there is no
financial incentive to innovate and develop anything. Research and
development is expensive so nobody will do it. It's simply easier to do
nothing and to steal the ideas of others.
So without the ability to protect intellectual property, what incentive
is there for anyone or any company to spend money on research and
development? They do the R&D and once they've taken the risk and made
the investment, the rest of the world gets to take and use their ideas
for free. This hardly sounds like a fair and equitable system.
Hadron Quark
No. Why?
But he was a PROFESSIONAL scientist.
But keep building your strawmen.
Tim Smith
Mark Kent
Ie., software patents are not allowed - it's clear.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Mark Kent
>
> I especially like this:
>
> -------
> We trust that the Commission fully understands that, despite statements
> to the contrary in some quarters, there is no consensus among economists
> that patents inhibit innovation in the software sector. The study most
> often cited by proponents of this argument (“Sequential Innovation, Patents
> and Imitation”; J. Bessen/E. Maskin, 1997/1999) is inconclusive at best and
> flawed in many respects. It relies largely on data from the 1970’s and
> 1980’s. In this dynamic and rapidly changing industry, public policy for
> the 21st century should not be based on inconclusive results drawn from
> data from an earlier era of information and communications technologies.
Hehe - wonder who wrote this drivel?
Mark Kent
> [...]
>> There is no formal definition of intellectual property, it's merely a
>
> So how would you, Kent,
Well Terekhov,
> label a class of legally protected rights in
There is no such class. There are copyright, patent & trademark, and
they're all different. "Intellectual property" is a trendy term for
people like yourself spouting fud.
Mark Kent
> [...]
>> > Athens didnt have a patent office. I dont see that it harmed their
>> > innovation. When Sophocles produced a play, everyone knew who wrote it.
>> > Open source worked for the Greeks, it'll work for us. (but not so well
>> > for corporations)
>>
>> excellent point. the greatest things in the world were never made so that
>> the owner could get rich off it. they were invented to make the world a
>> better place.
>
> http://www.charvolant.org/~doug/gpl/gpl.pdf
>
> ---------
> 3.1 Intellectual Property
>
When an article starts with this as a heading, you know instantly that
drivel is on its way.
Snit
6thv34-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk on 11/28/06 10:20 PM:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> espoused:
>>
>> Scott W wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Athens didnt have a patent office. I dont see that it harmed their
>>>> innovation. When Sophocles produced a play, everyone knew who wrote it.
>>>> Open source worked for the Greeks, it'll work for us. (but not so well
>>>> for corporations)
>>>
>>> excellent point. the greatest things in the world were never made so that
>>> the owner could get rich off it. they were invented to make the world a
>>> better place.
>>
>> http://www.charvolant.org/~doug/gpl/gpl.pdf
>>
>> ---------
>> 3.1 Intellectual Property
>>
>
> When an article starts with this as a heading, you know instantly that
> drivel is on its way.
My guess: those most opposed to the concept of intellectual property are the
very ones who have the least capacity to have anything thing of value come
from their intellect.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Hadron Quark
> "Mark Kent" <mark...@demon.co.uk> stated in post
> 6thv34-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk on 11/28/06 10:20 PM:
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> espoused:
>>>
>>> Scott W wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Athens didnt have a patent office. I dont see that it harmed their
>>>>> innovation. When Sophocles produced a play, everyone knew who wrote it.
>>>>> Open source worked for the Greeks, it'll work for us. (but not so well
>>>>> for corporations)
>>>>
>>>> excellent point. the greatest things in the world were never made so that
>>>> the owner could get rich off it. they were invented to make the world a
>>>> better place.
>>>
>>> http://www.charvolant.org/~doug/gpl/gpl.pdf
>>>
>>> ---------
>>> 3.1 Intellectual Property
>>>
>>
>> When an article starts with this as a heading, you know instantly that
>> drivel is on its way.
>
> My guess: those most opposed to the concept of intellectual property are the
> very ones who have the least capacity to have anything thing of value come
> from their intellect.
Also the ones who killfile "enmasse" all posters from google groups,
gmail, yahoo and the life. Amazingly Mark Kent and his clan actually
that : maintaining that anyone with an email address from this crowd
isnt "intelligent" enough to "debate". Not that Mark Kent has ever
"debated" anything.
RonB
> My guess: those most opposed to the concept of intellectual property are
> the very ones who have the least capacity to have anything thing of value
> come from their intellect.
And why would that be your "guess?" Because it fits with your preconceived
notions and world view? I'm currently using some pretty damned good OSS
software written by people who believe in Open Source. Wonder how that
happened?
It's been my experience, in the phone business at least, that those who
know little, hoard what little they know. Those who really know their
craft are confident and willingly share their knowledge. I'm guessing that
is pretty much universal in all fields.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Tim Smith
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> There is no such class. There are copyright, patent & trademark, and
> they're all different. "Intellectual property" is a trendy term for
> people like yourself spouting fud.
It's kind of odd to call something that has been a fairly common and
usual term for over 150 years to be a trendy term.
--
--Tim Smith
Snit
pan.2006.11.29....@gmail.com on 11/28/06 11:17 PM:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:44:49 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> My guess: those most opposed to the concept of intellectual property are
>> the very ones who have the least capacity to have anything thing of value
>> come from their intellect.
>
> And why would that be your "guess?" Because it fits with your preconceived
> notions and world view? I'm currently using some pretty damned good OSS
> software written by people who believe in Open Source. Wonder how that
> happened?
Who said anything about being opposed to open source? Not I! I think OSS
is a splendid idea - though it is not perfect and not ideal in all
situations. But, overall, I am very much *for* the idea of OSS.
> It's been my experience, in the phone business at least, that those who
> know little, hoard what little they know. Those who really know their
> craft are confident and willingly share their knowledge. I'm guessing that
> is pretty much universal in all fields.
This is true when sharing your knowledge does not take value away from your
product. Google is not likely to share their search routines, for instance.
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
Peter Köhlmann
"Intellectual property" means a lot of things.
It is far from being an established term like copyright, patent and
trademark
--
Confucius: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
Rick
> "RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post
> pan.2006.11.29....@gmail.com on 11/28/06 11:17 PM:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:44:49 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> My guess: those most opposed to the concept of intellectual property
>>> are the very ones who have the least capacity to have anything thing of
>>> value come from their intellect.
>>
>> And why would that be your "guess?" Because it fits with your
>> preconceived notions and world view? I'm currently using some pretty
>> damned good OSS software written by people who believe in Open Source.
>> Wonder how that happened?
>
> Who said anything about being opposed to open source? Not I! I think OSS
> is a splendid idea - though it is not perfect and not ideal in all
> situations. But, overall, I am very much *for* the idea of OSS.
Good thing... Apple's OS is amost all OSS.
>
>> It's been my experience, in the phone business at least, that those who
>> know little, hoard what little they know. Those who really know their
>> craft are confident and willingly share their knowledge. I'm guessing
>> that is pretty much universal in all fields.
>
> This is true when sharing your knowledge does not take value away from
> your product. Google is not likely to share their search routines, for
> instance.
... not unlike Apple not sharing the source to Aqua, core graphics and
closing the kernel...
--
Rick
Alexander Terekhov
Mark Kent wrote:
[...]
> >> http://www.european-patent-office.org/news/pressrel/2000_08_18_e.htm
> >
> > "However,
> > Article 52(3) EPC stipulates that this provision shall exclude patentability
> > of the subject-matter or activities referred to only to the extent to which a
> > European patent application relates to such subject-matter or activities as
> > such.
> >
> > It follows that, although methods for doing business, programs for
> > computers, etc., are as such explicitly excluded from patentability, a
> > product or a method which is of a technical character may be patentable,
> > even if the claimed subject-matter defines or at least involves a business
> > method, a computer program, etc."
> >
> > See also
> >
> > http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/comp/replies/ibm_en.pdf
> >
> > http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/comp/replies/eicta_en.pdf
> >
> > regards,
> > alexander.
>
> Ie., software patents are not allowed - it's clear.
Go to clinic.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Scott W wrote:
[...]
> einstein discovered relativity just to get rich?
"The Albert Einstein Archives at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem own
the Literary Estate of Albert Einstein, as declared in his last will and
testament."
http://www.albert-einstein.org/.index5.html
TRIPS says software is a literary work, BTW.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> Scott W wrote:
> [...]
> > einstein discovered relativity just to get rich?
>
> "The Albert Einstein Archives at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem own
> the Literary Estate of Albert Einstein, as declared in his last will and
> testament."
>
> http://www.albert-einstein.org/.index5.html
Price list for the use in non-commercial publication:
Item
Price in US$
Photo
150.00
Photo on cover of publication
500.00-1000.00 *
Reproduction of manuscript
100.00
Quotation of entire letter
50.00
Quotation of entire article
100.00
Alexander Terekhov
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >
> > Scott W wrote:
> > [...]
> > > einstein discovered relativity just to get rich?
> >
> > "The Albert Einstein Archives at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem own
> > the Literary Estate of Albert Einstein, as declared in his last will and
> > testament."
> >
> > http://www.albert-einstein.org/.index5.html
>
> Price list for the use in non-commercial publication:
Price list for the use in commercial publication:
Please send the details of your request to our office
aeare...@savion.huji.ac.il.
The price for commercial publications is calculated as a function of
retail price, number of copies and
percentage of content of licenced material in the publication. The
amounts for non-commercial fees mentioned
above constitute a minimum and commercial fees cannot fall below them.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Mark Kent wrote:
>
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> espoused:
> > [http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/comp/replies/eicta_en.pdf]
> >
> > I especially like this:
> >
> > -------
> > We trust that the Commission fully understands that, despite statements
> > to the contrary in some quarters, there is no consensus among economists
> > that patents inhibit innovation in the software sector. The study most
> > often cited by proponents of this argument (“Sequential Innovation, Patents
> > and Imitation”; J. Bessen/E. Maskin, 1997/1999) is inconclusive at best and
> > flawed in many respects. It relies largely on data from the 1970’s and
> > 1980’s. In this dynamic and rapidly changing industry, public policy for
> > the 21st century should not be based on inconclusive results drawn from
> > data from an earlier era of information and communications technologies.
>
> Hehe - wonder who wrote this drivel?
http://www.mp3licensing.com/patents/index.html
GB GB GB GB... GB (and even RU :-) )
See also
http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/index.html
regards,
alexander.
Snit
pan.2006.11.29....@trollfeed.com on 11/29/06 4:50 AM:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:34:31 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post
>> pan.2006.11.29....@gmail.com on 11/28/06 11:17 PM:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:44:49 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> My guess: those most opposed to the concept of intellectual property
>>>> are the very ones who have the least capacity to have anything thing of
>>>> value come from their intellect.
>>>
>>> And why would that be your "guess?" Because it fits with your
>>> preconceived notions and world view? I'm currently using some pretty
>>> damned good OSS software written by people who believe in Open Source.
>>> Wonder how that happened?
>>
>> Who said anything about being opposed to open source? Not I! I think OSS
>> is a splendid idea - though it is not perfect and not ideal in all
>> situations. But, overall, I am very much *for* the idea of OSS.
>
> Good thing... Apple's OS is amost all OSS.
While I was not thinking of that as I wrote what I said, yes, you are
correct - much of OS X and other Apple projects are OSS.
>>> It's been my experience, in the phone business at least, that those who
>>> know little, hoard what little they know. Those who really know their
>>> craft are confident and willingly share their knowledge. I'm guessing
>>> that is pretty much universal in all fields.
>>
>> This is true when sharing your knowledge does not take value away from
>> your product. Google is not likely to share their search routines, for
>> instance.
>
> ... not unlike Apple not sharing the source to Aqua, core graphics and
> closing the kernel...
Both OSS and non-OSS have their benefits. Apple uses both quite well.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
flatfish+++
It's amazing how dense Mark Kent really is.
I don't remember him being *that* ignorant or zealous in the past, but
evidently running around with his head up Roy Schestowich's ass has taken
it's troll,, err toll.
Mark Kent
Best you can do is abuse?
Software patents are not allowed in Europe, this is well known and well
established.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
For office use only.
Mark Kent
Countries don't write things, people do.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
For office use only.
Mark Kent
Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> espoused:
The point remains that it's a trendy term being used as a catch-all for
wildly different legally defined entities. It's only really useful for
fudding.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
For office use only.
Mark Kent
Which has precisely nothing to do with Einstein getting rich. Are you
Snit or Mr Wong in another guise? You seem to struggle with the most
basics of comprehension, so much so that I tend to believe that it must
be deliberate, as it seems unlikely that anyone could genuinely get this
much, this wrong, this often though ignorance or accident.
I hope you're paid enough.
flatfish+++
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> espoused:
>>
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>> [...]
>>> >> http://www.european-patent-office.org/news/pressrel/2000_08_18_e.htm
>>> >
>>> > "However,
>>> > Article 52(3) EPC stipulates that this provision shall exclude patentability
>>> > of the subject-matter or activities referred to only to the extent to which a
>>> > European patent application relates to such subject-matter or activities as
>>> > such.
>>> >
>>> > It follows that, although methods for doing business, programs for
>>> > computers, etc., are as such explicitly excluded from patentability, a
>>> > product or a method which is of a technical character may be patentable,
>>> > even if the claimed subject-matter defines or at least involves a business
>>> > method, a computer program, etc."
>>> >
>>> > See also
>>> >
>>> > http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/comp/replies/ibm_en.pdf
>>> >
>>> > http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/comp/replies/eicta_en.pdf
>>> >
>>> > regards,
>>> > alexander.
>>>
>>> Ie., software patents are not allowed - it's clear.
>>
>> Go to clinic.
>>
>
> Best you can do is abuse?
Discredit routine # 1.
flatfish+++
Denial and calling facts FUD is another tactic used by a person who is
losing a debate.
flatfish+++
Discredit routine #2 comparing the poster who is destroying you with facts
to other posters who have also destroyed you with facts and thus they are
also trolls to *you*.
You're an idiot Mark Kent.
You should stick to posting others peoples messages, like you do with your
useless digest posts.
You sure seem incapable of thinking for yourself.
Tim Smith
Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> wrote:
> >
> > Ie., software patents are not allowed - it's clear.
>
> Go to clinic.
It's interesting how he keeps saying they are not allowed, even though
several have been issued.
--
--Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann
Now tell us how many of these can legally be used in the EU
Hint: The number is smaller than 1
--
Avoid reality at all costs.
Hadron Quark
The mind boggles as to how often you are found lacking in your stated
main aims "to debate with intelligent people". Unfortunately for you,
Mark Kent, the threads are here for all to see : you spout nonsense and
then try to flannel your way through the ensuing corrections hoping
noone will notice what an intellectual lightweight you really are. The
shame is that I believe you to be smarter than that : too much time
rubbing up to your COLA pals has distorted your ability to keep yourself
and your incredible ego in check.
--
Avoid the Gates of Hell. Use Linux
(Unknown source)
flatfish+++
I agree with this post.
Tim Smith
Peter Kohlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > It's interesting how he keeps saying they are not allowed, even though
> > several have been issued.
> >
>
> Now tell us how many of these can legally be used in the EU
> Hint: The number is smaller than 1
The case law in the UK and Germany disagrees with you. Software patents
*are* being granted in the EU, and the national courts are allowing
them. So far, the ones I've been able to find that have been litigated
have not won, but they have lost on grounds of obviousness, and other
such things--they have not lost for being software patents, and the
courts in some cases have taken care to point that out. See this:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_
Convention>
and this:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_258/03>
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The point remains that it's a trendy term being used as a catch-all for
> wildly different legally defined entities. It's only really useful for
> fudding.
They are not wildly different. They all share basically the same
economic justification, which is why they tend to be analyzed together
in books such as Posner's "Economic Analysis of the Law". (See the
section entitled "Intellectual Property"). Scholars working in the
philosophy of law also tend to treat them together, because the
philosophical justifications are largely the same.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
flatfish+++ <flat...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> It's amazing how dense Mark Kent really is.
> I don't remember him being *that* ignorant or zealous in the past, but
> evidently running around with his head up Roy Schestowich's ass has taken
> it's troll,, err toll.
In some ways, this is similar to Roy Culley. He originally was fairly
reasonable. Then he lost a few (well, a lot) of arguments to Erik. He
will still fairly reasonable, except he started obsessing over Erik, and
then he just started going downhill from there. Now, all he does is
troll, respond to trolls, or complain about trolls and the people who
respond to them. It's sad.
--
--Tim Smith
High Plains Thumper
>>>
>>> GB GB GB GB... GB (and even RU :-) )
>>>
>>> See also
>>> http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/index.html
>>
>> Countries don't write things, people do.
>
> debate big time.
Hmmmmh, what's with your semantics?
--
HPT
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Erik won an argument? did he finally say where ntfs stores it's journal?
been waiting on that one for a while.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFbm17d90bcYOAWPYRAraHAJ9wfD/ndXavY8Zp6deEje4Ab3tISgCfW+ir
vuwgCWhQG2teUFWAY2UdVyc=
=yHiR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If you don't know how to do something, you don't know how to do it with a
computer.
Peter Köhlmann
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:34:34 -0800,
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> In article <Mgibh.17$0O7...@newsfe10.lga>,
>> flatfish+++ <flat...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>>> It's amazing how dense Mark Kent really is.
>>> I don't remember him being *that* ignorant or zealous in the past, but
>>> evidently running around with his head up Roy Schestowich's ass has
>>> taken it's troll,, err toll.
>>
>> In some ways, this is similar to Roy Culley. He originally was fairly
>> reasonable. Then he lost a few (well, a lot) of arguments to Erik. He
>> will still fairly reasonable, except he started obsessing over Erik, and
>> then he just started going downhill from there. Now, all he does is
>> troll, respond to trolls, or complain about trolls and the people who
>> respond to them. It's sad.
>>
>
> Erik won an argument? did he finally say where ntfs stores it's journal?
> been waiting on that one for a while.
>
Erik hasn't "won" any argument since quite some time, except when claiming
the obvious. But then it never was disputed in the first place
--
It's not about, 'Where do you want to go today?' It's more like,
'Where am I allowed to go today?'
Tim Smith
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> Erik won an argument? did he finally say where ntfs stores it's journal?
> been waiting on that one for a while.
Why the heck would I care if he has answered that? If he said something
dumb there, you call him on it once, maybe bring it up once more at an
unexpected time, if it has good zinger value or will be humorous, then
you drop it. More than that, and you end up looking like a jerk or a
stalker. (If the person keeps making the wrong claim, you can respond
to those, of course).
Worse, if your purpose is to advocate Linux, all the person you keep
questioning has to do is ignore you, and to new people who find the
group, he looks like a rational and patient person for putting up with
your nonsense, and you make Linux advocates look like net kooks. That's
not the way to advocate Linux!
A couple people (on both sides) are now doing this kind of thing in
their signatures, which makes them look even more like jerks.
--
--Tim Smith