Demise of uk.comp.os.win2000 and uk.comp.os.win95
Charles Lindsey
replacement for the two existing groups uk.comp.os.win2000 and
uk.comp.os.win95.
The time has now come (indeed has long passed, but it seems to have got
overlooked) to remove the old groups. I shall do this within the next
couple of days (no further notice will be given).
There appear to be no outstanding thread in either group (the last posts
of consequence were way back in August).
ANY REMAINING READERS OF THESE GROUPS should therefore subscribe to
uk.comp.os.ms-windows instead.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ------------------------------------------------------------
Deputy Control
Voice/Fax: +44 161 436 6131 Email: con...@usenet.org.uk
Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave., CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
John Burke
[...]
> ANY REMAINING READERS OF THESE GROUPS should therefore subscribe to
> uk.comp.os.ms-windows instead.
I can't find that group listed on News.Individual.net, what's the matter
here?
I thought that server would certainly carry it.
JB
Mike Tullett
<news:3pavdnF...@individual.net>
>> ANY REMAINING READERS OF THESE GROUPS should therefore subscribe to
>> uk.comp.os.ms-windows instead.
>
> I can't find that group listed on News.Individual.net, what's the matter
> here?
>
> I thought that server would certainly carry it.
It certainly does carry it and I saw C. Lindsey's post in it first of all.
--
Mike Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 20/09/2005 17:39:32 UTC
Thomas Lee
<con...@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes
>The group uk.comp.os.ms-windows was formed on March 15th 2005 as a
>replacement for the two existing groups uk.comp.os.win2000 and
>uk.comp.os.win95.
>
>The time has now come (indeed has long passed, but it seems to have got
>overlooked) to remove the old groups. I shall do this within the next
>couple of days (no further notice will be given).
>
>There appear to be no outstanding thread in either group (the last posts
>of consequence were way back in August).
>
>ANY REMAINING READERS OF THESE GROUPS should therefore subscribe to
>uk.comp.os.ms-windows instead.
It is with some nostalgia I say good bye to these groups.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Spartanicus
Don't worry, uk.comp.os.ms-windows is almost as empty as
uk.comp.os.win2000 and uk.comp.os.win95.
Ignore Charles Lindsey's "advice" not to use uk.comp.os.win2000 and
uk.comp.os.win95 anymore, they may not see much traffic, but they are
still being read.
--
Spartanicus
Mike Tullett
<news:fkj0j1p8l6p9f3j33...@news.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie>
> Ignore Charles Lindsey's "advice" not to use uk.comp.os.win2000 and
> uk.comp.os.win95 anymore, they may not see much traffic, but they are
> still being read.
Even when they have been removed as newsgroups?
--
Mike Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 20/09/2005 18:15:36 UTC
Owen Rees
wrote in
<fkj0j1p8l6p9f3j33...@news.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie>:
>Ignore Charles Lindsey's "advice" not to use uk.comp.os.win2000 and
>uk.comp.os.win95 anymore, they may not see much traffic, but they are
>still being read.
That would be unwise.
Charles was posting in his role as Deputy Control for the uk.*
hierarchy.
It was a notice that the control messages instructing servers to remove
the groups are about to be issued. Some servers may fail to act on those
messages but many of those that matter most will remove the groups.
--
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>
Tim Auton
I suggest you read Charles Lindsey's sig carefully. It's slightly more
than "advice".
Tim
--
You are being watched. This gives you power.
Spartanicus
>> Ignore Charles Lindsey's "advice" not to use uk.comp.os.win2000 and
>> uk.comp.os.win95 anymore, they may not see much traffic, but they are
>> still being read.
>
>Even when they have been removed as newsgroups?
In practice newsgroups cannot be removed, no news server admin in his
right mind would allow it.
--
Spartanicus
Mike Tullett
<news:ctn0j1d1isk5hlrtr...@news.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie>
Wanna bet:-) ?
--
Mike Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 20/09/2005 19:27:20 UTC
Spartanicus
>> In practice newsgroups cannot be removed, no news server admin in his
>> right mind would allow it.
>
>Wanna bet:-) ?
Good luck in getting it removed from my news uplink (NTL) :-)
Any prankster can post delete group control messages.
--
Spartanicus
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.comp.os.win95:
> Charles Lindsey wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> ANY REMAINING READERS OF THESE GROUPS should therefore subscribe to
>> uk.comp.os.ms-windows instead.
>
> I can't find that group listed on News.Individual.net, what's the matter
> here?
I'm using n.i.n and I've been using u.c.o.ms-w since day 1. Try refreshing
your groups list. IME this server *does* honour valid rmgroups, so the other
Windows groups will shortly cease to exist.
mh.
--
From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.
"People are animals too."
Mike Tullett
<news:p9r0j19hkuei16uqc...@news.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie>
>>> In practice newsgroups cannot be removed, no news server admin in his
>>> right mind would allow it.
>>
>>Wanna bet:-) ?
>
> Good luck in getting it removed from my news uplink (NTL) :-)
>
> Any prankster can post delete group control messages.
Despite my smiley, I was in fact being serious. I am seeing these posts in
uk.net.news.config. You'll see its role here:
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.net.news.config.html
I agree not all servers act on rmgroup messages, but the one favoured by
many - N.I.N. - does.
--
Mike Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 20/09/2005 20:50:25 UTC
Alan LeHun
@news.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie>, inv...@invalid.invalid says...
> Ignore Charles Lindsey's "advice"
>
I fear you may have misinterpreted the nature of Charles' post.
Alas, poor uco.win95 etc, etc.
--
Alan LeHun
John Burke
John Burke
>>> ANY REMAINING READERS OF THESE GROUPS should therefore subscribe to
>>> uk.comp.os.ms-windows instead.
>>
>> I can't find that group listed on News.Individual.net, what's the
>> matter here?
>>
>> I thought that server would certainly carry it.
>
> It certainly does carry it and I saw C. Lindsey's post in it first of
> all.
Guess it's been a long time since I refreshed the list then (er, like
never).
Got it now, thanks.
JB
Owen Rees
wrote in
<p9r0j19hkuei16uqc...@news.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie>:
>Any prankster can post delete group control messages.
Pranksters do not have the PGP Private Key that is used to sign official
uk.* control messages. Control and Deputy Control have that key and it
will be used to sign the control messages that request deletion of the
groups. Some newsadmins (including N.I.N. I believe) have configured
their servers to verify the signature and act automatically on control
messages that verify correctly.
The W2K and W95 groups will cease to exist on some servers soon. Those
who continue to use them on servers that do not honour the control
messages may talk among themselves (as they could in alt.* or free.*
etc.) but their messages will not reach as many people as they used to.
Grumach Macabre of Auchterloonie
from Alan LeHun <no...@the.mo> contains these words:
I saw no RFD or CFV on the removals.
--
,,,
}»«<üüüü(@>
´ ´
Marcus Houlden
It took place in February:
http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/results/result-uk.comp.os.ms-windows-20050310110506$5a...@gradwell.net.txt
(or http://tinyurl.com/86ofy)
Mike Tullett
<news:3pbdflF...@individual.net>
>> It certainly does carry it and I saw C. Lindsey's post in it first of
>> all.
>
> Guess it's been a long time since I refreshed the list then (er, like
> never).
>
> Got it now, thanks.
I see you are using OE. There is a setting in it that will alert you to
new groups as they appear. "Tools" > "Options" > "General" > "Notify me if
there are any new newsgroups"
--
Mike Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 20/09/2005 21:55:48 UTC
Pedt
<ctn0j1d1isk5hlrtr...@news.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie>, at
19:14:41 on Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Spartanicus <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wibbled
on a proper rmgroup.
Charles is carrying out the last part of the result a uk.* vote. No
more, no less. His announcement to the old groups was a courtesy and a
welcome one.
--
Pedt
Helpful words 01: "biggin" (noun). A biggin is a silver coffee pot with a
separate container to hold the coffee as it is heated. At dinner parties,
always remember to ask your host if they have a biggin.
John of Aix
> The group uk.comp.os.ms-windows was formed on March 15th 2005 as a
> replacement for the two existing groups uk.comp.os.win2000 and
> uk.comp.os.win95.
Goodness, a post.
> The time has now come (indeed has long passed, but it seems to have
> got overlooked) to remove the old groups. I shall do this within the
> next couple of days (no further notice will be given).
>
> There appear to be no outstanding thread in either group (the last
> posts of consequence were way back in August).
>
> ANY REMAINING READERS OF THESE GROUPS should therefore subscribe to
> uk.comp.os.ms-windows instead.
I subscribe but do not read because, as we all know, no one posts here
anymore. May the group rest in peace.
Roy Schestowitz
There is only one issue: the Manchester Computing newsgroup server does not
appear to aggregate or even cater for a subscription to
uk.comp.os.ms-windows. I know that you too may have used that server in the
past. I hope something gets done on the matter shortly...
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "I blame God for making me an atheist"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
6:00am up 26 days 18:14, 3 users, load average: 0.37, 0.20, 0.21
Grumach Macabre of Auchterloonie
from Marcus Houlden <sp...@nukesoft.co.uk> contains these words:
> > I saw no RFD or CFV on the removals.
> It took place in February:
> http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/results/result-uk.comp.os.ms-windows-20050310110506$5a...@gradwell.net.txt
> (or http://tinyurl.com/86ofy)
I subscribe to unnc for just that reason, and that's where I'd have
expected it to have been publicised - and debated, and I may be wrong,
but I don't think it was.
I have never visited www.ukvoting.org.uk - life's too short.
But now I have started using Win 2000 Pro (mainly for its better USB
functionality) alongside Win 98SE and Linux, I find a lifeline is being
removed.
And no, I have absolutely no intention of downgrading to XP - I deplore,
resent and reject the requirement to go running to Unkel Willi if you
want to transfer your copy to another machine, or expand your existing
box beyond the odd card or HD.
--
,,,
}»«<üüüü(@>
´ ´
Dr Zoidberg
> The message <slrndj115...@neutron.nukesoft.co.uk>
> from Marcus Houlden <sp...@nukesoft.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>>> I saw no RFD or CFV on the removals.
>
>> It took place in February:
>> http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/results/result-uk.comp.os.ms-windows-20050310110506$5a...@gradwell.net.txt
>> (or http://tinyurl.com/86ofy)
>
> I subscribe to unnc for just that reason, and that's where I'd have
> expected it to have been publicised - and debated, and I may be wrong,
> but I don't think it was.
It was.
--
Alex
Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"
www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk
Owen Rees
<gru...@foobar.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in
<3130303032303...@foobar.zetnet.co.uk>:
>I subscribe to unnc for just that reason, and that's where I'd have
>expected it to have been publicised - and debated, and I may be wrong,
>but I don't think it was.
The orignal RFD was for a Windows XP group and can be found on Google
groups (if you can navigate the horrible interface):
Newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.config,uk.comp.misc,uk.comp.os.win95,uk.comp.os.win2000
Subject: RFD: uk.comp.os.windowsxp
Followup-To: uk.net.news.config
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:33:45 +0000
Message-ID: <rfd1-uk.comp.os.windowsxp-20041222123345$03...@gradwell.net>
Substantial discussion followed - Google has 93 messages in the thread
extending into January 2005.
Some people (including me) opposed the idea of yet another very low
traffic group for yet another version of Windows and several of us
suggested merging the existing groups into a single group covering all
versions of MS Windows.
A second RFD incorporating that proposal was posted, and can be found at
Google:
Newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.config,uk.comp.misc,uk.comp.os.win95,uk.comp.os.win2000
Subject: 2nd RFD: uk.comp.os.ms-windows (corrected)
Followup-To: uk.net.news.config
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 21:43:54 +0000
Message-ID:
<rfd2-uk.comp.os.ms-windows-20041230214354$56...@gradwell.net>
Google has 99 messages in the thread that starts with that message,
extending into January 2005.
>I have never visited www.ukvoting.org.uk - life's too short.
There is no need if you subscribe to uk.net.news.announce - all RFDs,
CFVs and results are posted there.
>But now I have started using Win 2000 Pro (mainly for its better USB
>functionality) alongside Win 98SE and Linux, I find a lifeline is being
>removed.
uk.comp.os.ms-windows covers all versions of windows and that includes
Windows 2000.
>And no, I have absolutely no intention of downgrading to XP - I deplore,
>resent and reject the requirement to go running to Unkel Willi if you
>want to transfer your copy to another machine, or expand your existing
>box beyond the odd card or HD.
Nobody is asking you to change which OS you use, all that is happening
is that discussion in uk.* of all versions of Windows is being
consolidated into a single group.
Grumach Macabre of Auchterloonie
from Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> contains these words:
<snip>
> >I have never visited www.ukvoting.org.uk - life's too short.
> There is no need if you subscribe to uk.net.news.announce - all RFDs,
> CFVs and results are posted there.
Thank goodness for that!
> >But now I have started using Win 2000 Pro (mainly for its better USB
> >functionality) alongside Win 98SE and Linux, I find a lifeline is being
> >removed.
> uk.comp.os.ms-windows covers all versions of windows and that includes
> Windows 2000.
I believe that someone has just discovered that our server carries it -
though it's not in the 'active' list.
> >And no, I have absolutely no intention of downgrading to XP - I deplore,
> >resent and reject the requirement to go running to Unkel Willi if you
> >want to transfer your copy to another machine, or expand your existing
> >box beyond the odd card or HD.
> Nobody is asking you to change which OS you use, all that is happening
> is that discussion in uk.* of all versions of Windows is being
> consolidated into a single group.
No matter - I was just having a minor rant at Manipulo$oft...
--
,,,
}»«<üüüü(@>
´ ´
Thomas Lee
Macabre of Auchterloonie <gru...@foobar.zetnet.co.uk> writes
>But now I have started using Win 2000 Pro (mainly for its better USB
>functionality) alongside Win 98SE and Linux, I find a lifeline is being
>removed.
Windows 2000 is out of support.
>
>And no, I have absolutely no intention of downgrading to XP
You seem to be under the mistaken apprehension that XP is an earlier
version - this is incorrect.
> - I deplore, resent and reject the requirement to go running to Unkel
>Willi if you want to transfer your copy to another machine, or expand
>your existing box beyond the odd card or HD.
Piracy is easier with Linux, I will grant you. But before you rant, you
may choose to get the facts straight.
Johnny B Good
from Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> contains these words:
> In message <3130303032303...@foobar.zetnet.co.uk>, Grumach
> Macabre of Auchterloonie <gru...@foobar.zetnet.co.uk> writes
> >But now I have started using Win 2000 Pro (mainly for its better USB
> >functionality) alongside Win 98SE and Linux, I find a lifeline is being
> >removed.
> Windows 2000 is out of support.
> >
> >And no, I have absolutely no intention of downgrading to XP
> You seem to be under the mistaken apprehension that XP is an earlier
> version - this is incorrect.
Grumach didn't claim XP be an earlier version, he just didn't want to
"Downgrade"(tm) to win2k's idiot offspring [1].
> > - I deplore, resent and reject the requirement to go running to Unkel
> >Willi if you want to transfer your copy to another machine, or expand
> >your existing box beyond the odd card or HD.
One serious consequence of a "Microsoft Fuckover"(tm) [2]
> Piracy is easier with Linux, I will grant you. But before you rant, you
> may choose to get the facts straight.
Correction: Piracy is pointless with Linux, whereas, it's inevitable
with proprietry closed source stuff.
[1] This a repeat of the similar downgrade from win95osr2 to win98.
[2] Like a "Makeover", only done the Microsoft way.
--
Regards, John.
To reply directly, please remove "buttplug" .Mail via the
"Reply Direct" button and Spam-bots will be rejected.
Grumach Macabre of Auchterloonie
> Macabre of Auchterloonie <gru...@foobar.zetnet.co.uk> writes
> >But now I have started using Win 2000 Pro (mainly for its better USB
> >functionality) alongside Win 98SE and Linux, I find a lifeline is being
> >removed.
> Windows 2000 is out of support.
Quite. All the more reason for keeping the group. I hope you never try
walking on water.
> >
> >And no, I have absolutely no intention of downgrading to XP
> You seem to be under the mistaken apprehension that XP is an earlier
> version - this is incorrect.
No, I am under the impression that Windows Tellytubbies appeared after
Win 2000, and is a lot less user-friendly.
In the main (USB support excepted) I consider ME a downgrade from Win 98SE.
> > - I deplore, resent and reject the requirement to go running to Unkel
> >Willi if you want to transfer your copy to another machine, or expand
> >your existing box beyond the odd card or HD.
> Piracy is easier with Linux, I will grant you. But before you rant, you
> may choose to get the facts straight.
I have got the facts straight.
Before *YOU* rant, you might check for bulges in cheek. Oh, and Piracy
and Linux don't sit easily in the same sentence together.
Debian Rules!
--
,,,
}»«<üüüü(@>
´ ´
Thomas Lee
Macabre of Auchterloonie <gru...@foobar.zetnet.co.uk> writes
>No, I am under the impression that Windows Tellytubbies appeared after
>Win 2000, and is a lot less user-friendly.
While I can appreciate your anecdotal views, the facts tend to prove
otherwise, although don't allow reality to get in the way of a good
rant. If you want to rant about MS - then feel free! ;-) On the other
hand, go search for the many case studies and analyst reports then come
back.
>In the main (USB support excepted) I consider ME a downgrade from Win 98SE.
ME and XP are largely unrelated. XP is based on NT, and has a security
architecture Win9x, including 95.
Windows 98, and ME, are simply not secure enough for the threats facing
businesses and home users alike. While I dislike the eye candy of XP,
it's remarkably stable and productive when implemented properly. Like
_any_ product - amateurs often misuse the tool and blame the tool rather
than their experience with it. Linux installations can be badly done
too.
>I have got the facts straight.
It would appear you are confusing personal animosity with factual
evidence. Please point to the facts which back up your rant.
>Before *YOU* rant, you might check for bulges in cheek. Oh, and Piracy
>and Linux don't sit easily in the same sentence together.
That's the problem - within certain sectors of the software world, there
are those who do not regard intellectual property highly. The boundaries
here are often blurred - and end up causing great issues.
Look at the fuss caused over the version control system previously used
by Linus. And look at the SCO 'law case'. And with Novell cloning .NET
in terms of Mono, there is another potential grey area. Linux is an IP
minefield. The proprietary Unix vendors, along with Apple and Microsoft
are in a bit of a better position, MS particularly as they indemnify
customers against IP infringement.
>Debian Rules!
Strictly speaking, an Linux distribution is an inanimate object, thus it
can not possibly rule.
But thanks for playing. Come back soon.
Jon Ribbens
>>Before *YOU* rant, you might check for bulges in cheek. Oh, and Piracy
>>and Linux don't sit easily in the same sentence together.
>
> That's the problem - within certain sectors of the software world, there
> are those who do not regard intellectual property highly.
That's not the point he's making and you know it. It's nothing to do
with regard for intellectual property, it's the fact that Linux has
been made freely avalable by its copyright holders - it's difficult
to "steal" something that is given away free.
> And look at the SCO 'law case'.
...
> Linux is an IP minefield.
LOL. It's a bit off-topic to troll here with such blatant FUD,
don't you think?
>>Debian Rules!
>
> Strictly speaking, an Linux distribution is an inanimate object, thus it
> can not possibly rule.
Perhaps he means it's good for drawing straight lines? ;-)
Thomas Lee
<jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> writes
>In article <sqkthGa2...@mail.psp.co.uk>, Thomas Lee wrote:
>>>Before *YOU* rant, you might check for bulges in cheek. Oh, and Piracy
>>>and Linux don't sit easily in the same sentence together.
>>
>> That's the problem - within certain sectors of the software world, there
>> are those who do not regard intellectual property highly.
>
>That's not the point he's making and you know it. It's nothing to do
>with regard for intellectual property, it's the fact that Linux has
>been made freely avalable by its copyright holders - it's difficult
>to "steal" something that is given away free.
That is toe problem - it may well be the case that the patent hoders
have not given their approval. It may well be the case that some of the
code infringes on the IP of others - SCO sure seem to think this is the
case. As IP hots up as a focus of software companies, this is a problem
that is unlikely to go away.
>> And look at the SCO 'law case'.
>...
>> Linux is an IP minefield.
>
>LOL. It's a bit off-topic to troll here with such blatant FUD,
>don't you think?
Just correcting the OP's errors.
>> Strictly speaking, an Linux distribution is an inanimate object, thus it
>> can not possibly rule.
>
>Perhaps he means it's good for drawing straight lines? ;-)
I suppose if you paid for the box he might have a point. :-)
Jon Ribbens
>>> And look at the SCO 'law case'.
>>...
>>> Linux is an IP minefield.
>>
>>LOL. It's a bit off-topic to troll here with such blatant FUD,
>>don't you think?
>
> Just correcting the OP's errors.
Hardly. You're bringing up completely unrelated points that are,
well, rubbish. SCO's case for example, is thoroughly discredited
and extremely unlikely to result in any finding against Linux.
Thomas Lee
<jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> writes
>Hardly. You're bringing up completely unrelated points that are, well,
>rubbish. SCO's case for example, is thoroughly discredited and
>extremely unlikely to result in any finding against Linux.
While you could be right - the cases are more examples of the IP
problem.
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Paul Carpenter
t...@psp.co.uk "Thomas Lee" wrote:
They are examples of litigious nature of USA, often based on flawed IP
and sometimes poor software patents (I am glad were kicked out over here).
I have been watching some discussion about a hardware patent that a
company got despite prior art in the world, and now going for various
competitors. Some of these could potentially be very large semiconductor
companies. (for those interested search for Microchip patents cases).
USA is a lawyers culture.
All of which has nothing to do with the subject in hand.
--
Paul Carpenter | pa...@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/> GNU H8 & mailing list info
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate
Thomas Lee
Carpenter <paul$@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> writes
>They are examples of litigious nature of USA, often based on flawed IP
>and sometimes poor software patents (I am glad were kicked out over here).
There is no doubt that you are right about dodgy patents and the
litigious nature of the US. The US Patent system is working better now
than during the .COM boom days when some truly dodgy patents were
granted.
The real reasons the EC law was dropped was more about the law making
process (and literally hundreds of amendments to the agreed common
position than about the underlying issues, although the anti-patent
lobby sure did do into overdrive on this in a way that has soured me on
the open source movement and it's "ethics". Vicious hate mail, coffin
this delivered with the names of the MEPs who supported the law on them,
etc is not a movement I want to associate with. At the same time, MEPs
really had no other choice There was no way you could possibly get a
sensible law created give the votes that had to take forward. FWIW, I
was in Brussels the day before the vote meeting with MEPs and the EC on
this issue, and I have some 1st hand understanding of the specifics
here.
>I have been watching some discussion about a hardware patent that a
>company got despite prior art in the world, and now going for various
>competitors. Some of these could potentially be very large semiconductor
>companies. (for those interested search for Microchip patents cases).
I am vaguely aware of the case - and agree with your points.
>USA is a lawyers culture.
And just how many members of the cabinet are or were lawyers? Law
culture is not entirely US based! :-)
>All of which has nothing to do with the subject in hand.
Indeed - f/us set to poster.
And RIP uk.comp.os.win95.
Dave J.
uk.net.news.config, 'Paul Carpenter' wrote:
>They are examples of litigious nature of USA, often based on flawed IP
>and sometimes poor software patents (I am glad were kicked out over here).
Only for now. Keep your eye on it, I'd be willing to bet we haven't seen
the last attempt.
Dave J.
Thomas Lee
<req...@freeuk.com> writes
I know for a fact, this is far from over...
Dave J.
'Thomas Lee' wrote:
>>>They are examples of litigious nature of USA, often based on flawed IP
>>>and sometimes poor software patents (I am glad were kicked out over here).
>>
>>Only for now. Keep your eye on it, I'd be willing to bet we haven't seen
>>the last attempt.
>
>I know for a fact, this is far from over...
Idiots. Why? All it does is bring about the situation that has developed
in the states where only large companies can do *any* business because
every application contains bits and pieces that require separate licencing
and nothing new can be safely released for fear of million-dollar
lawsuits.
Easy enough to see why big companies favour it and why intelligent
individuals fear/loath it. Hard enough to see where we could continue this
discussion. :(
Dave J.
Thomas Lee
<req...@freeuk.com> writes
>Idiots. Why? All it does is bring about the situation that has
>developed in the states where only large companies can do *any*
>business because every application contains bits and pieces that
>require separate licencing and nothing new can be safely released for
>fear of million-dollar lawsuits.
It also can protect the SMB who has IP. And it can provide a useful USP
for VCs. Finally patent protection allows small companies to talk on
more equal terms to larger ones.
>Easy enough to see why big companies favour it and why intelligent
>individuals fear/loath it. Hard enough to see where we could continue
>this discussion. :(
My dad has a bunch of patents, and I'm pretty proud of that. I believe
that patents can protect the rights of the inventor - which in many
cases can be smbs.
Peter Duck
Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
> ... patent protection allows small companies to talk on
> more equal terms to larger ones. ...
Sounds fine, and is clearly the intention, but in reality it's true only
on matters that are trivial to the large companies, so at worst can be
settled out of the 'small change' in their coffers.
Once anything substantial becomes a gladiatorial contest between
lawyers, the result is almost inevitably 'the finest justice money can
buy'.
No-one/nothing 'small' can pay for a battery of high-priced lawyers (or
even the patent agents) for more than about five minutes, but the only
way to avoid cases taking years is for the less well-heeled party to
'throw in the towel'.
And both sides know this from the outset ...
> ... I believe that patents can protect the rights of the inventor ...
Only, IMO, if the rights are worth peanuts, in which case the patent is
hardly worth obtaining, let alone defending.
--
Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>