Re: [Debian-uk] Sun have (probably) patented apt-get
On 4 Jul 2005, at 11:44 am, Wookey wrote: Take a look at this patent (granted this week in europe) http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP1170667 I'm fairly sure that apt-get and associated package-integratity checking tools could be considered infringing. (Does dpkg/apt have a modular structure?) Clearly not patentable; there's surely gobs of prior art before the filing year of 2000. This attempts to patent a generic package testing framework! It looks to me like dejagnu would infringe some of these claims, if they were valid, which they aren't. The only claims which might be even slightly tricky to find prior art for are the claims about assigning a priority to each test. It's currently in a nine-month opposition period. Anyone want to do the work to find and send in the opposition material? Gee, patent quality is at an all-time low. :-( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian-uk] Sun have (probably) patented apt-get
Quoting Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Turbo == Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Turbo YEARS (!) ago I wrote the script that did the pre-upgrades Turbo to 'bo' (I _think_ it was to 'bo' any way :). It basically Turbo only ftp'd (or was it wget?) required packages from the Turbo Debian GNU/Linux FTP site(s), installed them and then Turbo allowed the user/admin to continue with the upgrade... Turbo Now, that seems like 'prior art' to me (even to apt-get :). Did you publish it? It was distributed as part of Debian GNU/Linux (it was the official script to do the initial upgrade). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian-uk] Sun have (probably) patented apt-get
Quoting Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Turbo == Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Turbo YEARS (!) ago I wrote the script that did the pre-upgrades Turbo to 'bo' (I _think_ it was to 'bo' any way :). It basically Turbo only ftp'd (or was it wget?) required packages from the Turbo Debian GNU/Linux FTP site(s), installed them and then Turbo allowed the user/admin to continue with the upgrade... Turbo Now, that seems like 'prior art' to me (even to apt-get :). Did you publish it? It was distributed as part of Debian GNU/Linux (it was the official script to do the initial upgrade). I got curious about how it really was, so i did some searches in the list archives. I figured it _should_ be in the debian-devel list... It seems I only _modified_ (or rather contributed patches) to the script made by Craig Sanders (autoup.sh). And the more I looked, the more I found that all my patches was thrown out (using ncftp which wasn't free/open enough etc). But to my 'defence', it WAS after all seven and a half years ago... I've contributed a lot of patches to a lot of projects. Can't remember them all :) I withdraw my claims. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian-uk] Sun have (probably) patented apt-get
On 4 Jul 2005, at 11:44 am, Wookey wrote: Take a look at this patent (granted this week in europe) http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP1170667 I'm fairly sure that apt-get and associated package-integratity checking tools could be considered infringing. (Does dpkg/apt have a modular structure?) It seems that when RMS cried the sky is falling [this time regarding patents] he was, once again, absolutely correct. Software patents are the single biggest threat not only to the open source movement but also to small/medium sized software companies. When the USA bowed to the wishes of large software companies and made software patentable, it badly crippled its own software industry. Far from protecting the small inventor as was originally intended software patents have made it easy for the giant to slay David. The USA shot itself in the foot. Today the EU gets to vote on the same issue. They can elect to have a thriving software industry well placed to replace the now crippled USA as the dominant force in the software industry. Or they can follow the USA and badly damage their own software industry. Europe, its time to choose. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian-uk] Sun have (probably) patented apt-get
In linux.debian.devel, you wrote: Today the EU gets to vote on the same issue. They can elect to have a thriving software industry well placed to replace the now crippled USA as the dominant force in the software industry. Europe, its time to choose. It has chosen a few minutes ago; the commision's directive has been rejected by the European parliament. This is not as good as the solution proposed in the first reading or the amendments made by Mr. Rocard, but it's still pretty much a victory for the Free software world. Let's hope that this will lead to the invalidation of the 30,000 software patents already granted by the European patent body. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian-uk] Sun have (probably) patented apt-get
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: In linux.debian.devel, you wrote: Today the EU gets to vote on the same issue. They can elect to have a thriving software industry well placed to replace the now crippled USA as the dominant force in the software industry. Europe, its time to choose. It has chosen a few minutes ago; the commision's directive has been rejected by the European parliament. According to www.heise.de with 648:14 votes, btw. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian-uk] Sun have (probably) patented apt-get
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 01:17:19AM -0700, Stephen Birch wrote: Today the EU gets to vote on the same issue. They can elect to have a thriving software industry well placed to replace the now crippled USA as the dominant force in the software industry. They went for the former :) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/06/eu_bins_swpat/ Neil -- __ .Ž `. [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' ! `. `Ž gpg: B345BDD3 `- Please don't cc, I'm subscribed to the list signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Debian-uk] Sun have (probably) patented apt-get
Stephen Birch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 4 Jul 2005, at 11:44 am, Wookey wrote: Take a look at this patent (granted this week in europe) http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP1170667 I'm fairly sure that apt-get and associated package-integratity checking tools could be considered infringing. (Does dpkg/apt have a modular structure?) It seems that when RMS cried the sky is falling [this time regarding patents] he was, once again, absolutely correct. Software patents are the single biggest threat not only to the open source movement but also to small/medium sized software companies. Note that this particular patent is: EP Status: Granted. Within 9 month opposition window So if you have *proof of prior art* you can oppose the patent grant In practical terms, this means someone who can prove that the Debian Packaging system does this. Which probably means an Official Debian Person sending the letter, with dates of when the technology was introduced into Debian, and perhaps extracts from the Packaging Manuals of the period to show this. cheers, Rich. -- rich walker | Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED] technical director 251 Liverpool Road | need a Hand? London N1 1LX | +UK 20 7700 2487 www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian-uk] Sun have (probably) patented apt-get
Quoting Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Stephen Birch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 4 Jul 2005, at 11:44 am, Wookey wrote: Take a look at this patent (granted this week in europe) http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP1170667 I'm fairly sure that apt-get and associated package-integratity checking tools could be considered infringing. (Does dpkg/apt have a modular structure?) It seems that when RMS cried the sky is falling [this time regarding patents] he was, once again, absolutely correct. Software patents are the single biggest threat not only to the open source movement but also to small/medium sized software companies. Note that this particular patent is: EP Status: Granted. Within 9 month opposition window So if you have *proof of prior art* you can oppose the patent grant In practical terms, this means someone who can prove that the Debian Packaging system does this. Which probably means an Official Debian Person sending the letter, with dates of when the technology was introduced into Debian, and perhaps extracts from the Packaging Manuals of the period to show this. YEARS (!) ago I wrote the script that did the pre-upgrades to 'bo' (I _think_ it was to 'bo' any way :). It basically only ftp'd (or was it wget?) required packages from the Debian GNU/Linux FTP site(s), installed them and then allowed the user/admin to continue with the upgrade... Now, that seems like 'prior art' to me (even to apt-get :). -- nitrate quiche Kennedy NSA Honduras Uzi kibo smuggle NORAD munitions ammunition cryptographic Marxist cracking KGB [See http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/index.html for more about this] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian-uk] Sun have (probably) patented apt-get
* Turbo Fredriksson: YEARS (!) ago I wrote the script that did the pre-upgrades to 'bo' (I _think_ it was to 'bo' any way :). It basically only ftp'd (or was it wget?) required packages from the Debian GNU/Linux FTP site(s), installed them and then allowed the user/admin to continue with the upgrade... Now, that seems like 'prior art' to me (even to apt-get :). Alas, the patent is about software testing frameworks, and not about software distribution. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian-uk] Sun have (probably) patented apt-get
Moritz Muehlenhoff([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-07-06 12:45: Europe, its time to choose. It has chosen a few minutes ago; the commision's directive has been rejected by the European parliament. This is not as good as the solution proposed in the first reading or the amendments made by Mr. Rocard, but it's still pretty much a victory for the Free software world. Let's hope that this will lead to the invalidation of the 30,000 software patents already granted by the European patent body. Well done Europe. This is great news for small business, open source, and freedom in general. Now if only the USA would stand up to the bully boys and revoke the insane software patent laws in America ... Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian-uk] Sun have (probably) patented apt-get
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stephen Birch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 4 Jul 2005, at 11:44 am, Wookey wrote: Take a look at this patent (granted this week in europe) http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP1170667 I'm fairly sure that apt-get and associated package-integratity checking tools could be considered infringing. (Does dpkg/apt have a modular structure?) It seems that when RMS cried the sky is falling [this time regarding patents] he was, once again, absolutely correct. Software patents are the single biggest threat not only to the open source movement but also to small/medium sized software companies. Note that this particular patent is: EP Status: Granted. Within 9 month opposition window So if you have *proof of prior art* you can oppose the patent grant In practical terms, this means someone who can prove that the Debian Packaging system does this. Which probably means an Official Debian Person sending the letter, with dates of when the technology was introduced into Debian, and perhaps extracts from the Packaging Manuals of the period to show this. cheers, Rich. Would that mean Debian gets ownership of the patent then and Sun would have to pay us? MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debian-uk] Sun have (probably) patented apt-get
On 7/6/05, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would that mean Debian gets ownership of the patent then and Sun would have to pay us? No, as far as I understand it means the patent isn't valid.
Re: [Debian-uk] Sun have (probably) patented apt-get
Hi guys!! IANAL IANADD, but, AFAICU, this relates much more to Linda/Lintian devscripts then to apt. (See points #12 and #13) In this case, i think that yes, debian and other distros can prove this patent invalid. But again i repeat, IANAL. Would that mean Debian gets ownership of the patent then and Sun would have to pay us? It'll be cool to see the magic turn against the wizard. ;-D See you. Fabricio -- KDE: 'cause there's no G in DESKTOP. KDE: pq não tem G em DESKTOP.
Re: [Debian-uk] Sun have (probably) patented apt-get
Stephen == Stephen Birch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stephen It seems that when RMS cried the sky is falling [this Stephen time regarding patents] he was, once again, absolutely Stephen correct. Software patents are the single biggest threat Stephen not only to the open source movement but also to Stephen small/medium sized software companies. Apparently Microsoft has applied for a patents around the world covering XML-based word processors, including supposedly Docbook, Abiword, and Kword, by Microsoft[1]. Different articles give different impressions on how far this process has come. If this isn't bad enough, there is a patent of the word Stealth[2]. References: [1] http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/07/05/1120329438947.html (reg required) http://www.tectonic.co.za/view.php?id=502(public) [2] http://theage.com.au/articles/2005/07/05/1120329445828.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/04/business/04stealth.html (both require registration) Man of few words speaks language of litigation July 6, 2005 It's no hoax. A man who claims to own the trademark on the word 'stealth' even did battle over the military bomber, writes Colin Moynihan. Can a man own a word? And can he sue to keep other people from using it? Over the past few years, Leo Stoller has written dozens of letters to companies, organisations and individuals stating that he owns the trademark to the word stealth. He has threatened to sue people who have used the word without his permission. In some cases, he has offered to drop objections in exchange for thousands of dollars. And in a few instances, people or companies have paid up. Stoller, a 59-year-old entrepreneur based in Chicago, owns and runs Rentamark. com, a company that offers, among other things, advice on sending cease-and-desist letters and Stoller's services as an expert witness in trademark trials. Through Rentamark, Stoller offers licensing agreements for other words he says he owns and controls, such as bootlegger, hoax and chutzpah. He is in a legal dispute with Sony's Columbia Pictures over a film about navy pilots titled - what else? - Stealth. Stoller said he first registered stealth as a trademark in 1985 to cover an array of sporting goods. But in recent years, stealth has become widely used in marketing. Companies including Kmart and the consumer electronics maker JVC have removed stealth from their websites after hearing from Stoller. Panasonic omitted the word from a product called the stealth wired remote zoom/pause control after receiving one of his letters. If you can solve problems without going to court you're better off, said Russell Rotter, a lawyer for Panasonic. The best-known stealth brand may be the US military's B2 stealth bomber, whose main contractor, Northrop Grumman, has fought Stoller to something of stand-off. In 2001, the company paid Stoller $10 and agreed to abandon its trademark applications to use stealth bomber in spin-off products like model aeroplanes and video games. In return, Stoller agreed not to oppose Northrop's use of stealth in aircraft or defence equipment. Trademark owners can obtain the right to use a word for commercial purposes and prevent others from seeking to use the same word for similar commercial purposes. A search of US Patent and Trademark Office records found that Stoller and companies that share a Chicago post office box with him hold at least two dozen registered trademarks for stealth, for such diverse products and services as crossbows, pool cues and insurance consultations. Stoller said that he also held and administered as many as two dozen other stealth trademarks. We're entitled to own it with all goods and services, he said. We were there first. But Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School, said: Trademark law doesn't give you exclusive rights in words, only the right to prevent consumer confusion. He's not in a position to claim that his mark is unique or famous. It's a common English word that's already been used in many contexts as a trademark by others. Stoller says his companies have been in court 60 times but there is no record within the Lexis database of a Federal Court decision on stealth in his favour. But in 2003, the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board refused to allow an air conditioner company, York International, to use stealth because Stoller had previously sold air conditioners with that name. Stoller has also been on the receiving end of lawsuits. In 1997, the watchmaker Timex, which held a trademark for stealth watches, successfully sued him in Federal Court in Connecticut for trademark infringement. Eric Goldhagen, a member of the free technology training group InterActivist Network, said: The fact that somebody, just by claiming to own a word, can intimidate large companies and powerful law firms shows the damage, to an extent, is already done. In the movie realm, Stoller says that he wrote to Sony in March, objecting to
Re: [Debian-uk] Sun have (probably) patented apt-get
Turbo == Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Turbo YEARS (!) ago I wrote the script that did the pre-upgrades Turbo to 'bo' (I _think_ it was to 'bo' any way :). It basically Turbo only ftp'd (or was it wget?) required packages from the Turbo Debian GNU/Linux FTP site(s), installed them and then Turbo allowed the user/admin to continue with the upgrade... Turbo Now, that seems like 'prior art' to me (even to apt-get :). Did you publish it? I think it only counts as prior-art if you published it in some public forum (not sure of the exact criteria). If it was a private thing, then it doesn't count. -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
