Re: KDE violates IBM patent
if (caps_lock_on)
{
beep(0.5);
printf(Your caps lock is on.\n);
}
So this infringes on a IBM patent. great I hope IBM employees are
thrilled about working for such an innovative and forward looking company.
Robert.
On Friday 11 June 2004 14:52, you wrote:
On June 8, 2004 IBM was awarded a patent for:
A Caps Lock notification method, system, mechanism, algorithm,
and computer program product. A determination is made as to
whether a Caps Lock key of a computer keyboard is in an error
state, based on ascertaining whether a first condition has been
satisfied. If it is so determined that the Caps Lock key is in an
error state, then a signal is generated to communicate to a user
at the computer keyboard that the Caps Lock key is in the error
state. The signal may be a visual signal, an audible signal, a
tactile signal, an auditory signal, or a combination thereof.
Satisfaction of a second condition may be used to disable the
signal.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2Sect2=HITOFF;
p=1u=/netahtml/search-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50co1=ANDd=ptxts1='c
aps+lock'OS=%22caps+lock%22RS=%22caps+lock%22
Recent versions of KDE infringe this patent at the log-in screen.
Where do we go to get our license?
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Which license to use for MFC based software?
Does anybody have a link to the Microsoft SDK EULA's in question, I'd like to study the document. Cheers, Robert. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source
Just a coupe of corrections: On Tuesday 27 January 2004 21:11, Robert Osfield wrote: The software patents directive which so far has been turned around at first vote in EP vote back in the summer which ratified that pure software is patentable, as per the 1974 Europen Patent Convention. Should read: The software patents directive which so far has been turned around at first vote in EP vote back in *September* which ratified that pure software is *not* patentable, as per the 1974 European Patent Convention. Regards, Robert. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source
Hi Alex, On Wednesday 28 January 2004 15:19, Alexander Terekhov wrote: As an individual (being not at work and not part of some collaborative product development community [CPL terms are the best for it, I believe]), I release the code straight into the public domain, for example: www.terekhov.de/pthread_refcount_t/experimental/refcount.cpp I too have written ref counting code, open sourced of course. But this really doesn't have any relevance on whether SW-pats are good or bad, and nothing to do with whats going on in EU. Rober Osfield wrote: [...] The software patents directive which so far has been turned around at first vote in EP vote back in *September* which ratified that pure software is *not* patentable, as per the 1974 European Patent Convention. http://www.ipjur.com/2003_09_01_archive.php3 quote The misinformation campaign staged by the Eurolinux Alliance is really horrendous. /quote It is interesting that you quote one of the most pro software patent activists in Europe for nice unbiased analysis. To balance things here's a some background on the Author of this report Axel H Horns : http://swpat.ffii.org/players/horns/index.en.html Feel free to interpret what you think is the truth and from whom, I'll let the members of the list make their own opinions. I would suggest you take time to understand the concerns of others over software patents. We don't all have the luxury of being employed by a big corporations with big law departments. This doesn't make us less innovative or our opinions any less valid, but it does make use very aware of vulnerabilities and risks to our livelihood. Robert. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source
On Wednesday 28 January 2004 17:59, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Robert Osfield wrote: [...] vulnerabilities and risks to our livelihood. If you don't intend to eliminate all IP laws (as an ultimate solution to the problem of vulnerabilities and risks), then something like www.pubpat.org is the way to go, I think. I certainly wish to eliminate all Intelectual Property laws, but I do believe in appropriate Intelectual Property laws. I don't believe that Software Patents are good for the Software Industry or Consumers, but I believe very strongly in Copyright law's applicability to the Software Industry. We *publish* our works which Copyright is designed for and fits pefectly. I welcome the help that Public Patent Foundation might provide in reducing the harmful affects of in appropriate Patenting, but its gotta be said this is a band aid rather than a cure for the problems that Software Patents can bring. Fixing the Directive's in European to ensure that pure Software and Business Methods arn't Patentable in Europe and elsewhere is very much preferable and effective as its cures the problem at the outset, rather than try to fix it late and downstream. Robert. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source
Another interesting read is the U.S. Federal Trade Commission reaserch into patent policy and competition policy, you find extracts at: http://www.ffii.org.uk/ftc/ftc.html The conclusion are that in the software sector competition is much more important factor in driving innovation than patent protection. Robert. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source
Hi Ken, On Tuesday 27 January 2004 20:16, Ken Brown wrote: I am really interested in this stuff. First all, I have to say that I suspect a tad bit of paranoia in the reporting about what's happening overseas. Not overseas for me. I'm based in the Scotland, very much part of the EU for better or for worse. I prefer to be view myself as informed is being even a tad bit paranoid :) What sources are you quoting that talk about criminalization for patent infringement? Here's some source of information on the European situation. Basically there's two directives the Directive on Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement and the Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. Two source for these are respectively: http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/IPEnforcementDirective http://ffii.org/ Both directives are controversial, the IP enforcement covers software patents and includes highly controversal criminal sanctions section. This is will go to the vote in the European Parliament (EP) in early February. The software patents directive which so far has been turned around at first vote in EP vote back in the summer which ratified that pure software is patentable, as per the 1974 Europen Patent Convention. However, the likes of IBM, Microsoft, Nokia, the patent lawyers are heavily lobbying to revert back to making software patentable. The Europen Commision is pro software patent, as is the Concil. The Council and the Commision aren't democratic bodies or carry out their work in public. Currently the Directive is back in the hands of the Council. So this particular battle is far from one. Once the Council has amended the directive, it'll be back to the EP for a final vote. I'm not an expert on this matters, its best to go to the above links, join the mailing lists, sign the call for action etc. Meanwhile, Red Hat is a patent holder. What say you about that? The thing called defensive patenting, so its nothing to worry about while the patents sit there idle. A waste of Red Hats time and money, but nothing too worrisome. The problem comes when the likes of Red Hat start to think they have nothing to loose and go on the Patent offensive. I can't ever imagine Red Hat becoming another SCO but management and circumstances can change. The real dangers lurk in other organisations though, the ones with more patents, or less to loose by unleashing them. Robert. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
