This is all very nice, complaining about the creep-o politician. But as an American, I want to know the name of the bar, and the name of the owner who would do such a stupid thing. Where I'm from, one off-color remark to an African-American closed a bar AND forced the owner to move. I certainly think that a similar fate has been earned by this individual, whoever he/she is. The press needs to stop shielding the owner, so that people can boycott the establishment.
Since the government of France sees fit to allow a lawsuit against SourceForge, I think SourceForge (and any other websites concerned with filesharing, or freedom in general) should filter all French IPs. If the French people care, they will change the law. If they don't care, then there's no loss. There's just no reason (that I can think of) to expose a great hosting site like SourceForge to a risk like this.
I further think that this should go for any country (or state) who tries to push their law onto the internet. It's a cheap and easy way (IMHO) to deal with this type of thing, Kentucky included!
Yay, "Anonymous Coward" is a first year law student! He knows a "Best Evidence Rule", and therefore understands the entire French law system (even though he is not fully conversant in French) and can therefore relate this case better than anyone else.
Sorry, but you are in the same boat as the rest of us. Regardless of your training in American, Canadian, or British law, it does not train you in French law. You are just being an arrogant jerk.
Wow! You made my argument for me. You claim software patents "serve the purpose of protecting the investors who fund innovation." The purpose of patents is to encourage innovation, not protect investors. And if it was so important, why didn't it exist prior to 1999 in any real form? And why has R&D spending in the US remained flat in the past 50 years?
I have never had a problem with "classic" patents. With a real product, you have R&D, toolup, manufacturing, transportation, and marketing to pay for. That's a significant amount of time and money. But software? I've built apps in 6 months that rivaled commercial apps. And once their even slightly done, they're ready to go out the door. I'm a professional programmer who is totally against software patents. I've rarely seen a piece of truly innovative software, and I can't recall a single piece of innovative software produced by a corporation who patented, or would want to patent, that innovation. Some of the greatest innovations, in my opinion, where made by John Carmack (of ID Software), and he publicly hates software patents!
Maybe you aren't aware of what has been patented, but one-click, double-click, and FAT are not new ideas, and not remotely innovative, IMHO.
I guess no one told these guys that Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning, not a manual. (Or a bible!) The fact that Wired is pretty consistently running these articles is really disturbing. They were rebels, now they're corporate muggles.
"The Poor Man's Steadycam, for example, is available to purchase, and Lee has made a quarter of a million dollars from it"
How's that for a business model? More than I made in the last 4 years, and that's just one of his inventions...Mike, you totally own these guys! I am laughing my ass off! Just like the NIN and RadioHead stuff, protectionists are artificial, unnecessary, and soon to be extinct. They'll probably go with the mainframes. No time soon, but the writing is on the wall...
Darn that enter key!
What I was trying to say was that Microsoft only benefited from the lack of ip throughout its existence. The pc, Microsoft's reason for being, would have been "just another computer" had someone at IBM not forgotten to copyright the bios calls properly. Then, they copied the GUI concept from Xerox, copied the GUI from Lotus 123 for MS Excel, and the GUI from Word Perfect for MS Word. Nothing was original, except that they all WORKED and they all WORKED TOGETHER. This "interoperability" is the true power an innovation of Microsoft, and it's being eroded by ip-obsessed lawyers who have gone to far towards the top.
Is that the bulk of game buyers really DON'T seem to care about the DRM. Spore is #1 in sales, and expected to stay there for some time. I'm with craig d, I spend hundreds of dollars a year on games, and all of them above board. I also buy used games, and I would never touch a title that wanted to put a rootkit on my machine!
Consumers are voting with their wallets. craig d and I are in the minority, and the bulk of the gamers will happily and blindly install whatever it takes to play that big, bad game, and, "I told you so" is hardly a consolation when the virus that utilizes the kit wipes out everyone's hard drive.
Then again, can Joe Sixpack be expected to know that he is getting a rootkit implanted in his OS? I think a big orange sticker stating "Overly invasive DRM required for installation" should be placed on every box. Since "98.8%" of the gamers don't care about DRM, it won't hurt their sales at all, right?
After dealing with the Jack Daniels lawyers, there was no love anymore.
I've actually been to the site. It was pretty cool, the guy had a bunch of web authoring reference cards (css, etc) that I printed out and would check out whenever I had a brain fart. I thought is was great free publicity for the Daniels brand. Now, I'll be sure never to touch the stuff. Way to go, lawyers!
I was really hoping that the UK would hold out and become the example which would show the folly of software patents. Sounds like my hopes will be dashed, and no one will be free of the nasty things.
No! Please don't provoke it!
I wasted two hours trading posts before I realized it was just a troll... it contradicted the "patent versus secrecy" argument in it's next post.
I should have known anyone who would post 5 two-screen comments was a troll.
Again with the personal attacks. Don't worry, Dosquatch, it means you made a point.
Apparently you have to have owned a slave to know that slavery is wrong. You have to shoot a man to know that murder is wrong. You can't use reason and say, "Wow, that's wrong, and here's why." That's what this entire site is about: what is wrong with IP, and why it's wrong. George Washington Carver invented lots of things, and even patented one. He turned that patent over to the public domain. Hey! An IP owner who knew what to do!
And a "closed mind" dig as well! I must have hit a nerve, the discussion has gotten personal!
This has gone far off the point: corporations should NOT be allowed to own "intellectual property." Why? Because they have shown the tendency to use it to stifle innovation, and the patent applications are written in such a way that you can't get around them. I'm happy that you're interested in antennae and guided missles: I'm interested in coding graphics and games. And it really pisses me off that I have to do a patent search before I can release an app as shareware, 'cause some corporate jerk may have already patented the algorythm I'm using to calculate shadows! And why would it be a corporate jerk? Because very few INDIVIDUALS can fund a $6,000-$25,000 patent search/application! The bottomless pockets of the corporations have taken patents from the only ones worth protecting.
PS: You gotta be kidding me about switching cell towers. I don't know a single person who doesn't complain about how that DOESN'T work!
On the post: Belgian Politician Caught Drunk In NYC Bar; Blames Bloggers
Re: Re: The bar/owner
You voted for Bush both terms, didn't you?
On the post: Belgian Politician Caught Drunk In NYC Bar; Blames Bloggers
The bar/owner
On the post: French Recording Industry Sues SourceForge For Hosting Open Source P2P
Seriously, though
I further think that this should go for any country (or state) who tries to push their law onto the internet. It's a cheap and easy way (IMHO) to deal with this type of thing, Kentucky included!
On the post: French Recording Industry Sues SourceForge For Hosting Open Source P2P
Re:
Sorry, but you are in the same boat as the rest of us. Regardless of your training in American, Canadian, or British law, it does not train you in French law. You are just being an arrogant jerk.
On the post: Google Faces Patent Extortion From Russia
Re: Prior Art?
On the post: Justice Department May Have Just Killed Yahoo; Google Drops Partnership
Re: Re: This Stinks
I personally agree with you, it's really just less suck than the other OS's.
On the post: Harvard Bails Out On Google Book Scanning Deal; Disagrees With Settlement Terms
Re: Project Gutenberg
On the post: Court Greatly Limits Software And Business Method Patents
Re:
I have never had a problem with "classic" patents. With a real product, you have R&D, toolup, manufacturing, transportation, and marketing to pay for. That's a significant amount of time and money. But software? I've built apps in 6 months that rivaled commercial apps. And once their even slightly done, they're ready to go out the door.
I'm a professional programmer who is totally against software patents. I've rarely seen a piece of truly innovative software, and I can't recall a single piece of innovative software produced by a corporation who patented, or would want to patent, that innovation. Some of the greatest innovations, in my opinion, where made by John Carmack (of ID Software), and he publicly hates software patents!
Maybe you aren't aware of what has been patented, but one-click, double-click, and FAT are not new ideas, and not remotely innovative, IMHO.
On the post: Court Greatly Limits Software And Business Method Patents
Wow!
Naw, I think they always smell that way.
On the post: The Web Thrived In Spite Of The DMCA, Not Because Of It
Assimilated...
On the post: What A Concept: Sharing New Inventions With The World Is Good For The Inventor
Business model?
How's that for a business model? More than I made in the last 4 years, and that's just one of his inventions...Mike, you totally own these guys! I am laughing my ass off! Just like the NIN and RadioHead stuff, protectionists are artificial, unnecessary, and soon to be extinct. They'll probably go with the mainframes. No time soon, but the writing is on the wall...
On the post: A Business Relationship Built At The End Of A Pointy Stick Isn't Much Of A Relationship
Microsoft wouldn't be around part 2
What I was trying to say was that Microsoft only benefited from the lack of ip throughout its existence. The pc, Microsoft's reason for being, would have been "just another computer" had someone at IBM not forgotten to copyright the bios calls properly. Then, they copied the GUI concept from Xerox, copied the GUI from Lotus 123 for MS Excel, and the GUI from Word Perfect for MS Word. Nothing was original, except that they all WORKED and they all WORKED TOGETHER. This "interoperability" is the true power an innovation of Microsoft, and it's being eroded by ip-obsessed lawyers who have gone to far towards the top.
On the post: A Business Relationship Built At The End Of A Pointy Stick Isn't Much Of A Relationship
Microsoft wouldn't be around...
On the post: A Business Relationship Built At The End Of A Pointy Stick Isn't Much Of A Relationship
Re: Re: Breaking a logjam
On the post: Amazon Caught Deleting Negative EA DRM-Related Reviews... Again
What really sucks...
Consumers are voting with their wallets. craig d and I are in the minority, and the bulk of the gamers will happily and blindly install whatever it takes to play that big, bad game, and, "I told you so" is hardly a consolation when the virus that utilizes the kit wipes out everyone's hard drive.
Then again, can Joe Sixpack be expected to know that he is getting a rootkit implanted in his OS? I think a big orange sticker stating "Overly invasive DRM required for installation" should be placed on every box. Since "98.8%" of the gamers don't care about DRM, it won't hurt their sales at all, right?
Kinda reminds me of the Monty Python skit...
On the post: Sucks Sites May Be Legal... But What About Loves Sites?
It's simple, really
I've actually been to the site. It was pretty cool, the guy had a bunch of web authoring reference cards (css, etc) that I printed out and would check out whenever I had a brain fart. I thought is was great free publicity for the Daniels brand. Now, I'll be sure never to touch the stuff. Way to go, lawyers!
On the post: UK Takes One More Step Towards Software Patents
Sad...
On the post: The Evolution Of The App Dock: Apple Didn't Invent It And Doesn't Deserve A Patent On It
Re: Booo
I wasted two hours trading posts before I realized it was just a troll... it contradicted the "patent versus secrecy" argument in it's next post.
I should have known anyone who would post 5 two-screen comments was a troll.
On the post: Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Explains How Intellectual Property Damages Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Freaking punks
Again with the personal attacks. Don't worry, Dosquatch, it means you made a point.
Apparently you have to have owned a slave to know that slavery is wrong. You have to shoot a man to know that murder is wrong. You can't use reason and say, "Wow, that's wrong, and here's why." That's what this entire site is about: what is wrong with IP, and why it's wrong. George Washington Carver invented lots of things, and even patented one. He turned that patent over to the public domain. Hey! An IP owner who knew what to do!
On the post: Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Explains How Intellectual Property Damages Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artificial entities and patents don't mix.
And a "closed mind" dig as well!
I must have hit a nerve, the discussion has gotten personal!
This has gone far off the point: corporations should NOT be allowed to own "intellectual property." Why? Because they have shown the tendency to use it to stifle innovation, and the patent applications are written in such a way that you can't get around them. I'm happy that you're interested in antennae and guided missles: I'm interested in coding graphics and games. And it really pisses me off that I have to do a patent search before I can release an app as shareware, 'cause some corporate jerk may have already patented the algorythm I'm using to calculate shadows! And why would it be a corporate jerk? Because very few INDIVIDUALS can fund a $6,000-$25,000 patent search/application! The bottomless pockets of the corporations have taken patents from the only ones worth protecting.
PS: You gotta be kidding me about switching cell towers. I don't know a single person who doesn't complain about how that DOESN'T work!
Next >>