During the Wi-Fi standardisation, CSIRO's patented IP was knowingly included in the standard. CSIRO stated that they would be happy for this to happen, provided they could collect a small royalty on Wi-Fi hardware.
Will the IEEE really ratify a standard that might get you sued? Some earlier poster linked to an article on 802.11n that says no.
your corporations expect everyone else to acknowledge their IP and now they would blatantly disregard someone else's? Hypocrisy and greed, not that I've come to expect anything else from American companies.
Although I believe you would not have began your comment had you fully understood the poster to whom you were replying, I feel that where your comment ended up going is more interesting, and here is a follow-up:
I think some technologies simply work better for society when they are not encumbered by intellectual property. Why then don't governments ever purchase patents from private sector researchers on behalf of the public? In such a scenario, would it make sense to export those patents to members of other countries who did not fund the research? I like freedom, so I'm inclined to say yes to anything that makes people more free to do whatever they want, but I can understand why you might disagree.
Having said that, I'll ask: are CSIRO patents automatically licensed to the Austrialian public?
I think this may be what the poster you were replying to was originally getting at: are Australian tax-payers being duped into funding some kind of exotic publicly-funded-yet-private R&D outfit?
Anonymous Coward has a point. Mod him up!
Is it always bigotry if someone is intolerant of a religion? What if there's an article about suicide cults, and I tag it 'heavensgate'? Bigotry? What if there's an article about female circumcision, and I tag it 'islam'? I'm just curious as to where the line is drawn. Personally, I think religion has unfairly worked itself into a position where to criticize it is seen as bigotry tantamount to racism, which is absurd.
Does this summary read like shameless propaganda to anyone else? I'm such a big Firefox fan I have been running bleeding edge nightlies of Tracemonkey for months, but this Slashdot story summary has left a bad taste in my mouth.
Think of all that's happening right now: Safari keeps gaining in popularity. Chrome was released not terribly long ago. The Gnome crowd is moving away from Gecko into the open arms of WebKit.
Yet this summary would lead any reader to believe that this was the greatest and most triumphant moment in Firefox's history!
Reading this even manages to make the fixing of eight "critical vulnerabilities" sound like such a great achievement that we should consider creating a new one for every one we excise, just so we have something more to celebrate about in the future!
I love Firefox, but damn! Shame on nandemoari. Shame on CmdrTaco. Shame on Slashdot!
Didn't Al Gore propose a similar tax program?
But as you said before:
They want you to transfer copyright as an employee or contractor would in USA. This would allow them to add additional licenses or what if they wish
If I did not own the copyright to any part of my submission, I would not be able to transfer the copyright to a third party.
2) The open source license clearly gives you the ability to keep working on the code after you give it to them (anyone can). but I guess this would restrict entrant author from offering it commercially and open source (say how MySQL does). AGAIN, no different than I see if you work for a company as an employee and the company has copyright and your job ends.
That is my point, actually: if I don't win the prize, can I not rebrand it for another company?
The rules of the contest say this:
Required elements for web interface pages:
Does this mean entrants do not own the copyright to the web design portion of the contest?
(Btw, in case you thought this was just about adding a web-based front-end to an existing product, think again: this is about designing intuitive user interfaces for complex networking options. Not a trivial task.)
Someday somebody has got to decide whether the typewriter is the machine, or the person who operates it.
