A major problem is not whether Wayland supports old X applications but instead that new Wayland applications are not going to be network transparent like X ones. That limits them to one to one network connection via third party hacks like VNC instead of the many to one and one to many options that X gives you. It's a backwards step to the non-networked, single user, single platform mindset.
And if you are stuck with the software that (1) has no shell interface and (2) insists on using a modern toolkit such as QT for rendering 3D widgets to a local screen, then you are stuck with an application which is not intended by the authors to be network-transparent, and Wayland isn't designed to solve this problem. Wayland is for drawing pixels to a local screen. Give it the right kind of app, and it will render it a browser window with 3D shadows, animations, and anything you bloody want, with no tearing, no flicker, no lag of any kind.
You are almost certainly right, about the motives as well as about the likely effect.
To this I may add, the submitter's bias (or complete lack of effort to present the NPoV) is clear in the blurb. Patent trolls are "disrupting competition"? Really? The whole point of the patent system is to disrupt the competition, by giving out almost life-time exclusive rights for implementing ideas. Yet patent lovers keep repeating the same nonsense: in their world, monopolies spur the competition.
Another piece of nonsense which is not in the blurb, but certainly is in TFA, is the assumption that patents improve innovation. How can they possibly do that? A patented thing can only be improved by the rights holder, usually a very small entity, of which the R&D team is again a tiny fraction. Libre things can be improved and brought to the market by researchers, engineers, and manufacturers anywhere in the world. Even a dummy can understand that the only serious incentive provided by the patent system is to misappropriate as many broad ideas as possible, so that no one can even sneeze without paying royalties.
Wake me up when they start tearing down this house. This law is almost certainly another step backwards for the consumer and the small inventor.
Hehehe. I, for one, don't understand for the life of me why it is OK to share videos of soldiers shooting at children with automatic weapons, for real. Or what Lucas did with kids in the prequels. How is that OK, and a depiction of a fictional sex abuse act is not OK? I think children involved in actual acts would strongly agree with me, too.
Or what about any movie where a super-villain is trying to destroy the world? Why are we OK with looking at that imagery? Isn't that the worst fucking thing that one can try to do? Why do people get gold prizes for depicting this, and prison time for monkeys with no clothes on?
This whole bit of FUD is based on taking two words out of context in a list of features that Samsung could have changed to not infringe in the German design patent infringement case. Specifically, Apple said that their patent claimed A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H, etc. with one of those things being rounded corners.
Look at the patent, which, by the way, has 1 content-free claim (you didn't know that?), and a few crude pictures. I remember drawing things like that in high school. All I claim is that it's been thought of before, but nice trolling.
Note that Stallman's solution doesn't include either of those requirements, and therefore lacks the same moral justification.
So his argument is flawed because he didn't chew it up for you like I did? Try again.
It is sickening in the extreme to think that it's possible to deny other people access to information, simply because you thought of it first.
It's worse than that. Patents don't deny access to information, but they curtail our freedom to help each other. And those who register patents almost never think of it first. Did Apple think first of a rectangular device with rounded corners?
As usual, Richard Stallman has a great solution:
We should legislate that developing, distributing, or running a program on generally used computing hardware does not constitute patent infringement.
This will work because a very similar law already works in the medical field. Just like surgeons, who can safely ignore procedural patents to save lives, programmers and distributors of free software deserve complete patent immunity because their work is entirely gratis, and benefits the whole world.
Wired article (gods help you if you don't use adblock and noscript).