Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Not the end... (Score 1) 789

He did not want to use it against NATO troops, what is even stupider, he wanted to use it against Ukrainian troops. Considering how close Luhansk and Donetsk to Russian territories including quite a big city of Rostov, if there were fallout, good chance it would be also over Russia.

As for defending the Ukraine in return of becoming non-nuclear state, it was not NATO, it was US, GB and Russia in Budapest Memorandum of 1994. After taking over the Crimea peninsula, Russian Premier Medvedev effectively reneged of their responsibilities, stating that the memorandum meant to protect the Ukraine against the third countries and not the guarantors themselves.

Comment Re:Prior Art Exists. (Score 1) 264

What are you talking about? It is PI with a period.

Word Mark PI
Goods and Services IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms. FIRST USE: 20090622. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20100622
Mark Drawing Code (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM
Serial Number 85785006
Filing Date November 21, 2012
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition November 12, 2013
Registration Number 4473631
Registration Date January 28, 2014
Owner (REGISTRANT) Paul Ingrisano AKA PI Productions Corp INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 1933 73rd street brooklyn NEW YORK 11204
Description of Mark Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the pi mathematical symbol followed by a period.
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Comment Re:Some fundamental, unchecked assumption here ? (Score 1) 210

This is the coolest picture I have seen for a while.

If you look where we are, it is about on the same level as if there was no protection at all.

What it means, is that the current system exists solely for the benefits of the patent lawyers. Moreover, if the protection is strengthened it will reduce the innovation further and thus diminish lawyers' area of application. If the protection is relaxed the innovation will boost but it also will leave some money on the table to be converted into actual innovator's revenue.

So the level of protection is stabilized at the level where all the innovation benefits are fully converted into patent lawyer's benefits thus maximizing their revenue from bang for buck perspective without being actually beneficial to a patent holder.

But that conclusion should be pretty obvious, is not it?

Patents

Submission + - Red Hat claims patent on SOAP over CGI? (digitalmajority.org) 1

WMGarrison writes: "US Patent 7453593 claims command-line processing by a web server of SOAP requests, resulting in XML responses, from and to a remote client. The HTTP Common Gateway Interface (CGI) operates precisely as described in Claim 1. If you POST a SOAP document and return an XHTML response or a SOAP document, this infringes on Claim 2, since both XHTML and SOAP are XML languages. This patent thus claims to own the processing of SOAP documents by CGI programs."

Comment Re:GPL a pretty good shield. (Score 3, Interesting) 147

This is not a question of preventing patent trolls from patenting the same thing.

Firstly, because AMQP has hundreds or thousands of areas that could be similarly patented: failover, federation, many types of exchange, remote administration, etc. It only takes one patent to hold the whole standard to ransom. Red Hat would have to patent every single technical aspect of the standard, which would be impossible in practical terms.

Secondly, because there are much cheaper ways of stopping patent trolls from patenting obvious things: publish them, register them as prior art at the USPTO.

It's naive to think that the only way patents are used is to 'go after' projects. 99% of the time, patents of this sort are used in discrete discussions with potential clients. "You know, we hold a patent on that... (hint hint)". This is enough to scare the customer into at least not using a rival product, open source or not. Indeed, patents that make it to court tend to die rather faster than patents used under the table.

The irony of this patent is that technically, it's not that interesting. Dynamic message routing on XML is not difficult, but not efficient. It's much faster to pre-calculate routing keys and indices, as the existing AMQP exchanges do.

So I think Red Hat are simply playing the game of collecting software patents like points.

However, I really expected better from Red Hat.

Comment Re:I Believe in Trolls (Score 1) 147

It's pretty difficult to see this story as representative of a legitimate concern, at least of any informed person. Among all of the major distributions of Linux, Red Hat is probably the most Free Software oriented (except perhaps for Debian). As a member of OIN, they contribute patents licensed to other members in order to create a defence against patent lawsuits. They've repeatedly and consistently put their money into Free Software by purchasing desirable products and re-licensing them under the GPL. They're one of the largest contributors of code to the Linux kernel, GNU libc, gcc, GNOME, and other core components of GNU/Linux distributions.

And after all of that, the very notion of Red Hat suiting up to sue Free Software developers is completely ridiculous, because doing so would void their license to distribute the software.

This article is just another troll painting one of the Free Software community's leaders in an undeserved poor light. Whether the author is completely ignorant of the subject matter, or is intentionally trolling, this story deserves a place in the dust bin.

All patenting around open standards is a concern, both to developers of the standards, and users. A patent holder's intentions may, and often do, change over the course of the 20 years the patent may exist.

In this case, Red Hat seem to be seeking "ownership" of areas around the standard. They don't need to sue anyone to establish this, that is a straw man. The simple fact of owning patents is enough to scare potential customers away from competitors.

I've personally worked with Red Hat in fighting software patents in Europe but would not consider this story to be a troll. Any FOSS firm that is willing to spend money on patents, but not the fight against software patents (and I can tell you that to the best of my knowledge RHAT are not funding the main European groups against software patents), is working the wrong side.

So this story seems relevant if only to highlight how behaviour changes when money is involved.

When Red Hat seek software patents around an open standard, that's news.

Patents

Red Hat Patenting Around Open Standards 147

I Believe in Unicorns writes "Red Hat's patent policy says 'In an attempt to protect and promote the open source community, Red Hat has elected to... develop a corresponding portfolio of software patents for defensive purposes. We do so reluctantly...' Meanwhile, USPTO Application #: 20090063418, 'Method and an apparatus to deliver messages between applications,' claims a patent on routing messages using an XQuery match, which is an extension of the 'unencumbered' AMQP protocol that Red Hat is helping to make. Is this a defensive patent, or is Red Hat cynically staking out a software patent claim to an obvious extension of AMQP? Is Red Hat's promise to 'refrain from enforcing the infringed patent' against open source a reliable contract, or a trap for the unwary? Given the Microsoft-Red Hat deal in February, are we seeing Red Hat's 'Novell Moment?'" Reader Defeat_Globalism contributes a related story about an international research team who conducted experiments to "quantify the ways patent systems and market forces might influence someone to invent and solve intellectual problems." Their conclusion was that a system which doesn't restrict prizes to the winner provides more motivation for innovation.

Comment Patenting open standards = evil (Score 1) 2

This makes me really, really furious. Patents on open standards are evil, just a way of taxing those who make products on those open standards. I happen to know the background to AMQP really well. Most of what Red Hat has contributed is utter crap (read the 0-10 spec to get an idea of how poor!) The real work is done by others. Yet Red Hat want to claim patents on extensions of AMQP that should be standardised. Why? So they can collar clients and say, "we own the patents, buy our licenses or we'll sue you." Just like any common or garden patent troll.

I'm boycotting Red Hat as long as they pull stunts like this, and advising my clients and partners to do the same. Firms that deliberately create patent thickets around open standards do not deserve to get support from the FOSS community.

It's not Red Hat's Novell moment, it's their Unisys moment. Remember GIF? Remember Unisys's attempts afterwards to build a FOSS business?

Patents

Submission + - Red Hat patenting around open standards 2

I Believe in Unicorns writes: Red Hat's patent policy says "In an attempt to protect and promote the open source community, Red Hat has elected to... develop a corresponding portfolio of software patents for defensive purposes. We do so reluctantly..." Meanwhile, USPTO Application #: 20090063418 "Method and an apparatus to deliver messages between applications", claims a patent on routing messages using an XQuery match, which is an extension of the "unencumbered" AMQP protocol that Red Hat is helping to make. Is this a defensive patent, or are Red Hat cynically staking out a software patent claim to an obvious extension of AMQP? Is Red Hat's promise to "refrain from enforcing the infringed patent" against open source a reliable contract, or a trap for the unwary? Given the Microsoft-Red Hat deal in February are we seeing Red Hat's "Novell Moment?"

Comment Re:-1 for self-contradiction, -1 for lateness (Score 1) 492

You are almost correct. What we percieve as energy is a difference between the potential of the given space volume and the base potential. The trick is that we have absolutely no physical means to discern what the absolute value of the base potential is (I am not even sure, you can meaningfully ask a question like this.)

Therefore, if/when the base potential of the space-time continuum drops, all of a sudden we have some energy surplus which could be converted to matter. So with each cycle we are descending deeper and deeper into potential (not gravitational) well. However, since this well is bottomless we can apply/rinse/repeat the whole procedure indefinitely.

Slashdot Top Deals

Think lucky. If you fall in a pond, check your pockets for fish. -- Darrell Royal

Working...