IEEE Supports Software Patents In Wake of Bilski 122
Mark Atwood points out this critical commentary on the IEEE's response to the outcome of In Re. Bilski, which points out the contrast between work done by IEEE luminaries like Donald Knuth and lobbying for software patents.
Re:speaking of knuth (Score:4, Informative)
not happening til 5:30 pacific time
lol Roy (Score:5, Informative)
Do people still take Roy seriously? Have people really fallen for his lame rebranding of his site?
As an aside this was amusing quote:
The disparity between these views of Knuth (creator of LaTeX, which is Free software)
Sorry, buddy, but Knuth created TeX. LaTeX was created by Leslie Lamport.
Re:Tear up your membership cards (Score:2, Informative)
Who writes that crap blog? (Score:5, Informative)
Who writes that crap blog?
Here is the actual IEEE press release:
http://www.ieeeusa.org/communications/releases/2010/062910.asp [ieeeusa.org]
They basically complain that there's still no clear litmus test for patentability because the decision was to vague on the definition of what constitutes "too abstract".
-- Terry
Re:Who writes that crap blog? (Score:3, Informative)
Who writes that crap blog?
Renowned internet troll and FOSS FUDster Roy Schestowitz. His blog used be called BoycottNovell but he renamed it in a lame attempt to get people to forget that.
IEEE a friend of the individual engineer? (Score:3, Informative)
Like so many large established organizations, the IEEE seemingly no longer exists to represent their individual members - but more to increase the need for its own existence. Quite a few years ago, I wrote them to relinquish my membership. One particular objection I stated (among a couple of others) is their heavy promotion of professional certification (the exams of which they would administer, naturally).
It seems to me that they want to become a guild or "engineering bar association". Even were they to grandfather existing members, I oppose such additional gates. They are nothing but protectionist - increasing barriers to entry without adding much societal value. It is clear to me that their support of software patents continues this trend.
(PS: Lest it seem like I'm frightened of "missing the academic boat", I have a Master's degree in Computer Science with many supporting courses in Electrical Engineering and Space Dynamics - along with 30 years experience in developing e.g. guidance systems & firmware).
Patents as ex post facto (Score:5, Informative)
I oppose patents, as currently implemented in the U.S., for the same reason I oppose our legal code: There are so many patents / laws, that no one can be confident that he's in full compliance.
This means that for all practical purposes, the patent system and the U.S. legal code are ex post facto systems: it's a big trap, just waiting for {well-funded patent attorney} / {prosecutor with an axe to grind} to come after you. In both systems this is compounded by the system permitting patent applications / laws to be so vaguely worded that they could easily cover implementations / situations never precisely anticipated by their author.
Also, in both systems, an innocent person can be bankrupted, or be forced to settle, simply because of the legal cost.
In summary, both of these systems are significant sources of injustice, enacted by a legislature with little self-control.
Tin-foil hat lobbyist Florian Mueller/Mueller (Score:4, Informative)
Make no mistake about it folks - Muller/Mueller is a shill.
This is the same lobbyist who helped delay the Oracle rescue of Sun. The delay cost 3,000 additional jobs over and above the 6,000 that were originally slated [cnet.com].
This is the same lobbyist who is trying to pull a Darl McBride on IBM for Turbo Hercules [slushdot.com] - and who "complained to the establishment" when slashdotters down-modded his bullsh*t.
This is the same lobbyist who is now threatening to "expose" groklaw [slushdot.com] because astroturfers got the boot.
His latest lie? He's now saying that I've claimed he's a Microsoft shill. I've never said anything one way or another on that topic. His tin-foil hat is too tight - or he can't keep his lies straight.
He's no friend of the community.
This court ruling was a win. To say this:
flies against reality.
So why does Mueller continue to lie and spread fud? It's what he does - he's a lobbyist. Not a programmer.
On the other hand (Score:4, Informative)
Here is the part that precedes your quote
"We are generally pleased that the Supreme Court did not introduce rules that would limit the scope of ideas available for patent protection in our current information age," IEEE-USA Intellectual Property Committee Chair Keith Grzelak said.
Re:PJ Lies (Score:3, Informative)
If she's only had a falling out with 3 people in 7 years, that's not that bad.
This is an old story, from since 2004:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_S/threadview?m=te&bn=2942&tid=181845&mid=-1&tof=-1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1 [yahoo.com]
The "I've verified this via proxies" is really a non-issue - other people have since pointed out that other content management systems have similar capabilities. I'll be writing a HOW-TO so that anyone can implement it, because it's a good "circuit breaker" or "fire break" for some use cases. Let everyone take a breather and reflect a bit ...
That being said, I'm willing to look at the evidence - but it has to be in context.
You said it yourself - "potentially libelous". It's the same here on slashdot - for example: if you make a death threat to the president, it WILL be removed (it's been done in the past) and any post pointing that out will also be removed. slashdot has no choice - there's a specific law just for dealing with death threats to the president.
Maybe you should get better forum software :-) Okay, that was a bit of a joke ... but seriously, sometimes it's better for EVERYONE if the post is totally removed. For example, what do you think would happen if, instead of removing 10 of your posts, someone were to write "This post has been deleted because it conflicts with the site's policies"? People seeing that would think "troll" or "spammer". At that point, you'd probably wish they had just silently deleted them.
All I'm saying is that there's no ideal solution.
No need for a lawyer to tell her it's okay - it is. You might own your post, but you don't have a contractual or other right to require that someone else provide a platform for you to disseminate it. To the contrary. the only right you have is to use your own resources to get your message out.
Now, if you had signed a contract that said "posts written by $X will be hosted on site $Y for a period of $Z time in return for the following consid