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.
speaking of knuth (Score:4, Interesting)
Where is today's huge breakthrough announcement?
The top 10 Bilski losers (besides Bilski & War (Score:3, Interesting)
It was kind of surprising to see on Twitter that not only open source advocates such as Steven Vaughan-Nichols and Brian Proffitt considered that list a good summary but also ACT, a lobby organization that supports software patents all the way (we lobbied against each other several times). But ACT pointed out that they didn't agree with all I wrote. That didn't surprise me.
No win, No loose (Score:3, Interesting)
Narrow restrictions but expansive patent system (Score:2, Interesting)
I wish I could agree that the ruling is at least a draw, but unfortunately I can't. It clearly favors an expansive patent system, assuming that new technologies must fall within the scope of patentable subject matter unless there's legislation that sets limits (mentioned in this analysis [blogspot.com], for an example). Such legislation is a long shot to say the least, given the lobbying power of all those favoring software patents.
Through my work on the NoSoftwarePatents campaign (which I founded and managed until 2005) I spent a lot of time with patent experts and policy-makers, so when I read a reasoning like the one in the Bilski case, I can tell when an expansive view prevails over a restrictive one. There's really nothing in the ruling (apart from minority opinions that don't really matter for the future) suggesting in any way that the Supreme Court might do away with software patents. In fact, the ruling made it clear that even straightforward business method patents aren't an endangered species for the time being, unless they're just too abstract, such as the Bilski application.
Nice point. (Score:4, Interesting)
Donald Knuth, and many of the other top names from IEEE, have name-brand power comparable to the IEEE itself. A split is not entirely impossible. If that happens (and in all seriousness, I expect the announcement to be at least a threat of a split) and the rival has reasonable policies and ethics, it will likely capture a fair chunk of the income and PR of the IEEE. (Hell, I've seen arXiv mentioned more in the popular press than the IEEE.) That could cause a serious disturbance in the Force, not to mention a serious disturbance in boardrooms, where there's a heavy reliance on political leverage to get things done. It's extremely difficult to manipulate crusaders - it can be done, but the RIAA and MPAA don't have that kind of Machiavellian skill.
Re:Tear up your membership cards (Score:3, Interesting)
It might not be news to you personally but there still may be a few people out there that need clued in.
If the PTO worked as it was supposed to, software patents would be far less of a problem.
However, that isn't the case and we have to deal with the highly non-ideal PTO and courts
that we actually have.
This is a classic case of the disconnect between theory and practice.
Agree in part, disagree in part. (Score:3, Interesting)
You can read my submissions supporting Groklaw in the past (I have, what? Maybe 10 accepted SCO stories with Groklaw as a source? I don't remember any more.). I have trumpeted her site quite loudly for several years and cheered SCO's slow demise. I hope you're not going to lump me in with shills & astro-turfers. I honestly question how many of those there are, because PJ lumps *anyone* who disagrees with her in with them, or so it seems. I've also fought against Microsoft on OOXML and the rest and supported IBM's Rob Weir when discussing how much OOXML sucks ass (seriously, he's a good guy, his blog [robweir.com] also has some information on wine making, if you're into that). If I'm some kind of shill who hates Groklaw or IBM for no reason, well, I must have been replaced by a doppleganger recently. Here are a few [slashdot.org] links [slashdot.org] that go allllll the way back to 2004 [slashdot.org], when hardly anybody knew who the hell Groklaw was and show me agreeing with and promoting the site. I've read her site daily since the RU days and remember when she had a hard time surviving a Slashdotting, before she moved to iBiblio. I think I contributed one or two of those early, hard-to-survive Slashdottings, for that matter.
That support is in the past, I'm afraid. PJ is a huge jerk, mostly in private, and you'll probably only see that if you disagree with her. I can give you her real email (it's close to the public email, pj@groklaw.net, which has more filtering), if you want me to prove that I've been in contact. I don't think it's a big deal to put that out here because she's more than capable of switching it if the spammers get hold of it.
She's had way more than three fallings-out [groklaw.net], incidentally. But most of the people feel like they're the only ones. AllParadox is a good example because he wrote stories for Groklaw [google.com] once upon a time. It's not like he's some nobody who lurked for a little while. It's more like almost anyone who worked with her closely got driven out. Except for Mathfox, I guess.
There are quite a few people [blogspot.com] she's parted ways with. Heck, ESR may be next on that list for saying that she "jumped the shark" when she attacked his friend, Jay Maynard (who got booted from Groklaw, even though he has nothing to do with TurboHercules the company; even if he's a friend of some of the founders thereof). His crime? Saying he felt threatened when IBM called the QPL-licensed Hercules emulator an "infringing platform." He's not Darl McBride. He's not a party to the EU complaint. He's a guy who dresses up in a Tron outfit and writes an emulator, for crying out loud. We're not talking "conspirator" here. But PJ sees "conspiracy" everywhere these days. I can't blame her, after SCO, but I won't agree, either.
You can read AllParadox's account [yahoo.com] of his departure here, incidentally.
Re:Agree in part, disagree in part. (Score:3, Interesting)
You raise some valid points. I think part of the problem is that people think that, because groklaw has comments enabled, that "building a community" should be the focus. So I went and walked my dogs again, and here's what I think ... not saying it's 100% right, but ...
Groklaw is not about building an online community, not in the conventional sense that we think of online communities. It's about collecting legal info and putting it out there, and c'est tout! It would probably have been better to conduct discussions via email, and a private message board, and not have public comments. That would have been truer to the actual mission statement, and would have avoided a lot of problems, but it's too late to change that now.
Now for the changing users to "anonymous" - that's what several content management systems do when a user is removed from the system. It's SOP. You even get a warning that all their comments will be assigned to the anonymous account.
Deleting comments is also not that hard - you just browse the comments, and if you have the right privileges, you'll see the "delete" link. Comments underneath no longer have a parent, so they become top-level, which makes them look silly, so you usually delete "from the bottom up".
Of course, the better way is simply not to delete comments; for a site like slashdot, that's ok - slashdot doesn't make any claim to fame except as a "news for nerds" site. Groklaw is more like a private project with a public interface. This is a case where the feature set of the software was a bad fit with the temperament and goals of the project. It happens.
I see two problems with that - like you, I obviously think that people shouldn't be afraid; I hope people never get afraid of disagreeing with me (except when they're wrong, of course - then "fear the curse" :-). The second is that both sides are taking this way too seriously. It's just a web site. There are plenty of others out there, if you can't get along with the people running it.
Really, people do tend to take it too seriously. Case in point - pudge and I go at it once in a while. And yet, we don't take it personally - to the contrary, if he's ever in town, he's more than welcome to stop by, because I think what he's done here is pretty neat. Same thing with most of my hundred-plus freaks (I'm trying to collect the whole set).
There's at least one user who everyone is sure hates my guts (and vice versa) because over the years we've had lots of very public disagreements - in private, it's the exact opposite. Why? Because we both understand that the other person is sincere in their beliefs and isn't trying to milk it for some personal advantage - unlike lobbyists, who will milk it for all it's worth.
So who gave Maynard and the rest of the world the obviously bogus interpretation that this was an attack on Hercules? The answer is obvious - look at whose agendas benefit from such confusion. Turbo Hercules, Roger Bowler, and Florian Mueller.
It's this sort of abuse of other people and open source projects that should be denounced.
I've never done it, despite what Mueller may claim.
Well, gotta go.