Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Internet Mashups Under Attack from Government & Cronies

Hash: SHA1

UK Government Fails to Get Web 2.0

,----[ Quote ]
| In fact reading the full report is even more depressing, since it constantly 
| harps on "stakeholders" - by which it means content owners - and clearly 
| doesn't give a toss for the general public's concerns or needs.  
| The UK government is clearly still trapped in the mindset that it's about 
| telling the little people what they can do with the stuff kindly provided by 
| those magnanimous content corporations.  


UK opposes copyright exemptions for mash-ups

,----[ Quote ]
| There should be no new exemption from copyright law for users' adaptations of 
| copyright-protected content, the UK Government has said. To create such an 
| exemption for user-generated content would ignore the rights of content 
| creators, it said.   



Obama Victory Draws Quick Reactions From IP, Tech Communities

,----[ Quote ]
| The intellectual property community has been quick to begin the anticipation
| of a Barack Obama presidency in the United States following his election on
| Tuesday.
| [...]
| “Obama’s regime is more likely to take the feedback from civil society into
| consideration and similarly more sceptical towards the pure business
| interests presented by Big Pharma, etcetera,” he said. “In the end, much will
| depend on what kind of persons Obama chooses to his cabinet for the key
| positions pertaining IP policy and global trade.”
| Andrew Updegrove, an attorney at technology law firm Gesmer Updegrove in
| Boston who runs the open-standards blog consortiuminfo.org, said
| administration changes have little effect on US technical standards policy,
| since this sector is largely driven by industry - not government.
| But when it comes to international IP treaties, “this is where things could
| get more interesting,” he said, “with the Obama administration being possibly
| more willing to listen to a diversity of voices on matters such as open
| source - as are many other governments throughout the world.”


Bursting the proprietary-software bubble

,----[ Quote ]
| Free software acknowledges that truth. Proprietary software does not.
| Instead, like the banks, proprietary-software vendors have had to justify the
| cost of their wares by constructing complex arguments about value.
| Again, lipstick terms such as 'software patents' and 'intellectual property'
| have been applied so successfully they have entered the vernacular. Yet even
| a cursory examination of their real meaning shows them to be spurious. They
| exist only to perpetuate the dominance of monopolists.
| Yes, we are living in a proprietary-software bubble and, like the bursting of
| the easy-credit bubble, this one is about to burst too — it's a matter of
| survival.


Bilski: Be prepared for huge lobbying in Congress?

,----[ Quote ]
| The outcome of the Bilski case, which should be published in October, might
| invalidate software patents in the United States:
|     Plager said he regretted the unintended consequences of the decisions in
|     State Street Bank and AT&T. Those rulings led to a flood of applications
|     for software and business method patents, he noted. If we “rethink the
|     breadth of patentable subject matter,” he said, we should ask whether
|     these categories should be excluded from patent protection.
| If the CAFC are clever enough to follow the Supreme Court and kick software
| patents out, you might see the desperate large corporations and their patent
| department rushing to Congress. Especially if tomorrow the banks value their
| patent portfolio as void, and not useful to get any credit.


Latha Jishnu: The mouse that bit Microsoft

,----[ Quote ]
| Here’s what Gates wrote in an office memorandum in 1991. “If people had
| understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were
| invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete
| standstill today. . . I feel certain that some large company will patent some
| obvious thing related to interface, object orientation, algorithm,
| application extension or other crucial technique.”
| This was the year after Microsoft launched Windows 3.0, the first of its new
| operating systems that would become hugely popular across the world. Yet,
| three years down the line, Microsoft had changed from a kitten that was
| content with copyright protection to an aggressive patents tiger. In 1991,
| Microsoft had filed fewer than 50 patent applications whereas last year it
| was awarded 1,637 patents, almost a 12 per cent increase in the number of
| patents it received in 2006. According to IFI Patent Intelligence, the rise
| in Microsoft’s patents portfolio bucked the general trend in 2007 when the
| number of patents issued by the US Patents and Trademark Office dipped by 10
| per cent. Apparently several thousand of the company’s filings are still
| pending.
| All this may prompt the reader to conclude that there is indeed a direct
| correlation between IPR and growth — and wealth — as the company claims. Not
| true, says Mark H Webbink, a US Supreme Court lawyer who is a recognised
| voice on IT issues. Charting the company’s revenues, R&D spending and patent
| filings from 1985 onwards, he shows that the spike in patent filings occurred
| long after the Microsoft “had become well established and was being
| investigated for its monopolistic practices”. Webbink contends that patents
| did not spur the launch and rapid growth of the mass market software
| industry. On the other hand, patents have become a threat to software
| innovation, he warns.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index