Re: Patents again

[threeseas]

Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote:
> begin  <telford@xenon.triode.net.au> dedi ki:
>
> > In gnu.misc.discuss Abdullah Ramazanoglu <abdullah@ramazanoglu.tr> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I don't believe that there would be genuine good faith towards OSS in the
> > > commercial world, beyond the front window dressing. As long as they can
> > > make the community to believe that they're friends (as opposed to allies),
> > > why should go that extra mile and give up their "ammunition" away? It
> > > doesn't sound like a good business deal.
> >
> > It wouldn't happen without considerable public pressure. At the moment
> > there is a lot of humming and haring without a clear direction so this
> > sort of collective indecisiveness will not generate the required pressure.
>
>
> Frankly I think it all takes a businessman and a calculator. When the
> stakes are high enough (and I think it will be *really* high in 10 years'
> time) no public pressure would work. SCO has disregarded it even for
> today's meager stakes, even for a hopeless case. If some big player
> manages to indirectly bug GNU/Linux in the next 10 years, with hundreds or
> thousands of patented codes swamped all over the place, and when GNU/Linux
> is being used by half of the Fortune-1000 companies, which public pressure
> would possibly stop that big patent player from monopolizing, or at least
> manipulating to their best benefit, the Linux market (maybe the complete
> IT market)?
>
> So, I don't believe very much in "soft" means like OSS public pressure and
> opinions to tame commercial players. Commercial world is famous with its
> dirty conducts and they need concrete barriers not to transgress, I
> believe.


So I log on to the newsgroups every once in a while and what do I find 
in this newsgroup?

Microsoft cronies again trying to pollute the clairity of issues 
regarding FreeSoftware, FOSS, etc..

Now what would happen should I do a google search on groups with key 
words like "patents, linux, FreeSoftware, etc.." but a bunch of BS of 
the MS marketing anti-gpl type.

The fact of the matter is that patents on software are mostly all bogus 
anyway, and that is what is going to be determined.

What is simply happening now is that the patent office doesn't have the 
time to really do the work of computer science, and they shouldn't have 
to for that is a job for computer science, not the patent office. So 
they simply pass it off to the legal system, by issuing patents on 
anything that passes the paperwork abstraction test.

like it or not but there is a physics to abstraction creation and use. 
And this will all come out as natural laws governing the physical 
phenomenon of abstraction creation and use. Furthermore thru the use of 
an algorythimic automation machine.

If you all understand what is not patentable, then you'll understand 
this. If you don't, then go to the patent offices and look it up.

There is no threat to open source software from software patents. 
Besides what I just mentioned, there is also the tracking and approval 
process of any code that gets into important places in freesoftware.
Its why we know SCO is nothing more than a front for anti-freesoftware 
marketing, which is no supprise MS was found to be in the mix.

I suppose it also not any supprise such anti-freesoftware marketing has 
spread to the likes of freesoftware newsgroups.

How many of you are using false identities?