Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   No Subject Given

   

   Anonymous Coward, Dec 30th, 2003 @ 11:29am

   
   

   Probably some piece of the BOB operating system. snicker snicker snicker.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   No Subject Given

   

   Obbligato, Dec 30th, 2003 @ 2:35pm

   
   

   Actually, it is sort of innovative and useful, in a typically Microsoftean Orwellian way. "Art" can be just about anything, after all. Consider the utility for controlling which TV programs, TV channels or websites your kids can view in their own rooms when you aren't in there with them, or which websites your employees can view.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   it's his house

   

   Dr. Teknikal (profile), Dec 31st, 2003 @ 7:42am

   
   

   When Bill built his new house (circa '96) there was a lot of ink about his installation of display panels everywhere to display artwork. There was a little less mention when he bought a few major photo and artwork collections that are commercially licensed (stock images). I'm not surprised that with his own home as a laboratory, and access to large collections of commercial content, that he developed a content delivery system. On a much smaller scale (three screens, once server, little software), I have a similar setup at home.
   
   Watch for the next steps -- commercialization, particularly under the auspices of the stock image vendors...

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   No Subject Given

   

   ttl, Jan 1st, 2004 @ 4:12pm

   
   

   Whenever M$, SCO, or anyone on the OSS
   shit-list, applies for or uses a patent,
   *every* geek-oriented site goes nuts. But
   when someone (remember Cisco?) violates
   one of the GNU's "evil" patents, the
   USPTO is fine and dandy.
   
   Just look at all the patents the GNU has
   for Linux etc. They have some very broad
   patents, which, according to analysts,
   are preventing M$ from implementing some
   much-needed fuctionality to their offerings.
   
   So it's OK for the GNU to use software patents
   to hold back windows, but when M$ does the
   same, its unfair? Bah.
   
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: No Subject Given

   

   Ed Halley, Jan 2nd, 2004 @ 8:46am

   
   

   Um, I'll bite.
   There are four basic forms of legally recognized "intellectual property." These are Copyright, Patent, Trademark and Secret. You seem to have confused two of them.
   The GPL builds upon, and depends upon, existing copyright protections to ensure that commercially produced derivative works are also made available in source form.
   GPL software does not depend on patents, and in fact poses limitations on them; GPL'd software cannot impose other legal restrictions such as patents or stricter licensee selections.
   GPL software says little about trademarks; the word "Linux" is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. Red Hat doesn't bar you from copying their entire distribution, but does bar you from offering your derivatives unless you remove the Red Hat trademarks which would confuse your customers about Red Hat's support obligations.
   GPL software breaks down barriers to Secrets, such as trade secrets. If you have a Secret in your code, you can't offer it to end users in source form, or it's no longer a Secret. Since the GPL requires that you provide source code to your users, this bars you from claiming your code as a Secret.
   The general frustration with Patent protection is because a patent doesn't cover a specific implementation, it covers a wide range of possible implementations of the concept. To gain any advantage, authors must pose as many possible foreseable implementation variations as they can, or they lose out on the Patent's monopoly rights.
   Patents can be obtained and held for entirely defensive purposes: that is, not to extract royalties from intentional and unintentional copycats, but to avoid being held hostage by those same copycats if they decide to file the same patent.
   The trouble with patents is that they're usually used offensively: wait for copycats to arise and then extort fees from the producers of them, even if they were (1) unfamiliar with the existing patent, and/or (2) selling the "infringing" device for many years before such a claim was made against them.
   Generally, Microsoft has been a good patent citizen, using them only in a defensive or portfolio sharing way. However, a troubling recent move was for Microsoft to consider seeking royalties from implementors of long-filename capable FAT filesystems, such as CompactFlash devices used in popular MP3 units, cameras, and other consumer electronics.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment