[DotGNU]Re: Developers digest, Vol 1 #404 - 8 msgs

[John Rebbeck]

With all this discussion would it be possible to create a new technology
similar to SOAP but enough away that it is not illegal and then make it
compatible with SOAP? This way it's not using SOAP (supposedly) but it does
have the ability to? MS aren't going to use DOAP (DotGNU Object Access
Protocol) so they will be limited, DotGNU will use both so will be the
better option.

I may be way off track here but my limited knowlede of all this says this
may work. What I said may still be illegal in terms of SOAP patents.

Also...I think one of the most necessary things at the moment is an OS which
has everything you want right in front of you, this is almost possible with
web services and any problems that the OS has it can connect to the SS
(Solution Server) and download the necessary information to fix it. Also,
simple methods such as 'Plain Text Commands' could be used to let people do
stuff by using simple commands ("I want to write a letter.", which could
also be activated using speech recognition) and because it is connected to
the web it can download updated PTC libraries, configurations, etc. to make
it a self configuring and managing OS flawless.
Could DotGNU do this?

Cheers,
John


----- Original Message -----
From: <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 7:01 PM
Subject: Developers digest, Vol 1 #404 - 8 msgs


> Send Developers mailing list submissions to
> address@hidden
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> address@hidden
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> address@hidden
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Developers digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover (Bill Lance)
>    2. Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover (Barry Fitzgerald)
>    3. Re: Open-Source Movement's GPL (Richard Stallman)
>    4. Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover (Bill Lance)
>    5. Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover (David Sugar)
>    6. Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover (Barry Fitzgerald)
>    7. Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover (David Sugar)
>    8. Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover (Barry Fitzgerald)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 05:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Bill Lance <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [DotGNU]IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover
> To: Seth Johnson <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
>
>
> --- Seth Johnson
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > Bill:
> >
> > Heh.
> >
> >        3) Universal Data Sructure
> >
> >
>
>
> What do you mean by this, Seth?
>
> > Seth
> >
> > Bill Lance wrote:
> > >
> > > --- Barry Fitzgerald <address@hidden>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If SOAP becomes patent encumbered we have two
> > > > options:
> > > >
> > > >       1) Fight the patent
> > > >
> > > That's not to likely to be productive.
> > >
> > > >       2) Not use SOAP
> > > >
> > > > Which is done by the community depends on how
> > > > important SOAP becomes.  I
> > > > suspect that patent encumbering SOAP will only
> > kill
> > > > SOAP over time.
> > >
> > > If MapPoint is an example of the  pricing, it's
> > likely
> > > to be a lot quicker than 'over time'.  What amazes
> > me
> > > about the Hailstorm fiasco is that MS seemed to
> > invest
> > > so heavily in the model with what, in hind site,
> > must
> > > have been NO competent market research into it's
> > real
> > > demand.
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Developers mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > >
> >
> http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
> >
> > --
> >
> > [CC] Counter-copyright:
> > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 11:10:38 -0400
> From: Barry Fitzgerald <address@hidden>
> Reply-To: address@hidden
> To: Bill Lance <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [DotGNU]IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover
>
> Bill Lance wrote:
> > >       1) Fight the patent
> > >
> > That's not to likely to be productive.
> >
>
> Well, that depends on whether or not there is prior art.  If there is,
> then their patent is invalid.  Since SOAP is a derivitive of other
> transports - I'm willing to bet that there is significant prior art.
> The trick beyond that is getting a legal fund and a lawyer to beat the
> patent.  If we absolutely have to implement SOAP, it's an option.
>
>
> > >       2) Not use SOAP
> > >
> > > Which is done by the community depends on how
> > > important SOAP becomes.  I
> > > suspect that patent encumbering SOAP will only kill
> > > SOAP over time.
> >
> > If MapPoint is an example of the  pricing, it's likely
> > to be a lot quicker than 'over time'.  What amazes me
> > about the Hailstorm fiasco is that MS seemed to invest
> > so heavily in the model with what, in hind site, must
> > have been NO competent market research into it's real
> > demand.
>
> Heh - well, it's Microsoft.  They seem to think that the world is on
> their side regardless of what they do.  I think that's why they dodged
> through the anti-trust trial so much.  It's not that they were lying.
> They actually seem to think that everything they do has consumer
> benefit, even if it's sole purpose is to take cash out of consumer
> pockets and put it into the MS bank account.  Some of what's going on
> must really be a wake-up call for them.
>
> -Barry
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:26:55 -0600 (MDT)
> From: Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> CC: address@hidden
> Reply-to: address@hidden
> Subject: [DotGNU]Re: Open-Source Movement's GPL
>
>     The problem is GPL is thought by a majority just as a popular
>     open-source license that is listed at the "opensource.org".
>     The links to ethics and freedom has been totally lost. FSF should
>     ask opensource.org to clearly distinguish GPL at its site, from
>     only-open-source licenses, giving credit to its Freedom aspects.
>
> I wish they would, but it is useful for them to keep us and our views
> in the background.  Eric Raymond sometimes goes so far as to insist
> that we are all part of the Open Source Movement whether we agree
> with it or not.
>
> I suggest that you tell Vladislavs Hveckovics this:
>
>     RMS is Richard Stallman, author of the GPL.
>     The GPL is part of the Free Software Movement;
>     the Open Source Movement came along a decade later.
>     Without ever actually saying that they had developed the
>     GPL, they spread the impression that it was their work,
>     and they have misled many people.
>
>     Instead of spreading the error, could you help correct it?
>     You could do this by describing the GPL
>     as a free software license, and making a link to
>     http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Bill Lance <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [DotGNU]IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: address@hidden
>
>
> --- Barry Fitzgerald <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Bill Lance wrote:
> > > >       1) Fight the patent
> > > >
> > > That's not to likely to be productive.
> > >
> >
> > Well, that depends on whether or not there is prior
> > art.  If there is,
> > then their patent is invalid.  Since SOAP is a
> > derivitive of other
> > transports - I'm willing to bet that there is
> > significant prior art.
> > The trick beyond that is getting a legal fund and a
> > lawyer to beat the
> > patent.  If we absolutely have to implement SOAP,
> > it's an option.
> >
>
>
> Humm.  Does anyone here have a real life tested
> example of a patent actually being invalideated by
> prior art?  I know that's the theory.  But the patent
> applicant/holder has every reason to hide and obscure
> prior art.  And being an administrative rather than a
> true legal forum, I would think that even more so than
> criminal law, the 'truth' is determined by who has the
> most money.  And, of course, the significance of this
> is obvious with MS involved.  They bought off the
> entire Bush administration and the DOJ in only a few
> short months
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:33:20 -0400
> From: David Sugar <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: Bill Lance <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [DotGNU]IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover
>
> As far as I recall, the patents involved refer to specific "extensions"
> to SOAP, rather than to a reference or "standard" implimentation.  One
> could simply, for example, create an "extension" to HTTP and then
> similarly misuse the patent system to make some patent claim on it
> (https? :), but this does not invalidate or encumber the original
> standard or reference implimentations of the original standard or our
> ability to create free software for or using the original standard.
>
> The risk is one where the extension becomes a defacto standard onto
> itself or one a maliable standards body might wish to endorse, like what
> happened to https.  With the way current patent laws are enforced in
> this country, this can potentially happen to any protocol family and
> represents a common risk to software freedom everywhere.  Certainly it
> is not a specific problem unique to SOAP.
>
> Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
>
> >Bill Lance wrote:
> >
> >>>      1) Fight the patent
> >>>
> >>That's not to likely to be productive.
> >>
> >
> >Well, that depends on whether or not there is prior art.  If there is,
> >then their patent is invalid.  Since SOAP is a derivitive of other
> >transports - I'm willing to bet that there is significant prior art.
> >The trick beyond that is getting a legal fund and a lawyer to beat the
> >patent.  If we absolutely have to implement SOAP, it's an option.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>      2) Not use SOAP
> >>>
> >>>Which is done by the community depends on how
> >>>important SOAP becomes.  I
> >>>suspect that patent encumbering SOAP will only kill
> >>>SOAP over time.
> >>>
> >>If MapPoint is an example of the  pricing, it's likely
> >>to be a lot quicker than 'over time'.  What amazes me
> >>about the Hailstorm fiasco is that MS seemed to invest
> >>so heavily in the model with what, in hind site, must
> >>have been NO competent market research into it's real
> >>demand.
> >>
> >
> >Heh - well, it's Microsoft.  They seem to think that the world is on
> >their side regardless of what they do.  I think that's why they dodged
> >through the anti-trust trial so much.  It's not that they were lying.
> >They actually seem to think that everything they do has consumer
> >benefit, even if it's sole purpose is to take cash out of consumer
> >pockets and put it into the MS bank account.  Some of what's going on
> >must really be a wake-up call for them.
> >
> > -Barry
> >_______________________________________________
> >Developers mailing list
> >address@hidden
> >http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
> >
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:34:27 -0400
> From: Barry Fitzgerald <address@hidden>
> Reply-To: address@hidden
> To: David Sugar <address@hidden>
> CC: Bill Lance <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [DotGNU]IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover
>
> David Sugar wrote:
> >
> > As far as I recall, the patents involved refer to specific "extensions"
> > to SOAP, rather than to a reference or "standard" implimentation.  One
> > could simply, for example, create an "extension" to HTTP and then
> > similarly misuse the patent system to make some patent claim on it
> > (https? :), but this does not invalidate or encumber the original
> > standard or reference implimentations of the original standard or our
> > ability to create free software for or using the original standard.
> >
> > The risk is one where the extension becomes a defacto standard onto
> > itself or one a maliable standards body might wish to endorse, like what
> > happened to https.  With the way current patent laws are enforced in
> > this country, this can potentially happen to any protocol family and
> > represents a common risk to software freedom everywhere.  Certainly it
> > is not a specific problem unique to SOAP.
> >
>
>
> Agreed - but we could still fight the patent if necessary.  But, in this
> situation, it's equally possible to use the base standard and create our
> own unencumbered extensions to the standard.
>
> -Barry
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:27:05 -0400 (EDT)
> From: David Sugar <address@hidden>
> To: Barry Fitzgerald <address@hidden>
> Cc: Bill Lance <address@hidden>, <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [DotGNU]IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover
>
>
> If one takes an existing standard, "estimates" things that can be
> implimented around them, and then starts writing patent applications for
> this, if the patent office actually did it's job such patents should not
> be granted or valid, even before considering how flawed the very notion of
> patents on software, on ideas, is.
>
> A patent has to be both "original" and "non-obvious to people versed in
> the art".  If I look at SOAP, consider the current direction of the
> evolving standard, and then say, "hmm, it doesn't yet include encryption,
> clearly it is needed at some point as part of a future revision of the
> standard, let me patent that in front of them", clearly it is both trivial
> and something obvious.  Shotgunning a patent around a standard this way
> should be considered criminal behavior.
>
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
>
> > David Sugar wrote:
> > >
> > > As far as I recall, the patents involved refer to specific
"extensions"
> > > to SOAP, rather than to a reference or "standard" implimentation.  One
> > > could simply, for example, create an "extension" to HTTP and then
> > > similarly misuse the patent system to make some patent claim on it
> > > (https? :), but this does not invalidate or encumber the original
> > > standard or reference implimentations of the original standard or our
> > > ability to create free software for or using the original standard.
> > >
> > > The risk is one where the extension becomes a defacto standard onto
> > > itself or one a maliable standards body might wish to endorse, like
what
> > > happened to https.  With the way current patent laws are enforced in
> > > this country, this can potentially happen to any protocol family and
> > > represents a common risk to software freedom everywhere.  Certainly it
> > > is not a specific problem unique to SOAP.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Agreed - but we could still fight the patent if necessary.  But, in this
> > situation, it's equally possible to use the base standard and create our
> > own unencumbered extensions to the standard.
> >
> > -Barry
> >
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 18:21:37 -0400
> From: Barry Fitzgerald <address@hidden>
> Reply-To: address@hidden
> To: David Sugar <address@hidden>
> CC: Bill Lance <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [DotGNU]IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover
>
> David Sugar wrote:
> >
> > If one takes an existing standard, "estimates" things that can be
> > implimented around them, and then starts writing patent applications for
> > this, if the patent office actually did it's job such patents should not
> > be granted or valid, even before considering how flawed the very notion
of
> > patents on software, on ideas, is.
> >
> > A patent has to be both "original" and "non-obvious to people versed in
> > the art".  If I look at SOAP, consider the current direction of the
> > evolving standard, and then say, "hmm, it doesn't yet include
encryption,
> > clearly it is needed at some point as part of a future revision of the
> > standard, let me patent that in front of them", clearly it is both
trivial
> > and something obvious.  Shotgunning a patent around a standard this way
> > should be considered criminal behavior.
> >
>
>
> I agree, but the law seems to be centered largely around making the
> actions of individual people illegal, and not making the actions of
> large corporations AGAINST those individual people illegal.  Laws like
> the SSSCA (Now PCBTA or whatever the new name is - name changed to dress
> it up to make consumers think that the law is being made for them) and
> DMCA are centered around tying the hands of individuals and giving ALL
> of the control and power to large corporations.  This applies more to
> the SSSCA than anything else (SSSCA read: only allow large corporations
> to produce software and kill Free Software public software production
> because the RIAA and MPAA feel that freedom is detrimental to their
> profit margin.)
>
> That being said, it's all the more important to bust these patents wide
> open.
>
> -Barry
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
>
>
> End of Developers Digest
>
>