Welcome to FSFE's exceptionally full November newsletter. In Europe FSFE has been involved in speeches, meetings, training courses and public betas of new technology. On the global level we have been participated in the recent Internet Governance Forum meeting in Brazil.
As always FSFE's work has been complemented by the contributions of the Fellows. The Fellows in Nijmegen, Dusseldorf and Berlin are due particular credit this month after participating in discussions on various topics. In Berlin the increased use of Free Software on mobile devices was discussed, while Free Software and business was the topic of choice in Dusseldorf and Nijmegen. If you are interested in starting Fellowship meetings in your area please contact the Fellowship at http://fsfe.org/en/contact_us
- Shane, FSFE Zurich Office
1. United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2. STACS meeting in London 3. Trophees du Libre 2007 in Soissons 4. Training Courses in Stockholm and Nijmegen 5. FTF events in Linz, Lausanne, Nijmegen and Dusseldorf 6. Foundation activities in Sweden 7. Berlin Fellowship discusses Free Software mobile phones 8. FSFE revisiting software patent information 9. SELF public beta and bug fixing 10. Interview with Werner Koch
Forthcoming events:
11. Free Software Conference Scandinavia, Gothenburg, Sweden 12. FSFE informes on privacy and freedom in Schwetzingen
1. United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
The second Internet Governance Forum was hosted by the Brazilian government in Rio de Janeiro and showed a strong emphasis of Open Standards as one of the key issues, also thanks to the constant work that FSFE has been doing over the years and the good collaboration with many groups in the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS). FSFE's president Georg Greve had a busy time participating in the pre-IGF Standards Edge conference by the Bolin Group and several workshops on the issue, including the general assembly Security Session. Open Standards are likely to play a greate role in the future UN work.
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/igf/
2. STACS meeting in London
On the 2nd of November, the FSFE organised a capacity building session for CSOs as part of the STACS project (FP6-2005-Science-and-Society-19-044597), in order to increase CSO awareness of Free Software and to demonstrate its use. The session took place at The Hub in London and was attended by a nice mixture of participating CSOs, both from the greater London area, from the rest of the UK and from several other European countries. The session ended with a wish from all participants to hold several more similar sessions for other CSOs in other places around Europe.
3. Trophees du Libre 2007 in Soissons
The Trophees du Libre, organised by CETRIL, is the world's largest Free Software award with several categories. The 29 November saw the 4th edition of the Trophees du Libre, held at the Chateau de Villeneuve Saint-Germain with participants coming from as far as Taiwan, Israel or Montreal. Having participated in the jury last year, FSFE president Georg Greve was invited to preside over the jury of this edition and to moderate the award ceremony while FSFE intern Irina Dzhambazova was using the opportunity to get to know more projects and supporting the event as best she could.
http://www.tropheesdulibre.org/?lang=en
4. Training Courses in Stockholm and Nijmegen
On the 8th of November, the FTF in collaboration with Internet Academy in Stockholm, Sweden delivered a course on the strategic implementation of Free Software in business. On the 26th of November the FTF and ATComputing in Nijmegen, The Netherlands delivered the same course. The FTF now offers course in Switzerland, Sweden and The Netherlands and expects to expand into more countries soon. For more information about FTF courses please visit:
5. FTF events in Linz, Lausanne, Nijmegen and Dusseldorf
It has been a busy month for the FTF. Shane Coughlan, FTF Coordinator, delivered a keynote entitled 'Free Software, licensing and business processes' on the 3rd of November at elce2007 in Linz, Austria. He also spoke at the Business and Law schools of Lausanne University, Switzerland, on the 21st and 22nd of November, attended a Fellowship meeting in Nijmegen, The Netherlands on the 26th, and delivered a speech for the Dusseldorf Fellows about Free Software licensing and business processes on the 28th. For more information about FTF events please visit FSFE's events page:
http://www.fsfeurope.org/events/events.html
6. Foundation activities in Sweden
The Swedish team of the FSFE has been busy during the month, holding several presentations about SELF and Free Software in Sweden. The first presentation was held at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm on the 7th of November, followed up by the University College of Borås in Borås on the 9th, Umeå University in Umeå on the 12th, Mid Sweden University in Sundsvall on the 19th, Karlstad University in Karlstad on the 20th and Linköping University in Linköping on the 21st.
All events were quite well attended, with a mixture of students, teachers and other members of the faculty. In the presentations, emphasis was placed also on how SELF actually contributes, not only to further education on Free Software, but also to encourage the Free Software philosophy of sharing and cooperation in other areas.
7. Berlin Fellowship discusses Free Software mobile phones
On 13. November there was a local Fellowship meeting in Berlin. Fellow Robert Schuster gave a presentation about the relevance of OpenMoko for the Free Software community. There was an interesting discussion about what that means for the freedom of private persons as well as the possibilities these freedoms give SMEs who can offer special services for their costumers. It was decided that the Berlin Fellowship group will meet every second Thursday in the month at the Newthinking store. Afterwards the meeting was moved into a pub to get know to each other.
More information: - The slides (in German): http://fsfe.org/en/content/download/33600/207464/file/OpenMoko-Vortrag-fello... - Pictures of the event: http://store.newthinking.de/blog/archive/2007/11/13/erster-fsfe-fellowship-s... - Mailing list for meetings in Berlin: berlin@lists.fsfe.org.
8. FSFE revisiting software patent information
We have begun to revisit the published information on out webpages. There is increasing discussion of software patents within the institutions, so we are revising the information published on out website. Some updates are already online, and in the coming weeks, we will continue to provide more documentation about the current status as well as summaries of what was learned and what has already happened.
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/swpat
9. SELF public beta and bug fixing
After the launch of the public beta version of the SELF platform, the development team has been working extensively on fixing bugs and implementing the missing functionality of the platform. However, more work is still needed in this area, and if you want to help, we encourage you to try out the platform at http://www.selfplatform.eu/ and report whatever bugs you come across.
10. Interview with Werner Koch
For our German readers there is something of a treat this month. Gulli has an interview with Werner Koch, creator of GnuPG and one of the co-founders of FSFE. Werner talks about his perspectives on security and Free Software.
http://www.gulli.com/news/der-autor-von-gnupg-im-gespr-2007-11-23/
Forthcoming events:
11. Free Software Conference Scandinavia, Gothenburg, Sweden
The FSFE is organising the Free Software Conference Scandinavia (FSCONS), taking place in Gothenburg, Sweden on the 7th and 8th of December 2007. It is the first in its kind event in the region, inspired by the growing momentum around Free Software.
12. FSFE informes on privacy and freedom in Schwetzingen
The data retention directive has been put into German law and will be valid from January 2008. And there are other threads as the German "hacker act", the "on-line searching" or the electronic health card. For this reason FSFE is organising an event to inform the public about the coming risk for privacy and freedom.
You can find a list of all FSFE newsletters on http://www.fsfeurope.org/news/newsletter.en.html
Copyright (C) FSFE. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:02:24PM +0100, Free Software Foundation Europe wrote:
- FSFE revisiting software patent information
We have begun to revisit the published information on out webpages. There is increasing discussion of software patents within the institutions, so we are revising the information published on out website. Some updates are already online, and in the coming weeks, we will continue to provide more documentation about the current status as well as summaries of what was learned and what has already happened.
Please increase collaboration with FFII on this subject.
The semi-disaster of the Microsoft-vs-CE result is still producing the image that Microsoft's software patents are valid *in*Europe*.
Rui
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org writes:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:02:24PM +0100, Free Software Foundation Europe wrote:
- FSFE revisiting software patent information
Please increase collaboration with FFII on this subject.
My first priority is to update/improve our online and printed documentation. This is mostly done. My second priority is to increase communication with MEPs who are doing related work - not on directives but on reports and questions to the Commission.
This is dependent on how much time I can make for it. I should meet with some people from FFII here in Brussels in the next week or so. I'm on a few of their mailinglists but I usually don't have time to join in the discussions about their projects. Scanning the posts to those lists is enough work. If there's something particular you think I should raise with FFII, let me know. Otherwise, the answer is yes, we will collaborate with FFII.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 08:38:10AM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org writes:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:02:24PM +0100, Free Software Foundation Europe wrote:
- FSFE revisiting software patent information
Please increase collaboration with FFII on this subject.
This is dependent on how much time I can make for it. I should meet with some people from FFII here in Brussels in the next week or so. I'm on a few of their mailinglists but I usually don't have time to join in the discussions about their projects. Scanning the posts to those lists is enough work. If there's something particular you think I should raise with FFII, let me know. Otherwise, the answer is yes, we will collaborate with FFII.
There should be better coordination at least on software patent related actities. If necessary, I would offer my help bridging the efforts.
Rui
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org writes:
There should be better coordination at least on software patent related actities. If necessary, I would offer my help bridging the efforts.
Sure. What project/initiative/activity do you think FSFE and FFII should coordinate on?
I talk with Benjamin Henrion here in Brussel from time to time, and with Erik Joseffsson more regularly (although he's EFF rather than FFII).
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:40:18PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org writes:
There should be better coordination at least on software patent related actities. If necessary, I would offer my help bridging the efforts.
Sure. What project/initiative/activity do you think FSFE and FFII should coordinate on?
The main issue, of course, software patents.
I talk with Benjamin Henrion here in Brussel from time to time, and with Erik Joseffsson more regularly (although he's EFF rather than FFII).
So far, the Microsoft vs EU issue is a mess. It transmits the opinion that Microsoft's software patents are valid in Europe, for instance.
Rui
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org writes:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:40:18PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Sure. What project/initiative/activity do you think FSFE and FFII should coordinate on?
The main issue, of course, software patents.
I was hoping for something a lot more specific.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:22:35PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org writes:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:40:18PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Sure. What project/initiative/activity do you think FSFE and FFII should coordinate on?
The main issue, of course, software patents.
I was hoping for something a lot more specific.
It's impossible to be more specific, since the fact that there has been little coordination has resulted in *no* critic about the result of the case in terms of software patents from FSF Europe.
Even Samba (Jeremy) is now using a foundation (made up by SFLC) on the US to get to the documents in an NDA fashion. NDA development is bad enough on hardware drivers. On formats and protocols it is a poison pill.
The EU is happy-happy joy-joy[1] about the whole charade where it has granted Microsoft the right to demand royalties for it's software patents to Free Software users.
Even if it's a one-time payment royalty, it's a royalty on software patents which implies respecting them.
If this view from the result is incorrect, please tell me how it is so, for this comes straight from Kroes's statements and Microsoft's agreements.
Rui
[1] yes, appropriate Ren & Stimpy obscure reference
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 18:05 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Even if it's a one-time payment royalty, it's a royalty on software patents which implies respecting them.
If this view from the result is incorrect, please tell me how it is so, for this comes straight from Kroes's statements and Microsoft's agreements.
I'm not sure that's correct - if the new foundation had paid money to Microsoft because of patents, surely there ought to be a patent license or similar to cover the developers? An NDA is just that - it's not a patent license, and it doesn't protect you from being sued over patents.
Indeed, the correct title of the agremeent is:
"Microsoft Work Group Server Protocol Program License Agreement (No Patents)"
- http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_agreement.pdf
The payment is for access to the documentation. Call it trade secrets, or whatever, it doesn't really matter - patents don't really seem to come into it.
Personally, if the documentation is good and correct, I think €10k is a bit of a bargain - I bet it would have cost Microsoft a lot more than that to put together, and I bet a number of companies have paid a lot more than that to gain access to it.
Cheers,
Alex.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 07:18:36PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 18:05 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Even if it's a one-time payment royalty, it's a royalty on software patents which implies respecting them.
If this view from the result is incorrect, please tell me how it is so, for this comes straight from Kroes's statements and Microsoft's agreements.
I'm not sure that's correct - if the new foundation had paid money to Microsoft because of patents, surely there ought to be a patent license or similar to cover the developers? An NDA is just that - it's not a patent license, and it doesn't protect you from being sued over patents.
Indeed, the correct title of the agremeent is:
"Microsoft Work Group Server Protocol Program License Agreement (No Patents)"
That's the: "if you don't want to license patents but to develop under an NDA" agreement.
The payment is for access to the documentation. Call it trade secrets, or whatever, it doesn't really matter - patents don't really seem to come into it.
Licensing patents doesn't come into it. It doesn't mean that there are no patents involved (actually, the wording seems to sugest there are patents involved -- not just those of "third parties").
Personally, if the documentation is good and correct, I think €10k is a bit of a bargain - I bet it would have cost Microsoft a lot more than that to put together, and I bet a number of companies have paid a lot more than that to gain access to it.
You get to access, under very controlled conditions, some very hard to read documentation which you will not be able to talk about with anyone.
Also be sure to read 5.5 (the Orwellian please erase your brain if you have photographic memory):
An Authorized Person’s memory will be considered to be unaided if such Authorized Person has not intentionally memorized the Confidential Information for the purpose of retaining and subsequently using or disclosing it.
Rui
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 00:15 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 07:18:36PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 18:05 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Even if it's a one-time payment royalty, it's a royalty on software patents which implies respecting them.
If this view from the result is incorrect, please tell me how it is so, for this comes straight from Kroes's statements and Microsoft's agreements.
I'm not sure that's correct - if the new foundation had paid money to Microsoft because of patents, surely there ought to be a patent license or similar to cover the developers? An NDA is just that - it's not a patent license, and it doesn't protect you from being sued over patents.
Indeed, the correct title of the agremeent is:
"Microsoft Work Group Server Protocol Program License Agreement (No Patents)"
That's the: "if you don't want to license patents but to develop under an NDA" agreement.
You are under NDA in any case if you want access to the docs, but Tridge did a wonderful job with the contract.
The payment is for access to the documentation. Call it trade secrets, or whatever, it doesn't really matter - patents don't really seem to come into it.
Licensing patents doesn't come into it. It doesn't mean that there are no patents involved (actually, the wording seems to sugest there are patents involved -- not just those of "third parties").
Read this doc, they are listed in the appendix, both United States and European patents.
Personally, if the documentation is good and correct, I think €10k is a bit of a bargain - I bet it would have cost Microsoft a lot more than that to put together, and I bet a number of companies have paid a lot more than that to gain access to it.
You get to access, under very controlled conditions, some very hard to read documentation which you will not be able to talk about with anyone.
I have not seen the documentation yet, so I can't tell, how can you ? True the contract say signers can't share the documentation but why should it be very hard to read? In any case code speaks loud enough IMO.
Also be sure to read 5.5 (the Orwellian please erase your brain if you have photographic memory):
An Authorized Person’s memory will be considered to be unaided if such Authorized Person has not intentionally memorized the Confidential Information for the purpose of retaining and subsequently using or disclosing it.
This is actually a standard NDA clause that can be found in many similar agreements in the industry. Unless you really memorize it (like you would do for a poem) you are free from any side effect after three months after you decide to get out of the contract. There is no permanent effect on the developers, thanks again to Tridge.
Simo.
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 00:15 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 07:18:36PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
Indeed, the correct title of the agremeent is:
"Microsoft Work Group Server Protocol Program License Agreement (No Patents)"
That's the: "if you don't want to license patents but to develop under an NDA" agreement.
Which is the agreement they entered into.
You claimed that they paid money to Microsoft "for patents".
You get to access, under very controlled conditions, some very hard to read documentation which you will not be able to talk about with anyone.
That's a completely different argument. Whether or not you like the deal is really neither here nor there; the point is, money was not paid to Microsoft in recognition of their patent rights.
Cheers,
Alex.
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 18:05 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:22:35PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org writes:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:40:18PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Sure. What project/initiative/activity do you think FSFE and FFII should coordinate on?
The main issue, of course, software patents.
I was hoping for something a lot more specific.
It's impossible to be more specific, since the fact that there has been little coordination has resulted in *no* critic about the result of the case in terms of software patents from FSF Europe.
You can't really seriously argue about (anti)patents in an anti-trust case.
Even Samba (Jeremy) is now using a foundation (made up by SFLC) on the US to get to the documents in an NDA fashion. NDA development is bad enough on hardware drivers. On formats and protocols it is a poison pill.
Actually, this is not right. Having the docs is definitely better than having none, even under NDA. Remember that the source code will be available, everybody can read it and even write documentation reading the source code.
The EU is happy-happy joy-joy[1] about the whole charade where it has granted Microsoft the right to demand royalties for it's software patents to Free Software users.
The EU has no such granting power, patent law allows Microsoft to ask for royalties. You should remember that before the conclusion of the case MS had much stricter terms to access the documentation and a patent license with per unit royalties was unavoidable. Now we get a flat fee for the docs and we are not required to sign any patent license.
True the EC could have gone as far as imposing MS to provide even the patent license for a flat fee, or, in theory even oblige MS to grant a license to anybody for free. But we couldn't get that far this time.
Even if it's a one-time payment royalty, it's a royalty on software patents which implies respecting them.
Unfortunately there is no one-time payment for patent royalties, it's a per shipped unit one afaik.
If this view from the result is incorrect, please tell me how it is so, for this comes straight from Kroes's statements and Microsoft's agreements.
I think the current situation is better then the previous, could be better, but it is not worse. I can't see this big patent problem you see, the fact that a certain part of the establishment is ok with software patents is not new at all, we all know that. I honestly don't think this case changes any balance in that respect.
Simo.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 10:39:08PM -0500, simo wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:22:35PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org writes:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:40:18PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Sure. What project/initiative/activity do you think FSFE and FFII should coordinate on?
The main issue, of course, software patents.
I was hoping for something a lot more specific.
It's impossible to be more specific, since the fact that there has been little coordination has resulted in *no* critic about the result of the case in terms of software patents from FSF Europe.
You can't really seriously argue about (anti)patents in an anti-trust case.
Sure, we should just cave in to the «if there are patents involved, forget anti-trust» mantra that EC has shoved upon us.
Even Samba (Jeremy) is now using a foundation (made up by SFLC) on the US to get to the documents in an NDA fashion. NDA development is bad enough on hardware drivers. On formats and protocols it is a poison pill.
Actually, this is not right. Having the docs is definitely better than having none, even under NDA.
Having OOXML as it is must be definitly better then.
Remember that the source code will be available, everybody can read it and even write documentation reading the source code.
Under NDA development it is frequent that you can't reveal information through "readable" function names or variables, or even comments explaining the limits of certain values, etc...
The EU is happy-happy joy-joy[1] about the whole charade where it has granted Microsoft the right to demand royalties for it's software patents to Free Software users.
The EU has no such granting power, patent law allows Microsoft to ask for royalties.
And EC recognises software patents, Q.E.D.
You should remember that before the conclusion of the case MS had much stricter terms to access the documentation and a patent license with per unit royalties was unavoidable. Now we get a flat fee for the docs and we are not required to sign any patent license.
Of course not, its at your own risk to be prossecuted or not, because there's nothing protecting you or your customers from that.
EC case is only reasonably acceptable considering USA laws.
True the EC could have gone as far as imposing MS to provide even the patent license for a flat fee, or, in theory even oblige MS to grant a license to anybody for free. But we couldn't get that far this time.
Totally beyond the point. They should not have recognises Microsoft's software patents.
I can't see this big patent problem you see, the fact that a certain part of the establishment is ok with software patents is not new at all, we all know that. I honestly don't think this case changes any balance in that respect.
Of course not, other than EC recognising software patents, its virtually unfelt by Microsoft.
Rui
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 09:37 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Actually, this is not right. Having the docs is definitely better than having none, even under NDA.
Having OOXML as it is must be definitly better then.
You're comparing apples and oranges. OOXML is a new format; Samba is speaking a relatively old format. Windows domains are already here and in broad use; OOXML has little take-up. Documenting a new thing is of much less value than documenting something in such broad use.
Under NDA development it is frequent that you can't reveal information through "readable" function names or variables, or even comments explaining the limits of certain values, etc...
"To the extent that Microsoft Confidential Information is embodied in and disclosed by source code (including comments to source code in line with standard industry practice) versions of Implementations, Licensee may disclose such Confidential Information as part of a distribution of such source code. For further clarification of standard industry practice, the parties intend that the standard will be the commenting and/or commit messages reasonably required from the perspective of good software engineering practices. Without limiting the sources of such standards, the kinds of practice that would typically be sources for those standards would include those described in Writing Clean Code (Steve Maguire) and Code Complete (Steve McConnell), as well as those used generally in the published source code from Samba.org as of the date of this Agreement."
You know, you can just go and read the agreement and see what it actually says?
The EU is happy-happy joy-joy[1] about the whole charade where it has granted Microsoft the right to demand royalties for it's software patents to Free Software users.
The EU has no such granting power, patent law allows Microsoft to ask for royalties.
And EC recognises software patents, Q.E.D.
You're confusing two completely separate issues. The first is the ability to demand royalties for software patents. We've already shown that isn't the case.
The second is recognition of the existence of software patents. Fact is, *they are issued in Europe*. What on earth could the Commission have done? Even if it licensed them for everyone to use freely, it would a. only have applied in Europe and b. still recognised the fact they exist.
The FSFE et al. could have taken the approach of "we don't recognise software patents, so we refuse to have any patent language in the agreement". That's about as safe as saying "we don't recognise the right of way for motorists, so we won't look both ways when crossing the road", and it would have gained *nothing*. We're equally unsafe now as before.
Cheers,
Alex.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 09:47:02AM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 09:37 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Actually, this is not right. Having the docs is definitely better than having none, even under NDA.
Having OOXML as it is must be definitly better then.
You're comparing apples and oranges. OOXML is a new format;
I'm questioning the logic, not newness or anything else. The logic is flawed.
Under NDA development it is frequent that you can't reveal information through "readable" function names or variables, or even comments explaining the limits of certain values, etc...
"To the extent that Microsoft Confidential Information is embodied in and disclosed by source code (including comments to source code in line with standard industry practice) versions of Implementations, Licensee may disclose such Confidential Information as part of a distribution of such source code. For further clarification of standard industry practice, the parties intend that the standard will be the commenting and/or commit messages reasonably required from the perspective of good software engineering practices. Without limiting the sources of such standards, the kinds of practice that would typically be sources for those standards would include those described in Writing Clean Code (Steve Maguire) and Code Complete (Steve McConnell), as well as those used generally in the published source code from Samba.org as of the date of this Agreement."You know, you can just go and read the agreement and see what it actually says?
I can't read it all, however it seems quite broadly open for interpretation.
The EU is happy-happy joy-joy[1] about the whole charade where it has granted Microsoft the right to demand royalties for it's software patents to Free Software users.
The EU has no such granting power, patent law allows Microsoft to ask for royalties.
And EC recognises software patents, Q.E.D.
You're confusing two completely separate issues. The first is the ability to demand royalties for software patents. We've already shown that isn't the case.
You don't pay a royalty per copy, you have a one time royalty. This is bad because it's validating that RAND => payment.
The second is recognition of the existence of software patents. Fact is, *they are issued in Europe*. What on earth could the Commission have done? Even if it licensed them for everyone to use freely, it would a. only have applied in Europe and b. still recognised the fact they exist.
EC should not recognise any software patents. They're illegal in Europe, and the recent attempt at legallising them by Directive was rejected with 96% (IIRC) of the votes.
The fact that EPO illegaly conceded them is totally irrelevant. They're communication protocols and file formats on digital world => software => patents are software patents, not other kinds.
They should *NOT* have accepted that. The reasoning that they couldn't impose it outside Europe is irrelevant, since they only can impose anything *INSIDE* Europe.
The FSFE et al. could have taken the approach of "we don't recognise software patents, so we refuse to have any patent language in the agreement". That's about as safe as saying "we don't recognise the right of way for motorists, so we won't look both ways when crossing the road", and it would have gained *nothing*. We're equally unsafe now as before.
No, because in Europe there are no software patents. What has been granted was in violation to the letter of the law.
Rui
Under NDA development it is frequent that you can't reveal information through "readable" function names or variables, or even comments explaining the limits of certain values, etc...
It is frequent, but this is not the case. Please read the relevant information about the contract. The people involved worked hard to avoid the trap you are describing.
And, strange as it seems, it is not _that_ unlikely for NDA contracts to allow complete freedom in released source code -- at least with smaller companies.
/alessandro
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 09:37 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 10:39:08PM -0500, simo wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:22:35PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org writes:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:40:18PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Sure. What project/initiative/activity do you think FSFE and FFII should coordinate on?
The main issue, of course, software patents.
I was hoping for something a lot more specific.
It's impossible to be more specific, since the fact that there has been little coordination has resulted in *no* critic about the result of the case in terms of software patents from FSF Europe.
You can't really seriously argue about (anti)patents in an anti-trust case.
Sure, we should just cave in to the «if there are patents involved, forget anti-trust» mantra that EC has shoved upon us.
I never heard such a mantra, must have been living in a different world...
Even Samba (Jeremy) is now using a foundation (made up by SFLC) on the US to get to the documents in an NDA fashion. NDA development is bad enough on hardware drivers. On formats and protocols it is a poison pill.
Actually, this is not right. Having the docs is definitely better than having none, even under NDA.
Having OOXML as it is must be definitly better then.
For implementing OOXML sure, but don't try to muddle the waters here please, OOXML *is not* a standard and we are not speaking of making CIFS protocols a standard, so don't mix things this agreement has nothing to do with the OOXML standardization process.
Remember that the source code will be available, everybody can read it and even write documentation reading the source code.
Under NDA development it is frequent that you can't reveal information through "readable" function names or variables, or even comments explaining the limits of certain values, etc...
Rui, *please*, can you read the agreement? I am a bit offended you think Samba Team members are so stupid to fall in such traps, actually we changed the original agreement wording just to avoid things like that, read it!
The EU is happy-happy joy-joy[1] about the whole charade where it has granted Microsoft the right to demand royalties for it's software patents to Free Software users.
The EU has no such granting power, patent law allows Microsoft to ask for royalties.
And EC recognises software patents, Q.E.D.
Well this is your mantra, not mine, I guess we just disagree here, time will tell.
You should remember that before the conclusion of the case MS had much stricter terms to access the documentation and a patent license with per unit royalties was unavoidable. Now we get a flat fee for the docs and we are not required to sign any patent license.
Of course not, its at your own risk to be prossecuted or not, because there's nothing protecting you or your customers from that.
Like before, no difference at all.
EC case is only reasonably acceptable considering USA laws.
Which is important because we do not develop and distribute in a vacuum. A ruling that would matter under EU *only* law, would have been COMPLETELY useless as Free Software is distributed everywhere we *need* to be ok under any possible jurisdiction, and this deal made MS accept rules that work in the US as well.
True the EC could have gone as far as imposing MS to provide even the patent license for a flat fee, or, in theory even oblige MS to grant a license to anybody for free. But we couldn't get that far this time.
Totally beyond the point. They should not have recognises Microsoft's software patents.
They were not fighting a software patents battle, period. An antitrust case is not about recognizing software patents, true they could have imposed different licensing methods, but they can't rule patents valid or invalid during an antitrust case. Microsoft put the patents on the table and the EC options were around how to make MS license them. Ignoring them would have meant leaving MS carte-blanche on how to license them.
I can't see this big patent problem you see, the fact that a certain part of the establishment is ok with software patents is not new at all, we all know that. I honestly don't think this case changes any balance in that respect.
Of course not, other than EC recognising software patents, its virtually unfelt by Microsoft.
So the EC was previously not recognizing them and now it does? If it is so, please show me documents were the EC were claiming patents on software were not valid, then I will accept to consider this a change in positions and a change worth of consideration.
Simo.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 09:53:59AM -0500, simo wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 09:37 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 10:39:08PM -0500, simo wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:22:35PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org writes:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:40:18PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > Sure. What project/initiative/activity do you think FSFE and FFII should > coordinate on?
The main issue, of course, software patents.
I was hoping for something a lot more specific.
It's impossible to be more specific, since the fact that there has been little coordination has resulted in *no* critic about the result of the case in terms of software patents from FSF Europe.
You can't really seriously argue about (anti)patents in an anti-trust case.
Sure, we should just cave in to the «if there are patents involved, forget anti-trust» mantra that EC has shoved upon us.
I never heard such a mantra, must have been living in a different world...
Can counterpoint the verbalization of facts with counter facts? Because the result recognises Microsoft's software patents.
Software patents are invalid in Europe so...
Actually, this is not right. Having the docs is definitely better than having none, even under NDA.
Having OOXML as it is must be definitly better then.
For implementing OOXML sure, but don't try to muddle the waters here please, OOXML *is not* a standard and we are not speaking of making CIFS protocols a standard, so don't mix things this agreement has nothing to do with the OOXML standardization process.
As I said in another email, what I'm question in my remark is the logic of the statement.
Remember that the source code will be available, everybody can read it and even write documentation reading the source code.
Under NDA development it is frequent that you can't reveal information through "readable" function names or variables, or even comments explaining the limits of certain values, etc...
Rui, *please*, can you read the agreement? I am a bit offended you think Samba Team members are so stupid to fall in such traps, actually we changed the original agreement wording just to avoid things like that, read it!
I am not so confident as you are in the wording.
The EU is happy-happy joy-joy[1] about the whole charade where it has granted Microsoft the right to demand royalties for it's software patents to Free Software users.
The EU has no such granting power, patent law allows Microsoft to ask for royalties.
And EC recognises software patents, Q.E.D.
Well this is your mantra, not mine, I guess we just disagree here, time will tell.
Oh really? Counter with facts please:
* EC or even CoJ can't affect juridisctions outside EU, namely the USA. * EC or even CoJ can affect the juridisction of European Union. * Software patents are against the letter of the law * in the current context, there are only software patents * results recognise said software patents
You should remember that before the conclusion of the case MS had much stricter terms to access the documentation and a patent license with per unit royalties was unavoidable. Now we get a flat fee for the docs and we are not required to sign any patent license.
Of course not, its at your own risk to be prossecuted or not, because there's nothing protecting you or your customers from that.
Like before, no difference at all.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Not exactly, because they recognise and legitimise them by taking them in account. Toothless. So why rejoice?
EC case is only reasonably acceptable considering USA laws.
Which is important because we do not develop and distribute in a vacuum. A ruling that would matter under EU *only* law, would have been COMPLETELY useless as Free Software is distributed everywhere we *need* to be ok under any possible jurisdiction, and this deal made MS accept rules that work in the US as well.
Irrelevant strawmen argument, since for that you need to address at WIPO. No juridisction over USA means it can only affect EU. The result is disatreous in EU as it recognises validity of software patents.
True the EC could have gone as far as imposing MS to provide even the patent license for a flat fee, or, in theory even oblige MS to grant a license to anybody for free. But we couldn't get that far this time.
Totally beyond the point. They should not have recognises Microsoft's software patents.
They were not fighting a software patents battle, period. An antitrust case is not about recognizing software patents, true they could have imposed different licensing methods, but they can't rule patents valid or invalid during an antitrust case.
They can have absolutely no regard at all since they are invalid. What they did is have them in accoun => recognising => legitimizing themt
Microsoft put the patents on the table and the EC options were around how to make MS license them.
=> recognising => legitimizing them
Ignoring them would have meant leaving MS carte-blanche on how to license them.
I didn't say ignore. It should outright exclude them in the valid jurisdisction.
I can't see this big patent problem you see, the fact that a certain part of the establishment is ok with software patents is not new at all, we all know that. I honestly don't think this case changes any balance in that respect.
Of course not, other than EC recognising software patents, its virtually unfelt by Microsoft.
So the EC was previously not recognizing them and now it does?
It is you who claim that. I don't claim that *anywhere*. In fact I claim they legitimise them.
I don't understand how you can give such a blind-folded benefit of doubt.
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 15:17 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 09:53:59AM -0500, simo wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 09:37 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 10:39:08PM -0500, simo wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:22:35PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org writes: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:40:18PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: >> Sure. What project/initiative/activity do you think FSFE and FFII should >> coordinate on? > > The main issue, of course, software patents.
I was hoping for something a lot more specific.
It's impossible to be more specific, since the fact that there has been little coordination has resulted in *no* critic about the result of the case in terms of software patents from FSF Europe.
You can't really seriously argue about (anti)patents in an anti-trust case.
Sure, we should just cave in to the «if there are patents involved, forget anti-trust» mantra that EC has shoved upon us.
I never heard such a mantra, must have been living in a different world...
Can counterpoint the verbalization of facts with counter facts? Because the result recognises Microsoft's software patents.
Software patents are invalid in Europe so...
They should be, yes, but that can only be established for each patent in front of a court.
Actually, this is not right. Having the docs is definitely better than having none, even under NDA.
Having OOXML as it is must be definitly better then.
For implementing OOXML sure, but don't try to muddle the waters here please, OOXML *is not* a standard and we are not speaking of making CIFS protocols a standard, so don't mix things this agreement has nothing to do with the OOXML standardization process.
As I said in another email, what I'm question in my remark is the logic of the statement.
The statement logic is oblivious to this agreement logic. I keep saying that you are just mixing apples and oranges here, trying to mud waters with a topic (OOXML) that raises hard feelings, but has nothing to do with this case.
Remember that the source code will be available, everybody can read it and even write documentation reading the source code.
Under NDA development it is frequent that you can't reveal information through "readable" function names or variables, or even comments explaining the limits of certain values, etc...
Rui, *please*, can you read the agreement? I am a bit offended you think Samba Team members are so stupid to fall in such traps, actually we changed the original agreement wording just to avoid things like that, read it!
I am not so confident as you are in the wording.
Well, who sign the agreement need to be concerned about the wording, unless you are thinking of signing an agreement with the PFIF to get access to the documentation it doesn't really matter if you are confident or not.
At most the single developer that sign the agreement is screwed.
I am pleased you are concerned with Samba Developers future, but I guess we can manage to understand, get professional legal counsel, and decide on our career by ourselves :-)
The EU is happy-happy joy-joy[1] about the whole charade where it has granted Microsoft the right to demand royalties for it's software patents to Free Software users.
The EU has no such granting power, patent law allows Microsoft to ask for royalties.
And EC recognises software patents, Q.E.D.
Well this is your mantra, not mine, I guess we just disagree here, time will tell.
Oh really? Counter with facts please:
Can you get your facts right before that please?
- EC or even CoJ can't affect juridisctions outside EU, namely the USA.
They do not affect jurisdictions, that's why they can't rule patents invalid, but they can force MS to stick to the agreement or fine them. The only option for MS to not stick to the agreement and avoid fines is to exit completely the EU market. You may understand this is a very compelling reason to agrre with the EU on how to license stuff worldwide.
- EC or even CoJ can affect the juridisction of European Union.
The EC can't, the EC can propose directives that need to be approved by the parliament and the council. The EC can execute according to directives, that's the main job of the EC. The CoJ can resolve issues and enforce European law, but nothing more.
- Software patents are against the letter of the law
I believe this to be true. But you know very well it is not so clear cut you can assert it easily at legal and political levels. It's more complex than that.
- in the current context, there are only software patents
"Software Patents" is not a legal or even a strong technical term. I agree with the substance, but again the matter is more complex than that.
- results recognise said software patents
From my POV the EC already recognizes *every* software patent as valid,
what does this agreement changes in that regard ?
You should remember that before the conclusion of the case MS had much stricter terms to access the documentation and a patent license with per unit royalties was unavoidable. Now we get a flat fee for the docs and we are not required to sign any patent license.
Of course not, its at your own risk to be prossecuted or not, because there's nothing protecting you or your customers from that.
Like before, no difference at all.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Not exactly, because they recognise and legitimise them by taking them in account. Toothless. So why rejoice?
See above, I don't get why you are so concerned about this specific agreement. The software patent issue is a broader one, and must be fought at a different level. Until the law is made clear again, I see no value in cherry-picking on EC actions around this point, we all know the (un)official EC position.
EC case is only reasonably acceptable considering USA laws.
Which is important because we do not develop and distribute in a vacuum. A ruling that would matter under EU *only* law, would have been COMPLETELY useless as Free Software is distributed everywhere we *need* to be ok under any possible jurisdiction, and this deal made MS accept rules that work in the US as well.
Irrelevant strawmen argument, since for that you need to address at WIPO.
For this agreement WIPO has nothing to say, I am not sure what you are claiming here. An antitrust ruling is not about changing laws its just about executing and enforcing existing laws ...
No juridisction over USA means it can only affect EU.
Jurisdictions here are not relevant, an agreement between 2 parties is binding in any jurisdiction unless it is against the law in some or some jurisdictions are explicitly excluded, AFAIK, IANAL.
The result is disatreous in EU as it recognises validity of software patents.
I am not sure I can follow you, you seem to short-circuit way too many facts, and make so many simplifications that is is honestly difficult to follow your reasoning.
I'd say you are seeing a storm in a glass of water.
True the EC could have gone as far as imposing MS to provide even the patent license for a flat fee, or, in theory even oblige MS to grant a license to anybody for free. But we couldn't get that far this time.
Totally beyond the point. They should not have recognises Microsoft's software patents.
They were not fighting a software patents battle, period. An antitrust case is not about recognizing software patents, true they could have imposed different licensing methods, but they can't rule patents valid or invalid during an antitrust case.
They can have absolutely no regard at all since they are invalid. What they did is have them in accoun => recognising => legitimizing themt
Man, come on, the EC has no power to judge a patent valid or invalid, only courts can. So the EC *must* give MS the benefit of doubt and assume their patents are valid. It's up to the defendants to challenge those patents in court, would Microsoft decide to try and enforce them. This is with the *current* legal framework AFAIK and IANAL again.
The only thing the EC had the power to choose was how to make MS license them. We are not completely satisfied on this point, but the situation could have been a lot worse.
Microsoft put the patents on the table and the EC options were around how to make MS license them.
=> recognising => legitimizing them
repeating your mantra will not necessarily make it more true, or relevant ... try telling me something new, I got your position already.
Ignoring them would have meant leaving MS carte-blanche on how to license them.
I didn't say ignore. It should outright exclude them in the valid jurisdisction.
? YANAL right ?
I can't see this big patent problem you see, the fact that a certain part of the establishment is ok with software patents is not new at all, we all know that. I honestly don't think this case changes any balance in that respect.
Of course not, other than EC recognising software patents, its virtually unfelt by Microsoft.
So the EC was previously not recognizing them and now it does?
It is you who claim that. I don't claim that *anywhere*. In fact I claim they legitimise them.
I don't understand how you can give such a blind-folded benefit of doubt.
Don't think I am pro software patents, but the situation is more complex than the simple statement you keep repeating.
I have been an activist against software patents in Europe, in the past, when the FFII was able to achieve the extraordinary result it achieved in the EU Parliament, I know how things are set up, which players were on which side, and more or less what the situation still is.
What I am saying is: the EC is not a single body, there are many people with different political views in there, but it is true that in general it has been pro-software patents in the past.
What I think is: I see absolutely no difference after this ruling wrt EC stance on software patents, therefore I don't think their position on this point is a big deal or changes the landscape in any sensible way.
I just think you are pumping up way too much a legitimate concern, but a very minor one in the specific case.
Simo.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 04:23:30PM +0000, simo wrote:
Software patents are invalid in Europe so...
They should be, yes, but that can only be established for each patent in front of a court.
Nopes. Art. 52.2, and most countries legislation clearly exclude software patents. That has been established.
Let them sue, in Europe, and get their patents nullified by court. The problem is: * going to court is costly and uncertain * nulifing patent by patent is idiotic
Also, EC has no duty promoting an illegal point of view.
I am not so confident as you are in the wording.
Well, who sign the agreement need to be concerned about the wording, unless you are thinking of signing an agreement with the PFIF to get access to the documentation it doesn't really matter if you are confident or not.
At most the single developer that sign the agreement is screwed.
I am pleased you are concerned with Samba Developers future, but I guess we can manage to understand, get professional legal counsel, and decide on our career by ourselves :-)
Actually, I'm more concerned with the lack of response to the patent issue, which legitimises Microsoft's software patents.
The EU is happy-happy joy-joy[1] about the whole charade where it has granted Microsoft the right to demand royalties for it's software patents to Free Software users.
The EU has no such granting power, patent law allows Microsoft to ask for royalties.
And EC recognises software patents, Q.E.D.
Well this is your mantra, not mine, I guess we just disagree here, time will tell.
Oh really? Counter with facts please:
- EC or even CoJ can't affect juridisctions outside EU, namely the USA.
They do not affect jurisdictions, that's why they can't rule patents invalid,
Neiter rule them valid, like they did, by acknowledging them.
The only option for MS to not stick to the agreement and avoid fines is to exit completely the EU market. You may understand this is a very compelling reason to agrre with the EU on how to license stuff worldwide.
EC wasted the opportunity. Microsoft would cave in rather than loose the European market.
- EC or even CoJ can affect the juridisction of European Union.
The EC can't, the EC can propose directives that need to be approved by the parliament and the council. The EC can execute according to directives, that's the main job of the EC. The CoJ can resolve issues and enforce European law, but nothing more.
- Software patents are against the letter of the law
I believe this to be true. But you know very well it is not so clear cut you can assert it easily at legal and political levels. It's more complex than that.
By the contrary, it is quite a clear cut. It actually is even a violation of TRIPS[1] and the Geneva Convention[2]. It is a violation of Art. 52.2 EPC[3]. It is a clear cut. It only isn't a clear cut when you have the interest of curbing the meaning the the law[4].
[1] which redirects the software case to the Geneva Convention [2] which says software is a literary work [3] which clearly excludes patents on software [4] when you try to pretend "as such" could mean that software is a self sustained entity
patents on the table and the EC options were around how to make MS license them.
=> recognising => legitimizing them
repeating your mantra will not necessarily make it more true, or relevant ... try telling me something new, I got your position already.
Ignoring them would have meant leaving MS carte-blanche on how to license them.
I didn't say ignore. It should outright exclude them in the valid jurisdisction.
? YANAL right ?
Exclude them from the results. They don't matter at all. They can't consider as acknowledgeable something which is agains the law.
I can't see this big patent problem you see, the fact that a certain part of the establishment is ok with software patents is not new at all, we all know that. I honestly don't think this case changes any balance in that respect.
Of course not, other than EC recognising software patents, its virtually unfelt by Microsoft.
So the EC was previously not recognizing them and now it does?
It is you who claim that. I don't claim that *anywhere*. In fact I claim they legitimise them.
I don't understand how you can give such a blind-folded benefit of doubt.
Don't think I am pro software patents, but the situation is more complex than the simple statement you keep repeating.
I don't think that. Not at all.
What I am saying is: the EC is not a single body, there are many people with different political views in there, but it is true that in general it has been pro-software patents in the past.
And present. They are not deserving a benefit of doubt.
What I think is: I see absolutely no difference after this ruling wrt EC stance on software patents, therefore I don't think their position on this point is a big deal or changes the landscape in any sensible way.
I just think you are pumping up way too much a legitimate concern, but a very minor one in the specific case.
What, that they legitimise Microsoft's software patents and FSF Europe stays quiet? Something should have been said.
Rui
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:45:18 +0000 Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org wrote:
What, that they legitimise Microsoft's software patents and FSF Europe stays quiet? Something should have been said.
We didn't exactly stay quiet, but we also don't want to think of this as a defeat for Free Software. It isn't -- it's a very good step forward. The only ones who seem to have an opposing view is the FFII.
But patents will likely be an issue in the future, so I hope that the FFII and the FSFE will find enough common ground then to work together (this shouldn't be very difficult, we agree on most point, and only seem to disagree in this instance about interpretation).
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 06:07:14PM +0100, Jonas Öberg wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:45:18 +0000 Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org wrote:
What, that they legitimise Microsoft's software patents and FSF Europe stays quiet? Something should have been said.
We didn't exactly stay quiet, but we also don't want to think of this as a defeat for Free Software. It isn't -- it's a very good step forward. The only ones who seem to have an opposing view is the FFII.
It's one step foward and two steps back. You fell in the trap of agreeing with EC on the ackowledgement of software patents from Microsoft.
A mistake is normal, denial isn't.
But patents will likely be an issue in the future, so I hope that the FFII and the FSFE will find enough common ground then to work together (this shouldn't be very difficult, we agree on most point, and only seem to disagree in this instance about interpretation).
Can you focus on the patent issue and explain what is wrong in the interpretation the EC acknowledges their software patents as something to be respected?
They only have jurisdiction in the EU, so don't speak to me about the US or other of the rare countries which acknowledge software patents.
Just EU.
Rui
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 16:45 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Actually, I'm more concerned with the lack of response to the patent issue, which legitimises Microsoft's software patents.
Citing from: http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/
"Although we were disappointed the decision did not address the issue of patent claims over the protocols, it was a great achievement for the European Commission and for enforcement of antitrust laws in Europe."
"No per-copy royalties are required from the PFIF, Samba developers, third party vendors or users and no acknowledgment of any patent infringement by Free Software implementations is expressed or implied in the agreement."
"The patent list provides us with a bounded set of work needed to ensure non-infringement of Samba and other Free Software projects that implement the protocols documented by Microsoft under this agreement. Any patents outside this list cannot be asserted by Microsoft against any implementation developed using the supplied documentation. Unlike the highly dubious patent covenants recently announced by some companies this warranty extends to all third parties. Also unlike past agreements, this agreement has been carefully scrutinized by the Software Freedom Law Center, the premier legal experts for the GPL and Free Software."
Also read the section "The Agreement" here: http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_history.html to understand the progress we made and what we were able to achieve.
Last, but not least, remember that software patents exist and are valid in the USA. Ignoring this fact would make any antitrust ruling worthless and meaningless for Free Software as Free Software has no boundaries. If you read the agreement in fact, you will see both USA (bigger number) and EU patents listed. All in all, this ruling is not too bad, we could have had something better about patents, but not considering them was simply not possible for the EC at this time even if they wish.
I won't answer to the rest, I see no point to as you have already decided what is true and false, right and wrong, important and not, and are not willing to "discuss" and learn what lead to the current agreement and why it was done this way but you just want to assert your point of view. I do not agree with it, so we will just not agree.
Simo.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 05:36:02PM +0000, simo wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 16:45 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Actually, I'm more concerned with the lack of response to the patent issue, which legitimises Microsoft's software patents.
Citing from: http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/
"Although we were disappointed the decision did not address the issue of patent claims over the protocols, it was a great achievement for the European Commission and for enforcement of antitrust laws in Europe."
It addresses them alright, by acknowledging them.
"The patent list provides us with a bounded set of work needed to ensure non-infringement of Samba and other Free Software projects that implement the protocols documented by Microsoft under this agreement.
Admission of defeat "a priori". Let's hope there isn't a fatal patent (one which can't be circunvented and which will forbid Samba from competing).
Last, but not least, remember that software patents exist and are valid in the USA. Ignoring this fact would make any antitrust ruling worthless and meaningless for Free Software as Free Software has no boundaries.
Hello? EC and Court of Justice have no jurisdiction outside EU. Any ruling that that justifies not following EU law because of USA law is ... dubious to say the least?
I won't answer to the rest, I see no point to as you have already decided what is true and false, right and wrong, important and not, and are not willing to "discuss" and learn what lead to the current agreement and why it was done this way but you just want to assert your point of view. I do not agree with it, so we will just not agree.
You keep turning away from the patent issue in Europe. You don't keep focus, they take that opportunity and bite you the behind (like they did).
Rui
ps: I'll try to ignore your accusations, since I've grown to understand that's your style, accuse and paternally downplay.
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 15:42 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:02:24PM +0100, Free Software Foundation Europe wrote:
- FSFE revisiting software patent information
We have begun to revisit the published information on out webpages. There is increasing discussion of software patents within the institutions, so we are revising the information published on out website. Some updates are already online, and in the coming weeks, we will continue to provide more documentation about the current status as well as summaries of what was learned and what has already happened.
Please increase collaboration with FFII on this subject.
The semi-disaster of the Microsoft-vs-CE result
Why do you call it a disaster? Just for the patents problem? Or is there anything else?
is still producing the image that Microsoft's software patents are valid *in*Europe*.
It's not the EC that is making this possible, it is the EPO that is releasing patents to Microsoft.
Actually if you think it through you can argue that if the commission forced MS to license their patents for a flat fee, that would constitute much more recognition that such patents were valid, as it would mean the EC actually really believe the patents are valid and worth arguing for a flat fee.
However you put it, you can make the EC look good or bad equally. The only way not to "fall" in the patents trap would be to ignore them completely. But you can't, as in some countries there are valid patents and it is much better to be given the option to have a license for these countries than being barred from selling products/services there.
My 2c.
Simo.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 07:32:19AM -0500, simo wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 15:42 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:02:24PM +0100, Free Software Foundation Europe wrote:
- FSFE revisiting software patent information
We have begun to revisit the published information on out webpages. There is increasing discussion of software patents within the institutions, so we are revising the information published on out website. Some updates are already online, and in the coming weeks, we will continue to provide more documentation about the current status as well as summaries of what was learned and what has already happened.
Please increase collaboration with FFII on this subject.
The semi-disaster of the Microsoft-vs-CE result
Why do you call it a disaster? Just for the patents problem? Or is there anything else?
The patents problem.
is still producing the image that Microsoft's software patents are valid *in*Europe*.
It's not the EC that is making this possible, it is the EPO that is releasing patents to Microsoft.
With full support from EC, as usual.
Actually if you think it through you can argue that if the commission forced MS to license their patents for a flat fee, that would constitute much more recognition that such patents were valid,
*YES* this is *THE* principal problem.
However you put it, you can make the EC look good or bad equally. The only way not to "fall" in the patents trap would be to ignore them completely. But you can't, as in some countries there are valid patents and it is much better to be given the option to have a license for these countries than being barred from selling products/services there.
EC has no right to speak for those countries, only Europe. The Microsoft vs EC result is a sham.
Rui
Hi,
* Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org [2008-01-07 15:05:20 +0000]:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 07:32:19AM -0500, simo wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 15:42 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
The semi-disaster of the Microsoft-vs-CE result
Why do you call it a disaster? Just for the patents problem? Or is there anything else?
The patents problem.
is still producing the image that Microsoft's software patents are valid *in*Europe*.
It's not the EC that is making this possible, it is the EPO that is releasing patents to Microsoft.
With full support from EC, as usual.
Actually if you think it through you can argue that if the commission forced MS to license their patents for a flat fee, that would constitute much more recognition that such patents were valid,
*YES* this is *THE* principal problem.
Sorry I fail to see your argument. Software patents are a disaster but I don't see the connection to the EU antitrust case. There was no acknowledging of any patent and no patent fees were paid. MS was forced to tell what it claimed to be patents instead of FUDing "We have xxx patents on this".
Best wishes Michael
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 10:36:10PM +0100, Michael Kesper wrote:
- Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org [2008-01-07 15:05:20 +0000]:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 07:32:19AM -0500, simo wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 15:42 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
The semi-disaster of the Microsoft-vs-CE result
Why do you call it a disaster? Just for the patents problem? Or is there anything else?
The patents problem.
is still producing the image that Microsoft's software patents are valid *in*Europe*.
It's not the EC that is making this possible, it is the EPO that is releasing patents to Microsoft.
With full support from EC, as usual.
Actually if you think it through you can argue that if the commission forced MS to license their patents for a flat fee, that would constitute much more recognition that such patents were valid,
*YES* this is *THE* principal problem.
Sorry I fail to see your argument. Software patents are a disaster but I don't see the connection to the EU antitrust case.
EC said: «bad boys, as a punishment, you may charge royalties for the access to patented information from the competition.
Since you have patents, we cave in, but let's do it in a way where we can be seen as having a major victory against you, ok?»
There was no acknowledging of any patent and no patent fees were paid.
Of *specific* ones, no. Just carte-blanche for royalties on patents.
MS was forced to tell what it claimed to be patents instead of FUDing "We have xxx patents on this".
Oh really? Can you point me to the lists? And HOW would that contradict that EC is validating Microsoft's software patents with this result? In fact, it proves it outright!
Rui
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 00:06 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 10:36:10PM +0100, Michael Kesper wrote:
- Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org [2008-01-07 15:05:20 +0000]:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 07:32:19AM -0500, simo wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 15:42 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
The semi-disaster of the Microsoft-vs-CE result
Why do you call it a disaster? Just for the patents problem? Or is there anything else?
The patents problem.
is still producing the image that Microsoft's software patents are valid *in*Europe*.
It's not the EC that is making this possible, it is the EPO that is releasing patents to Microsoft.
With full support from EC, as usual.
Actually if you think it through you can argue that if the commission forced MS to license their patents for a flat fee, that would constitute much more recognition that such patents were valid,
*YES* this is *THE* principal problem.
Sorry I fail to see your argument. Software patents are a disaster but I don't see the connection to the EU antitrust case.
EC said: «bad boys, as a punishment, you may charge royalties for the access to patented information from the competition.
Since you have patents, we cave in, but let's do it in a way where we can be seen as having a major victory against you, ok?»
There was no acknowledging of any patent and no patent fees were paid.
Of *specific* ones, no. Just carte-blanche for royalties on patents.
MS was forced to tell what it claimed to be patents instead of FUDing "We have xxx patents on this".
Oh really? Can you point me to the lists? And HOW would that contradict that EC is validating Microsoft's software patents with this result? In fact, it proves it outright!
Rui you should get better information before calling doom. There are enough documents to answer your questions.
There is no carte-blanche for royalties on patents, and the EC was able to force Microsoft to provide a no-patents agreement to parties like the Samba Team (I am a Samba Team member btw) so that parties can get the documentation without recognizing any specific patent.
There is a specific list of patents Microsoft must disclose (see the list attached to the agreement documents referenced in this thread earlier).
Now we know exactly which are the claims of Microsoft, we can avoid patents or work around them.
Simo.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 10:28:35PM -0500, simo wrote:
Rui you should get better information before calling doom. There are enough documents to answer your questions.
There is no carte-blanche for royalties on patents, and the EC was able to force Microsoft to provide a no-patents agreement to parties like the Samba Team (I am a Samba Team member btw) so that parties can get the documentation without recognizing any specific patent.
Without licensing. Not without recognizing. There is no provision that will protect anyone from patent threat from Microsoft.
There is a specific list of patents Microsoft must disclose (see the list attached to the agreement documents referenced in this thread earlier).
=> recognizing MS Software Patents in EU
Now we know exactly which are the claims of Microsoft, we can avoid patents or work around them.
=> recognizing MS Software Patents in EU
This is so crystal clear...
Rui
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:35:36 +0000 Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org wrote:
=> recognizing MS Software Patents in EU
I can see how you can make this connection, but I don't think it necessarily reflects reality. The EC is with no uncertainty aware of our position against software patents, and accepting this license does in no way change our opinion that granted patents on software should be invalidated and no new patents granted on the subject.
If anything, accepting this license might be a recognision of patents in general, but it's not a recognision of software patents.
In fact, the agreement with Microsoft makes crystal clear in several places that the licensee is not waiving its right to contest the validity of the patents, and I'm quite sure this will happen at some point in time.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:05:50AM +0100, Jonas Öberg wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:35:36 +0000 Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org wrote:
=> recognizing MS Software Patents in EU
I can see how you can make this connection, but I don't think it necessarily reflects reality. The EC is with no uncertainty aware of our position against software patents, and accepting this license does in no way change our opinion that granted patents on software should be invalidated and no new patents granted on the subject.
"Our" opinion doesn't count for them. They are creating "precedents" that recognise the validity of software patents.
If anything, accepting this license might be a recognision of patents in general, but it's not a recognision of software patents.
Oh really? Do you know of any other patents than software patents when you speak of file formats or communication protocols in digital media? :)
In fact, the agreement with Microsoft makes crystal clear in several places that the licensee is not waiving its right to contest the validity of the patents, and I'm quite sure this will happen at some point in time.
Which is why I wonder why no criticism of this came forward. Arguing that at least there's some information on protocols/file-formats in this form is just the same as arguing that at least OOXML gives some info about MS Word's file-format.
It's utterly irrelevant because there are more important issues behind these moves.
One of the things this court result brought is that «forget anti-trust if there are patents involved».
Rui
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:30:02 +0000 Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org wrote:
"Our" opinion doesn't count for them. They are creating "precedents" that recognise the validity of software patents.
Well, on this we clearly disagree :-)
Which is why I wonder why no criticism of this came forward.
On the validity of the patents you mean? I'm sure this will come, but I'm not sure anyone has actually had time to fully go through them yet. Granted, there were only five or so European patents that can be challenged, but I don't doubt that this will come once everything starts to settle down and people start working again after christmas :-)
Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2008, 00:06 +0000 schrieb Rui Miguel Silva Seabra:
MS was forced to tell what it claimed to be patents instead of FUDing "We have xxx patents on this".
Oh really? Can you point me to the lists?
http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_agreement.pdf Page 46 to 55
HTH, Reinhard
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:05:21PM +0100, Reinhard Mueller wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2008, 00:06 +0000 schrieb Rui Miguel Silva Seabra:
MS was forced to tell what it claimed to be patents instead of FUDing "We have xxx patents on this".
Oh really? Can you point me to the lists?
http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_agreement.pdf Page 46 to 55
Wrong, those are "third parties".
Rui
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 11:48 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:05:21PM +0100, Reinhard Mueller wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2008, 00:06 +0000 schrieb Rui Miguel Silva Seabra:
MS was forced to tell what it claimed to be patents instead of FUDing "We have xxx patents on this".
Oh really? Can you point me to the lists?
http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_agreement.pdf Page 46 to 55
Wrong, those are "third parties".
It seems you're looking at the wrong page(s).
Page 45 lists claims from third parties Microsoft has been notified by.
Pages 46 through 55 list Microsoft owned/controlled patents in the US and EU, and patent applications.
Every patent is assigned a number, which is listed on the pages Reinhard mentioned. If you go to this website:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm
... you can enter the US patent number and verify that it is assigned to Microsoft Corp.
Hope that helps,
Alex.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:52:47AM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 11:48 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:05:21PM +0100, Reinhard Mueller wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2008, 00:06 +0000 schrieb Rui Miguel Silva Seabra:
MS was forced to tell what it claimed to be patents instead of FUDing "We have xxx patents on this".
Oh really? Can you point me to the lists?
http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_agreement.pdf Page 46 to 55
Wrong, those are "third parties".
It seems you're looking at the wrong page(s).
Page 45 lists claims from third parties Microsoft has been notified by.
Pages 46 through 55 list Microsoft owned/controlled patents in the US and EU, and patent applications.
I repeated my "procedure" and noticed that in my pagedown after page 45 "Appendix iv" got hidden just above the upper limit of the window, so I thought they where a listing.
Hope that helps,
Now it makes sense. Still: => recognising validity of Microsoft's software patents. => foot, meet bullet
Rui
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:07:41PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:02 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Now it makes sense. Still: => recognising validity of Microsoft's software patents. => foot, meet bullet
You would prefer they pretend those patents weren't issued?
No, they should demand EPO to ungrant them.
They can't do that, of course, because the EPO has a greater power than EC. Going to the extent of anihilating anti-trust power.
Rui
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:17:25 +0000 Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org wrote:
No, they should demand EPO to ungrant them.
As you pointed out, they couldn't make this demand. So what is it that you wish they would have done differently? I'm not saying that the agreement is perfect; there are areas where it could have been improved I'm sure, but I think it's a good step forward.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 01:28:34PM +0100, Jonas Öberg wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:17:25 +0000 Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org wrote:
No, they should demand EPO to ungrant them.
As you pointed out, they couldn't make this demand. So what is it that you wish they would have done differently? I'm not saying that the agreement is perfect; there are areas where it could have been improved I'm sure, but I think it's a good step forward.
They shouldn't recognise them. They can't force the EPO to ungrant them, but they can force the member-states to NOT recognise them, giving them their due value: expensive toilet paper.
Rui
Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2008, 12:34 +0000 schrieb Rui Miguel Silva Seabra:
they can force the member-states to NOT recognise them
Erm... no.
The EC is the executive body of the European Union. They don't make the rules, they just execute them. It's the basic concept of separation of powers.
Thanks, Reinhard
The EC is the executive body of the European Union. They don't make the rules, they just execute them. It's the basic concept of separation of powers.
unfortunatly this is not really true. only the EC has the power to draft new regulations. neither the the council of ministers nor the parliament has this power.
the 2 later can change the drafts but for a large part the EC determines what happens and what does not happen in europe. this is just one of the major democratic deficiencies in the EU. especially since the EC is so far detached from democracy in the first place.. and not politically accountable (no one knows how it came into power so the people in europe do not know whom to punish for the bad decessions of the EC).
greetings from vienna,
mond.
Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2008, 14:12 +0100 schrieb franz schaefer:
The EC is the executive body of the European Union. They don't make the rules, they just execute them. It's the basic concept of separation of powers.
unfortunatly this is not really true. only the EC has the power to draft new regulations.
That is correct, the EC can propose directives for approval by the Parliament and the Council. Thank you for clarifying this imprecision.
What the EC can't do is to create new ad-hoc rules on demand.
What the EC should do is propose a directive that disallows software patents, which would really solve the software patent problem in Europe. What the EC can't do is invalidate some specific patents by declaring them invalid, what it can't do either is invalidate some specific patents by simply ignoring them.
Thanks, Reinhard
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 03:04:37PM +0100, Reinhard Mueller wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2008, 14:12 +0100 schrieb franz schaefer:
The EC is the executive body of the European Union. They don't make the rules, they just execute them. It's the basic concept of separation of powers.
unfortunatly this is not really true. only the EC has the power to draft new regulations.
That is correct, the EC can propose directives for approval by the Parliament and the Council. Thank you for clarifying this imprecision.
What the EC can't do is to create new ad-hoc rules on demand.
What the EC should do is propose a directive that disallows software patents, which would really solve the software patent problem in Europe. What the EC can't do is invalidate some specific patents by declaring them invalid, what it can't do either is invalidate some specific patents by simply ignoring them.
Yes it can, since they are not valid.
Rui
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 14:38 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 03:04:37PM +0100, Reinhard Mueller wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2008, 14:12 +0100 schrieb franz schaefer:
The EC is the executive body of the European Union. They don't make the rules, they just execute them. It's the basic concept of separation of powers.
unfortunatly this is not really true. only the EC has the power to draft new regulations.
That is correct, the EC can propose directives for approval by the Parliament and the Council. Thank you for clarifying this imprecision.
What the EC can't do is to create new ad-hoc rules on demand.
What the EC should do is propose a directive that disallows software patents, which would really solve the software patent problem in Europe. What the EC can't do is invalidate some specific patents by declaring them invalid, what it can't do either is invalidate some specific patents by simply ignoring them.
Yes it can, since they are not valid.
The EC is not the court of Justice, please stop talking nonsense, you are on the edge of trolling.
Simo.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:59:25PM +0000, simo wrote:
The EC is not the court of Justice, please stop talking nonsense, you are on the edge of trolling.
Please avoid name calling. Name calling *is* trolling.
Rui
Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2008, 12:17 +0000 schrieb Rui Miguel Silva Seabra:
No, they should demand EPO to ungrant them.
They can't do that, of course,
Exactly. All the discussions that the EC should have invalidated the patents are void, because the EC has no control whatsoever over the EPO.
because the EPO has a greater power than EC.
That's a strange view - there are a lot of organisations that the EC has no influence upon (and IMHO it has to be that way in a democracy).
That there is *no* other institution that controls and influences the EPO in a democratic way is a severe bug in the system, but you can't blame the EC for that.
Thanks, Reinhard
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 01:30:28PM +0100, Reinhard Mueller wrote:
Exactly. All the discussions that the EC should have invalidated the patents are void, because the EC has no control whatsoever over the EPO.
Not void, because EC has control over countries (directives for instance).
That there is *no* other institution that controls and influences the EPO in a democratic way is a severe bug in the system, but you can't blame the EC for that.
Yes you can, EC proposed to legalise software patents, and still pursues that goal through indirect means (like EPLA for instance).
Rui
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:17 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:07:41PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:02 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Now it makes sense. Still: => recognising validity of Microsoft's software patents. => foot, meet bullet
You would prefer they pretend those patents weren't issued?
No, they should demand EPO to ungrant them.
Honestly, I think that would be completely pointless politicking for absolutely no gain. There are some battles not worth fighting, and attempting to bust a few patents down in a negotiation process for much more important information is one of them.
Let's imagine that by some chance the EC agreed that the patents should be invalidated, and bypassed the usual legal process for whatever bizarre and dangerous reason. What good does that do us? It doesn't invalidate all the other software patents that have been granted in Europe. The EC isn't going to set any kind of precedent in patents with some anti-trust agreement. No-one is going to be able to defend themselves by pointing to that decision and saying, "Look, patents on software must be invalid!". There would be no benefits outside those few patents being busted.
And it wouldn't benefit Samba either - they're still not in the position where they can make use of the patented process, because it's still going to be patented in the US and other places.
Software patents aren't going to be defeated one-by-one by knocking them out some way; the legal situation needs clarity so that the patents are recognisably unenforcable. Right now that arguably isn't the case.
Cheers,
Alex.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:35:17PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:17 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:07:41PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:02 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Now it makes sense. Still: => recognising validity of Microsoft's software patents. => foot, meet bullet
You would prefer they pretend those patents weren't issued?
No, they should demand EPO to ungrant them.
Honestly, I think that would be completely pointless politicking for absolutely no gain. There are some battles not worth fighting, and attempting to bust a few patents down in a negotiation process for much more important information is one of them.
Not bust a few patents, all *software* patents.
First step is not recognising them at all.
Let's imagine that by some chance the EC agreed that the patents should be invalidated, and bypassed the usual legal process for whatever bizarre and dangerous reason. What good does that do us? It doesn't invalidate all the other software patents that have been granted in Europe. The EC isn't going to set any kind of precedent in patents with some anti-trust agreement.
Haven't you noticed? They already did! If you have patents, don't worry about anti-trust!
Software patents aren't going to be defeated one-by-one by knocking them out some way; the legal situation needs clarity so that the patents are recognisably unenforcable. Right now that arguably isn't the case.
I don't defend that. I defend that they must not be recognised at all.
In Europe there are no Software Patents. There are some patents that have been granted against the law.
Rui