- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 17:37:09 -0500
- To: public-webpayments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51118995.2050001@openlinksw.com>
On 2/4/13 8:51 PM, Brent Shambaugh wrote: > Here's my take: > > Tim Berners-Lee speaks of a possible C-change (sp?) <1> with the > semantic web. If this change did indeed involve more people putting > publicly accessible data on the www in such a way that machines could > make sense of it and thus make it easier to correlate things, then it > seems possible that widespread innovation could ensue. Intellectual > property information, rules, regulations, etc. may be able to be > expressed in RDF so that a wider variety of people can participate > without anxiety. > > If indeed companies follow the route of embracing openness like IBM, > because it helps their business, then it seems possible that the > current view of intellectual property will increasingly be seen as > archaic (at least as far as I understand it). For those who are not > aware, IBM is one of the largest contributors to the Linux kernel. > > I think it comes down to the feasibility of opening up development > while still maintaining a competitive edge. For example, would it be > possible to set up a production line that could respond to > ever-changing design specifications? Could businesses do this, knowing > their competitors are doing it as well? I think that if the semantic > web gains widespread adoption, and works as envisioned, than companies > will have to think seriously about it. Innovation online appears to be > quite effective. It may be hard to compete with. > > On thing that could stifle it of course, is security fears. I do hope, > however, that greater communication leads to greater trust. > > <1> The Semantic Web of Data Tim Berners-Lee > (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeUrEh-nqtU) An increasing number of us (including TimBL) are working on the issue of Web resource access and control policies. These efforts are based on RDF's data model. Links: 1. http://www.w3.org/community/rww/ -- RWW community group 2. http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebID -- WebID 3. http://bit.ly/UuWZSI -- Collection of G+ posts covering social relationship semantics and resource access control etc.. Kingsley Kingsley > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Kingsley Idehen > <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote: > > On 2/2/13 7:22 PM, Steven Rowat wrote: > > On 2/2/13 1:03 PM, Jeffrey Cliff wrote: > > While I am new to this list, I think this post is dangerously > misguided. If the problem is that the patent system is > keeping groups > such as this from acheiving results, then groups like this > one need to > be converted into anti-software patent, or at least > anti-these-particular-patent ones. > > > I'm tending to agree with Jeff. > > I have an ancient history (circa 1990) of first getting my own > patent, and after that spending 3 years ghost-writing and > illustrating others' patents for a registered agent. My > experiences with the patents I worked on convinced me that the > system was controlled by large business and was grossly unfair > to independent inventors. And I don't know that this aspect > has gotten any better in the software age; perhaps worse. > > The day after reading Manu's post about not having discussions > in recordable mediums about patents relating to this > open-source work I caught myself having a daydream in which I > applied for a patent whose claims would allow me the rights to > software that automates the process employed by the US Patent > Office. (And I think the patent system is fast approaching > such a reductio ad absurdum; perhaps it's already there). > > OTOH, while as I said I do have a gut "Yeah!" with Jeff's > approach, it seems also that the patent problem can be filed > under the major problem that the USA is having with corporate > control of democracy at the moment. I saw a news clip with Al > Gore last night in which he said that essentially US democracy > had been 'hacked' by large business. I don't think he's the > first to notice this, but his phrasing catches it well for me. > So fighting at just the level of the patent arm of the system > is fighting against a higher power that has a lot of > ammunition. The Occupy movement is essentially fighting the > same battle. And to win a war like this, we have to pick > fights we can win. > > Yet, finally, things are changing in ways we can't predict, > with social media allowing new ways of organizing ourselves. > Perhaps all we can do is fall back on some basics: I'd go for > 'love your neighbour as yourself' and 'the end doesn't justify > the means'. > > To me that would mean that if I felt strongly that the patent > system needed complete overhaul (or even abolishment), and > this is a mailing list developing patent-free, open-source > technology, then discussing all patents that might be > infringed by the technology would seem like a thing to be > encouraged, rather than avoided. > > Needing to pretend publicly to not know about something that > you in fact need to discuss to do your work seems unhealthy to > me; and perhaps is unworkable anyway in a supposedly public > mailing list. > > > +1 > > Use the power of the Web to simplify the discovery of "prior art" :-) > > > Kingsley > > > > Steven Rowat > > > We /should/ be posting this stuff to email groups such as > this - and > to make as recordable as possible its impacts. Not > because we think > we can work around it, /not/ because it's unenforcable (in > any patent > case there is a probability that it may be enforced) but > because > hiding from problems [ie in this case, Apple] only allows > them to > perpetuate and grow, and implicitly grants them > legitimacy. The > businesses that are going to fail to participate due to > this issue > will have an additional datapoint of organized groups [in > this case, a > high profile one] which have been undermined by this > problem, and > hence, more visible evidence that the problem needs > solving at its core. > > Jeff Cliff > > > On 31 January 2013 14:12, Manu Sporny > <msporny@digitalbazaar.com <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com> > <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com > <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>>> wrote: > > On 01/31/2013 02:22 PM, Kumar McMillan wrote: > >> > http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/31/apple-patents-crowdsourced-peer-to-peer-mobile-banking-that-could-use-itunes-to-provide-cash-on-demand/ > >> Can you believe this? > > > > As sad and depressing as this sounds, you shouldn't > ever post > patent > > announcements to an email list that might be > associated with an > > emerging protocol (such as what this w3c group aims > for). Some info > > on why: > > > > > http://www.radwin.org/michael/2003/02/28/why_discussing_patents_over_email_is_bad/ > > > > I've done it before myself :( > > Having authored several patents by myself and having > one of them > granted > before deciding that I never wanted to do that ever > again, I have > mixed > feelings about this. > > Our (Digital Bazaar's) official company policy is that > we don't e-mail > around patents, no matter how ridiculous, they're > always discussed > in a > channel that isn't logged. > > I also fear that the "head-in-the-sand" approach will > hobble this > group. > We need to know about the patents that exist if we are > to work around > them for the Royalty-Free requirement of all W3C > specs. The risk > we run > by doing that, however, is that large companies (like > Yahoo, Google, > Mozilla, etc.) might stay away from this work for that > very reason. We > don't want to risk that either. > > So, let's try this as a compromise. If you see a > patent that is of > interest, it is up to you if you want to notify any of > the editors or > mailing list participants OVER A NON-RECORDABLE > MEDIUM. Just to be > clear: Twitter, G+, Skype, IRC, are all recordable > mediums. A > phone call > is best. > > Folks are free to ignore this advice on the mailing > list, but know > that > by doing so, you're going to push some of the > companies that are > afraid > of these sorts of damages away from participating in > this group > (and we > really, really don't want to do that). > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: > +Manu Sporny) > President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: Aaron Swartz, PaySwarm, and Academic Journals > http://manu.sporny.org/2013/payswarm-journals/ > > > > > -- > GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into > your sig on > any forum and add 1 to the generation > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen > Founder & CEO > OpenLink Software > Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com > Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen > <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen> > Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen > Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen > > > > > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 22:37:32 UTC