(unknown charset) Re: [Patents] Re: Pseudo-Patent-Free Microsoft Standard

Seth, I read in http://www.eet.com july 24, 2000 issue about about how the
movie industry, arguably, one of the bigger superclass citizens (
corporations, NPOs, and quasi governmental non human, non breathing, but
in law, recognized as a person the same as if they were human) has
proposed to precertify consumer electronic products to ensure that these
new products do not allow outsiders to enfringe music copyrights.  
    Is this a set of legal shackles for music emperors to incarcerate
human freedoms for the benefit of the music emperor ip estates? 

Somehow the Sherrif at Nothingham(FCC division), would certify the  
motion picture emperors as keeper of the key and guardian to the gate
through which all new manufactured electronic products would need to pass,
inorder to be ticketed as "market eligible". 
    As I inderstand this scheme, a manufactuer would buy a ticket to enter
the gates of the movie industry.  Once on the grounds of the Emperor and
after paying due respects, a technical representative of the emperor would
presumably, for a fee, examine and extract the design information that
comprises the exact nature of the mix of technologies specified by the
designer, as compiled by the manufacturer, and as expressed in the
produced product which has been proposed by the manufactuer to be marketed.
    If the music emperors decides, the product proposed by the manufactuer
would benefit the music industry, the Music Emperors would issue to
the visiting manufactuer a "marketing ticket", a serialized copy of which
is to be placed on each unit of a ticketed product that is sent to market.
     I suppose , bold new products would be denied "marketing tickets"
since the Music emperors would not already have in place suitable
technology copy protection schemes for such products.  Hence, the gating
would impose on the manufacturers the obligation to develop suitable
copyright protection technology, to protect the copyrights of the music
emperor, before the manufactuer could obtain a "marketing ticket" for his
product. 
    Apparently the FCC has something to do with this outrageous gating
concept.   The justification for this idea seems to be to avoid exposing
the manufacturer to infringement actions. In other words, the music
emperors just wait for a product to hit the market, as soon as it is
apparent that the product can be used by users in ways that the music
emperors do not like, they file infringement suits against the
manufactuers of the products, not the users who are doing the
infringements.  In my opinion, this is not unlike the Capone saga: the
master superclass (non human people) have taken control of the government,
the law, and the market.

What bothers me the most is that we the members of the humanclass have
been reduced to slave to serve the superclass. We have been ordered
by our slave masters, the government(who work for the superclass), to be a
good customer to our masters for the duration of our human lives,
superclass do not die.
 
Humanclass members will be punished for failing to be a good customer.
The punishment will be to be whipped with one or more of the rules which
constitute ip laws and after the whipping to be imprisoned for 10 years
for each copyright infringement technology(DMCA) which we humanclass
slaves are smart enough to invent.  superclass cannot even go the
bathroom, but they are our owners?

sterling

On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Bernard Lang wrote:

> [Moderator note: This mail was sent to To: PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>,
> C-FIT_Release_Community@RealMeasures.dyndns.org and Cc:
> www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org, usenet@consulting.net.nz, rms@gnu.org,
> patents@aful.org]
> 
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:02:57AM +0200, PILCH Hartmut wrote:
> >  > (Microsoft just can't cope with the idea that standards are
> >  > supposed to be used by everyone.  So they are hooking up
> >  > their patents via their license.  We simply can't turn our
> >  > back on them for one second.  -- Seth Johnson)
> >  >
> >  > http://www.advogato.org/article/453.html
> >
> >  The CIFS specification seems to be based on two trivial and broad
> >  problem patents from the early 90s which cover all communication
> >  between 2 computers where data are directly stored from a remote
> >  location into the data buffer of a program and the transmission
> >  doesn't use headers.
> >
> >  These claims look so ludicrous that there is hope that they would not
> >  stand a court proceding.  If you can afford litigation, the result
> >  might well be that the court narrows down the claim scope somewhat but
> >  yet upholds some of the subclaims.  I guess that would be enough for
> >  MS to maintain its grip on the proprietary standard which it is
> >  pushing onto the Net.
> >
> >  Here are some of the details:
> 
> ..........
> 
> >  Unfortunately we still do not know about the EPO situation concerning
> >  these Microsoft applications.  As usual, the US patent doesn't contain
> >  information on a parallel EP or WO patent application.  Yet these
> >  could very well exist.   In 1993 the EPO was already granting patents
> >  on the most abstract mathematical methods, and of course the above
> >  claim language looked "technical" enough for the EPO to consider it
> >  not pertaining to a programming solution as such -- indeed it is more
> >  a problem than a solution that is claimed.  Also, an application from
> >  1993 would most likely have been granted around 1998 by the EPO.
> >
> >  For research into this, you may want to use
> >
> >          http://www.depatisnet.de/
> >          http://www.espacenet.com/
> >          http://www.delphion.com/
> >
> >  Using a few key words from the two US applications (such as Microsoft,
> >  "inventor"'s name, text strings from the claims etc) should get you
> >  there.
> 
> I do not know whether that is essential, though proper information
> never hurts.
> 
> The data below seems more important to me, because it shows a
> systematic attack based on interoperability, using existing hold on
> the market to extend to new areas.  Very precisely what anti-trust
> regulation forbids.
> 
> Can someone translate precisely the excerpt from Heise
> 
> Auf die Ãffnung des .NET-Framework
> angesprochen, kündigte Ballmer an, dass es
> sicherlich eine
> Common-Language-Runtime-Implementation für
> Unix geben werde, schrÃ?nkte diese Entwicklung
> jedoch als Subset ein, der "nur für den
> akademischen Einsatz gedacht sei". Ãberlegungen
> zur Unterstützung freier .NET-Implementationen
> wie Mono erteilte Ballmer eine Absage
> 
> "Wir haben so viele Millionen in .NET gesteckt,
> wir haben so viele Patente auf .NET, die wir
> pflegen wollen."
> 
> Reference:
>    Steve Ballmer: Kein Tänzchen an der Leine
>    Detlef Borchers, Heise online, 12.03.2002
>    http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-12.03.02-000/
>  
> http://www.heise.de/bin/nt.print/newsticker/data/jk-12.03.02-000/?id=bb59a8c6&todo=print
> 
> 
> Bernard
> 
> PS Are there other speeches by Ballmer or others with similar statements ?
>     especially use of patents to kill open source.
> 
> 
> >  As MS is using these swpats for its crusades against the GPL, We need
> >  to document this stuff quickly and thouroughly, see also
> >
> >          http://swpat.ffii.org/news/index.en.html#m023E
> >
> >  and some help would be very much appreciated.
> >
> >  --
> >  Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-12789608
> >  Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation 
> >http://swpat.ffii.org/
> >  100,000 signatures against software patents      http://www.noepatents.org/
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 14 April 2002 07:44:57 UTC