4 posts • joined Thursday 21st January 2010 21:06 GMT
Software Patents in the UK
Couldn't agree more with you.
This just seems to be another step by the UKPO and EPO towards extending their brief, and range of patentable subjects, fully into Business Methods and pure software patenting. It also appears to be a case of when the previous "discussion" groups and sessions didn't produce the results they hoped for (allowing full patentability of all software), abandon that series, regroup and ask the same questions again, possibly with a different wording or assumed base (the base here being that software is patentable, how do we want the patenting sytem improved upon?), until getting the answers desired.
I would love to find that the costings examination produces the finding that (as I suspect) patents are actually of negative overall financial benefit to the IT sector - but, I guess that they'll just go change the questions again (or only ask the main proponents of the desired legislative changes!).
The UKPO & EPO are definitely of the "Big Brother's watching you" fraternity.
But EDS had such a "great management team".
From the judge's transcript:
Joe Galloway, former managing director of EDS's CRM practice, who was closely involved in EDS's bid to supply a CRM system to BSkyB, claimed in evidence that he held an MBA from Concordia College, St Johns (1995-1996).
But the degree was not genuine and was not obtained by study in 1995 to 1996, Sir Vivian Ramsey says in a judgment issued last night.
As soon as EDS discovered Joe Galloway lied in court it dismissed him, the judgment reveals.
One of BSkyB's QCs, Mark Howard, obtained a degree for his dog Lulu to prove the point that degrees from Condordia College could be gained with ease.
"Without any difficulty the dog was able to obtain a degree certificate and transcripts which were in identical form to those later produced by Joe Galloway but with marks which, in fact, were better than those given to him," the judgment says.
and later on:
"In my judgment, Joe Galloway's credibility was completely destroyed by his perjured evidence over a prolonged period.
"It is simply not possible to distinguish between evidence which he gave on this aspect and on other aspects of the case.
"My general approach to his evidence has therefore to be that I cannot rely on the truth of his evidence unless it is supported by other evidence or there is some other reason to accept it, such as it being inherently liable to be true.
"Having observed him over the period he gave his evidence and heard his answers to questions put in cross-examination and by me, which have been shown to be dishonest, I also consider that this reflects upon his propensity to be dishonest whenever he sees it in his interest, in his business dealings.
"Whilst, of course, this does not prove that Joe Galloway made dishonest representations, it is a significant factor which I have to take into account in assessing whether he was dishonest in his dealings with Sky."
I can just imagine that HP were delighted to find all this out, after they'd bought EDS. I wonder who negotiated the, now, infamous US Navy deal?
Bono, file sharing and a failing business model.
With all due deference to Bono (which is actually very little) and the media companies, I fail to understand why protecting their antiquated business model is a problem that must be shared with ISP's or anybody outside of that business. Copyright protection has been gradually extended (or drastically, should you be the owner of a cartoon mouse character!) and, after much lobbying by the media moguls, now offers a level and period of protection that not only beggers belief but bears no relationship to the original intention. I'm also at a loss to understand why copyright protection for music should be, or presume to be, different than for the written word.
A little off topic but, copyright (which is what this all boils down to) is a gift, given by governments on behalf of their citizens, to any person producing original works of art and literature. The premise being that, by allowing that person a period of exclusive rights to any monetary gain from the work (a period that used not to extend to life plus) the work is published to the public domain. The essential part of this is that, if the public think that the work merits it, they have to pay for it, if not it goes unsold and the "artist" goes hungry (or to his/her day job). At no point is there a codicil that says "regardless of the terms of copyright, everybody will have to ante up a subscription to view/listen to this (insert media here)." What gives the media companies, and some very highly remunerated "artists", the divine right to expect payment from everybody who can potentially access their product, whether they want the stuff or not?
Copyright is a gift that, in my opinion, has been extended too far and is now taken for granted. A reduction to the original term and conditions is now long overdue - it's a gift that I no longer wish to make.
- Product Round-up Smartwatch face off: Pebble, MetaWatch and new hi-tech timepieces
- Geek's Guide to Britain The bunker at the end of the world - in Essex
- FLABBER-JASTED: It's 'jif', NOT '.gif', says man who should know
- If you've bought DRM'd film files from Acetrax, here's the bad news
- VIDEO Herschel Space Observatory spots galaxies merging