Blackmoor Vituperative

Apple is suing people who use the word “pod” in their product. Ridiculous, you say? Outrageous, you say? Absolute evidence that Apple is to Microsoft as Fascist Italy was to Stalinist Ruissia? Why… yes. Yes, it is.

But of course, it is also an opportunity for Apple’s customers to demonstrate their manifest gullibility:

But perhaps the most interesting subtext to this story is that Wilson doesn’t harbor enough ill-will against Apple to stop buying the company’s products. She has owned about 10 Macs over the years and is currently surrounded by four of them and says she’ll buy more. In some ways, that’s one of the most ironic things about this story. Not only is Apple bullying people for the use of the word “pod,” it’s bullying its own customers.

(from ZDNet, Another cease and desist letter from Apple regarding usage of “pod” turns up)

After months of issuing warnings, the music industry finally made good on its threat to file suit against peer-to-peer software company LimeWire.

A group of music companies, including Sony BMG, Virgin Records and Warner Bros. Records, have accused LimeWire and the company’s officers of copyright infringement, according to a federal lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in New York. LimeWire produces software that’s often used to create copies of music recordings and then distribute them over the Web.

The recording industry is asking for compensatory and punitive damages, such as $150,000 for every song distributed without permission.

(from ZDNet, Music industry sues P2P firm LimeWire)

Personally, I use Shareaza.

The U.S. patent system could be inching closer to an overhaul long desired by the technology industry.

[…]

Called the Patent Reform Act of 2006, the measure followed two years of hearings, meetings and debate, the senators said. It bears a number of similarities to a bill offered last summer by Texas Republican Lamar Smith in the House of Representatives.

Specifically, it would shift to a “first to file” method of awarding patents, which is already used in most foreign countries, instead of the existing “first to invent” standard, which has been criticized as complicated to prove. Such a change has already earned backing from Jon Dudas, chief of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The bill would also establish a “postgrant opposition” system that would allow outsiders to dispute the validity of a patent before a board of administrative judges within the Patent Office, rather than in the traditional court system. The idea behind such a proceeding, also endorsed by the Patent Office, is to stave off excessive litigation.

[…]

In addition, the Hatch-Leahy bill would place new restrictions on the courts where patent cases could be filed–an attempt at rooting out “forum shopping” for districts known for favorable judges. It would also curb the amount of damages for winners of infringement suits. Perhaps most notably, and in a departure from the House version, courts would have to calculate the royalties owed by infringers based solely on the economic value of the “novel and nonobvious features” covered by the disputed patent, not on the value of the product as a whole.

Technology companies have been lobbying hard for putting such a requirement into law, complaining that it’s unfair to require massive payouts based on lost profits for an entire product that can contain hundreds of thousands of patented components if only one or two are infringed. Such a system, some argue, has contributed to the rise of “patent trolls”–that is, companies that exist primarily to make money from patent litigation and are using the system to force lucrative settlements.

(from ZDNet, Senators offer sweeping patent system changes)

It’s about damned time. This bill won’t fix everything wrong with our patent sustem — it still allows algorithms to be patented, for example — but at least it is a step in the right direction.

Just when Microsoft and Nintendo thought they were safe from the madness that is the United States patent system, a Texas-based company called Anascape comes along and sues both console makers over 12 patents relating to video game controllers.

[…]

Anascape filed suit against Microsoft and Nintendo in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas this past Monday. Anascape has accused the companies of infringing on a dozen different patents that were issued between 1999 and 2005. The patents seem to deal with almost every aspect of today’s modern video game controller, such as analog controls, analog pressure sensors for buttons, vibration and tactile feedback, and more.

(from GameDaily, Microsoft, Nintendo Hit with Controller Patent Lawsuit)

Our patent system is a cruel joke. It will get worse before it gets better.

By the way, don’t lump patents together with unrelated issues like trademarks, or copyright. They are each completely different issues. (I know, I know: I do it, too.)

Red Hat sued over JBoss technology

How ridiculous does patent law have to get in the USA before we do something about it? More ridiculous than it is already, it would seem….

Playing on Apple’s past “Switch” ad campaign, which was aimed at getting Windows users to migrate to Apple’s Mac OS X-based computers, a few longtime Mac and open-source gurus are vocally publicizing their switch away from Apple’s platform to more open-source solutions.

Though the practical impact is impossible to gauge, their arguments have been making waves.

The first was Mark Pilgrim, who wrote free software for the Mac in the mid-1990s.

He is involved with various current open-source projects, was a certified Mac OS X trainer and has written about Web site accessibility and scripting.

In a post on his blog, Pilgrim wrote that though he has long been impressed by Apple’s hardware and software, he thought that the latter had grown less attractive and more “restrictive,” leading him to seek alternatives.

Pilgrim wrote that he regretted that Apple’s software, including the operating system, was not open-source (Pilgrim has published software under the GNU GPL [General Public License]; the license states that software published under it includes the source code, which users can modify to their liking as long as they document the changes.)

He noted that most applications he uses are so open — “Why keep running them on an operating system that costs money and restricts my rights and my usage?”

(from eWeek, Tech Gurus Say They’ll ‘Switch from Mac’)

And here I thought that there was no hope for Mac users once they drank the Kool-Aid. If even a Mac user can come to her senses, maybe there’s hope for other apparently-lost causes. Good heavens — I think I may be feeling optimistic!

While on the subject of the poisonous fruit, check out Defective By Design.

More evidence of the absurdity of intellectual property law in the USA (specifically software patents, this time):

Microsoft loses appeal in Office patent spat

I’m all for the “little guy” standing up to Goliath. Nonetheless, software patents are an inherently bad idea. The sooner we rid ourselves of them, the better off all of us — including Microsoft — will be.

I wonder if the Mac cultists will ever realize that Apple is just as evil as Microsoft, if not more so. The only real difference is that Microsoft understands how to tread the thin line between despot and “hero of the people”. Apple doesn’t.

Apple’s logo should be a bundle of birch rods tied around an axe with a red ribbon.

Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) is what the media robber barons and their shills are attempting to use to control and restrict the ability of this and future generations to create and enjoy all forms of artistic endeavors: music, literature, films, art, you name it. DRM is one of the most serious threats to human cultural advancement since the Vatican, Charles IX, and various other European rulers tried to control all book publishing in the sixteenth century. This is not a small problem, and it is not going away.

David Berlind at ZDNet relates a story of a Dutch DRM trainwreck, one of a collection he is gathering for posterity.

A lawsuit filed Wednesday accuses the Motion Picture Association of America of hiring a hacker to steal information from a company that the MPAA has accused of helping copyright violators.

The lawsuit (click for PDF), filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Torrentspy.com parent Valence Media, doesn’t identify the man the company says was approached by an MPAA executive. But the suit calls the man a former associate of one of the plaintiffs and alleges that he was asked to retrieve private information on Torrentspy.com, a search engine that directs people to download links.

Torrentspy’s complaint includes claims that the man whom the MPAA allegedly paid $15,000 to steal e-mail correspondence and trade secrets has admitted his role in the plot and is cooperating with the company.

(from ZDNet, MPAA accused of hiring a hacker)