Hello
I want to develop a yahoo messenger client. I am confused regarding the
language.
If anyone could help me?
Is JAVA is best suitable for this? ( In terms of space and time
complexity)
thanks

codergem@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello
> I want to develop a yahoo messenger client. I am confused regarding the
> language.
> If anyone could help me?
> Is JAVA is best suitable for this? ( In terms of space and time
> complexity)

You can use anything for this except MS products (which by definition
are not crossplatform). Java would be just fine.

> thanks

codergem@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello
> I want to develop a yahoo messenger client. I am confused regarding the
> language.
> If anyone could help me?
> Is JAVA is best suitable for this? ( In terms of space and time
> complexity)

Time and space complexity are properties of algorithms not languages.
See:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_complexity

codergem@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello
> I want to develop a yahoo messenger client. I am confused regarding the
> language.
> If anyone could help me?
> Is JAVA is best suitable for this? ( In terms of space and time
> complexity)
> thanks

Lisp and Scheme are good for cross-platform, especially if you want
GUIs (see http://www.plt-scheme.org/ specifically MrEd).

toby wrote:
> You can use anything for this except MS products (which by definition
> are not crossplatform). Java would be just fine.

Except for most .NET languages, including F#, that work with Mono as well
as .NET.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet

Jon Harrop wrote:
> toby wrote:
> > You can use anything for this except MS products (which by definition
> > are not crossplatform). Java would be just fine.
>
> Except for most .NET languages, including F#, that work with Mono as well
> as .NET.

That is a very weak definition of cross-platform & I believe you know
it. And getting weaker daily, thanks to Novell. Furthermore, MS *wants*
lock in to their ghetto and will do anything (legal or not) to achieve
it. Tempting looking quicksand.

>
> --
> Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
> Objective CAML for Scientists
> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet

toby wrote:
> That is a very weak definition of cross-platform & I believe you know
> it. And getting weaker daily, thanks to Novell. Furthermore, MS *wants*
> lock in to their ghetto and will do anything (legal or not) to achieve
> it. Tempting looking quicksand.

On the contrary, the guys at Microsoft Research want their research on .NET
languages to live on and be used everywhere. Source code for the F#
compiler is as free as the OCaml compiler's source code, for example.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet

Jon Harrop wrote:
> toby wrote:
> > That is a very weak definition of cross-platform & I believe you know
> > it. And getting weaker daily, thanks to Novell. Furthermore, MS *wants*
> > lock in to their ghetto and will do anything (legal or not) to achieve
> > it. Tempting looking quicksand.
>
> On the contrary, the guys at Microsoft Research want their research on .NET
> languages to live on and be used everywhere.

The proprietary world must be a perennial disappointment, then.

> Source code for the F#
> compiler is as free as the OCaml compiler's source code, for example.

Well that's great for F#. But if it's built on a fundamentally closed
platform, does that really help?

>
> --
> Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
> Objective CAML for Scientists
> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet

toby wrote:
> Well that's great for F#. But if it's built on a fundamentally closed
> platform, does that really help?

The platform is fundamentally open. Look at Mono.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet

Jon Harrop wrote:
> toby wrote:
> > Well that's great for F#. But if it's built on a fundamentally closed
> > platform, does that really help?
>
> The platform is fundamentally open. Look at Mono.

No, it's not "fundamentally" - it's a Microsoft platform. The tests are
simple and long codified. Can I run it anywhere? No. Can I run it for
any purpose? No. Can I inspect it? Fix it? No. One is a system of NOs
and the other is a system of YESses.

Mono has indeed progressed: From "can't take seriously" to "laughing
stock". The surest thing to come from the recent pact is that Novell
has signed its death warrant.

>
> --
> Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
> Objective CAML for Scientists
> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet

Jon Harrop wrote:

> toby wrote:
> > Well that's great for F#. But if it's built on a fundamentally closed
> > platform, does that really help?
>
> The platform is fundamentally open. Look at Mono.
>

With all due respect[1], this is rubbish. The .NET platform,
nice as it may be, is patent-encumbered[2]. Just because
Microsoft has not challenged Mono yet[3] does not mean
that that the platform is "open".

Not only is it patent-encumbered, but the patent-holder
is already making sabre-rattling noises ("Only Novells
customers are free from patent-litigation" ... words to
that effect).

..NET is crippled by design.

[1] Seriously ... I mean this as I've often found you to be
   of rather more intelligence than the average poster.
[2] Microsoft has several patents granted which makes
   it impossible to recreate a .NET platform legally.
[3] Nor will they ever try. The problem, for Microsoft,
   is that from a legal standpoint they have no winnable
   way forward. There are only two options:
      1. Challenge the "patent-infringers" that they do
         so love to go on about and go to court.
      2. Leave the "infringers" alone.
   If they do #1, then they stand a very real chance of
   losing their patents (as there is obviously prior art).
   This means that they will have to just shut up about
   it for once and for all. If they leave the "infringers"
   alone (#2 above) then they acknowledge that their
   patents are invalid.

   The only value that the patents have to Microsoft at
   this point in time is to use to instill FUD into potential
   users of the competition. They can only use these
   patents to /threaten/. Attempting to carry out these
   threats will lead to a loss of the patent.

  Sort of like if I walked into a store downtown and said
  "Nice place you have here ... it'd be a real shame if
   anything were to happen to it" and the store owners
   just ignored me. The minute a puny little guy  like me
   tried  anything I'd be found in an alley with as much
   blood left as the average rock.

   *However*, if I stood outside the store with a long
   trenchcoat, dark glasses and general rappa-gangsta-ish
   manners I could drive customers away without actually
   doing anything illegal.

goose,

Jon Harrop wrote:

> toby wrote:
> > That is a very weak definition of cross-platform & I believe you know
> > it. And getting weaker daily, thanks to Novell. Furthermore, MS *wants*
> > lock in to their ghetto and will do anything (legal or not) to achieve
> > it. Tempting looking quicksand.
>
> On the contrary, the guys at Microsoft Research want their research on .NET
> languages to live on and be used everywhere.

What the guys at Microsoft research want is irrelevant. For example,
I want a hundred million dollars and a delorean with a working flux
capacitor.

Doesn't mean I'm actually going to get it.

OTOH, what Microsoft (the corporation, made up of executives and
lawyers) wants is actually relevant, as they have the ability to
actually attempt to get what they want.

And what they want, from all recent indications, is a non-ending
unrevocable right to charge you for any program you use, whether
or not it was written by you, them or the flying spaghetti monster.

So, yeah, the research might be useful in an academic sort of way
but there is no way that one can argue that the existence of Mono
demonstrates that .NET languages are cross-platform. Indeed, it
demonstrates the opposite.

goose,
   for example, why is there *only one* other .net platform which
   just happens to be a partner of microsoft? If it was indeed open
   as you seem to believe, we should see as many as there are
   java implementations.

goose wrote:
> goose,
>    for example, why is there *only one* other .net platform which
>    just happens to be a partner of microsoft? If it was indeed open
>    as you seem to believe, we should see as many as there are
>    java implementations.

By the same argument, OCaml is not "open" because it only has one
implementation. That is nonsense, of course.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet

goose wrote:
> Just because 
> Microsoft has not challenged Mono yet[3] does not mean
> that that the platform is "open".

Microsoft can challenge anything that is "open". That doesn't make
everything "closed".

> [3] Nor will they ever try. The problem, for Microsoft,
>    is that from a legal standpoint they have no winnable
>    way forward. There are only two options:
>       1. Challenge the "patent-infringers" that they do
>          so love to go on about and go to court.
>       2. Leave the "infringers" alone.
>    If they do #1, then they stand a very real chance of
>    losing their patents (as there is obviously prior art).
>    This means that they will have to just shut up about
>    it for once and for all. If they leave the "infringers"
>    alone (#2 above) then they acknowledge that their
>    patents are invalid.
>
>    The only value that the patents have to Microsoft at
>    this point in time is to use to instill FUD into potential
>    users of the competition. They can only use these
>    patents to /threaten/. Attempting to carry out these
>    threats will lead to a loss of the patent.

Your argument seems is very much based on US patents. I haven't studied the
details but, for one thing, this doesn't apply to much of the rest of the
world.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet

toby wrote:
> Can I run it anywhere? No.

You can run it on Windows and Linux.

> Can I run it for any purpose? No.

What purposes do you believe you cannot run it for and why?

> Can I inspect it? Fix it? No.

You can with open source implementations.

> Mono has indeed progressed: From "can't take seriously" to "laughing
> stock". The surest thing to come from the recent pact is that Novell
> has signed its death warrant.

I was under the impression that Novell had funded it.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet

Jon Harrop wrote:
> toby wrote:
> > Mono has indeed progressed: From "can't take seriously" to "laughing
> > stock". The surest thing to come from the recent pact is that Novell
> > has signed its death warrant.
>
> I was under the impression that Novell had funded it.

Exactly.  At present things are very chummy between Novell and
Microsoft.  Which is good for Mono, for now.

MS however still have many patents, some covering .NET.  In the end
they have every reason to enforce them, since doing so will push
everyone towards their own .NET platform.  They need to wait until
there is a good take up of .NET by developers to do this though, so for
now they're trying to claim that it is open.

The .NET IP is currently a loss-leader, but eventually MS will decide
it's time to make money from it.

Jon Harrop wrote:
> goose wrote:
> > goose,
> >    for example, why is there *only one* other .net platform which
> >    just happens to be a partner of microsoft? If it was indeed open
> >    as you seem to believe, we should see as many as there are
> >    java implementations.
>
> By the same argument, OCaml is not "open" because it only has one
> implementation. That is nonsense, of course.
>

You seem to have snipped the actual argument and instead used
my example in your rebuttal. This, of course is usually unforgivable
but today I'm prepared to charitably forgive :-).

The argument is that MS owns *patents* that prevent the legal
development of a clone of the .NET platform. Just because they've
not gone ahead with legal action against mono does not mean that
they won't proceed with legal action against other clones of .NET.

That is the reason (the only one, afaik) that .NET cannot be
considered an "open" platform; because even if the source code
to .NET was distributed under a BSD or public domain licence,
the patents still allow Microsoft to sue anyone implementing
their patents.

Please, refute that instead.

goose,
   At the risk of provoking a rebuttal to an example, think
   of it this way. Auto-theft is a crime. There is a guy you
   know who is driving a stolen car. Just because the cops,
   prosecutor and magistrate do not arrest, prosecute and convict
   (respectively) the guy does not allow you to point to the
   guy and his stolen car and say "Auto-theft is not illegal. See
   that fellow is driving a stolen car and everything is fine".

   Microsoft has patented certain elements of .NET. Mono implements
   these elements nonetheless. This does not make .NET an open
   platform.

Jon Harrop wrote:
> goose wrote:
> > Just because
> > Microsoft has not challenged Mono yet[3] does not mean
> > that that the platform is "open".
>
> Microsoft can challenge anything that is "open". That doesn't make
> everything "closed".

But the existence of an infringing product does not make .NET
open. You are attempting to argue that .NET *must* be open
by virtue of the fact that a *single* clone[1] exists. I'm
pointing out that the clone is, in fact, licenced and that
even if it were not, it does not allow one to go ahead and
implement ones own .NET clone - therefore I conclude that
the platform is not open.

I'd be interested to hear why you think my argument is
unsound or invalid (or both?).


[1] Can mono even be called a competitor to Microsoft anymore?
Seeing as how Novell and Microsoft have a patent-agreement, mono
only serves to reinforce that fact that in order to have a clone
of .NET one needs to first licence IP from Microsoft.
   Hardly a point in favour of your argument that .NET is open.

>
> > [3] Nor will they ever try. The problem, for Microsoft,
> >    is that from a legal standpoint they have no winnable
> >    way forward. There are only two options:
> >       1. Challenge the "patent-infringers" that they do
> >          so love to go on about and go to court.
> >       2. Leave the "infringers" alone.
> >    If they do #1, then they stand a very real chance of
> >    losing their patents (as there is obviously prior art).
> >    This means that they will have to just shut up about
> >    it for once and for all. If they leave the "infringers"
> >    alone (#2 above) then they acknowledge that their
> >    patents are invalid.
> >
> >    The only value that the patents have to Microsoft at
> >    this point in time is to use to instill FUD into potential
> >    users of the competition. They can only use these
> >    patents to /threaten/. Attempting to carry out these
> >    threats will lead to a loss of the patent.
>
> Your argument seems is very much based on US patents. I haven't studied the
> details but, for one thing, this doesn't apply to much of the rest of the
> world.
>

Well, since the US is attempting to export their local laws
to other countries (G'Day, australia. I'm looking atchoo, mate)
this is very relevant. If you disagree with the laws being
exported, please write to your local councillor(sp?) and explain
yourself. No sane developer actually wants software patents to
come to their country; most MBA's are drooling at the mouth
in anticipation.

regards,
   goose,

Rob Thorpe wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
> > toby wrote:
> > > Mono has indeed progressed: From "can't take seriously" to "laughing
> > > stock". The surest thing to come from the recent pact is that Novell
> > > has signed its death warrant.
> >
> > I was under the impression that Novell had funded it.
>
> Exactly.  At present things are very chummy between Novell and
> Microsoft.  Which is good for Mono, for now.

Actually, as I pointed out in a previous response, there is
(now that Novell has a patent-agreement with Microsoft) no
..NET implementation that has not licenced patents for .NET
from Microsoft.

Mentioning Mono as an alternative to Microsoft .NET is no
longer an argument (if it ever was) in favour of the ".NET
is open" crowd; it's now a point in favour of the ".NET is
closed" crowd.

>
> MS however still have many patents, some covering .NET.  In the end
> they have every reason to enforce them, since doing so will push
> everyone towards their own .NET platform.  They need to wait until
> there is a good take up of .NET by developers to do this though, so for
> now they're trying to claim that it is open.
>
> The .NET IP is currently a loss-leader, but eventually MS will decide
> it's time to make money from it.

Indirectly, in the form of maintaining monopoly status. Don't
hate Microsoft for what they do - their only ethical responsibility
is to their shareholders. 

goose,

goose wrote:
> You seem to have snipped the actual argument and instead used
> my example in your rebuttal. This, of course is usually unforgivable
> but today I'm prepared to charitably forgive :-).

Sorry. I believe your argument is entirely patent related.

> The argument is that MS owns *patents* that prevent the legal
> development of a clone of the .NET platform.

What proportion of the world's population is theoretically restricted by
these patents?

> Just because they've 
> not gone ahead with legal action against mono does not mean that
> they won't proceed with legal action against other clones of .NET.

Speculating as to who MS will sue next doesn't change the status of .NET.

> That is the reason (the only one, afaik) that .NET cannot be
> considered an "open" platform;

Then you must concede that it only applies to a few geographically isolated
places, maybe 10% of people.

> because even if the source code 
> to .NET was distributed under a BSD or public domain licence,
> the patents still allow Microsoft to sue anyone implementing
> their patents.

I don't believe they could sue me.

>    Microsoft has patented certain elements of .NET. Mono implements
>    these elements nonetheless. This does not make .NET an open
>    platform.

As I understand it, all of the information required for me to write a .NET
implementation is freely available and there is nothing to stop me from
doing so. So I consider it to be free.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet

Jon Harrop wrote:

> goose wrote:
> > You seem to have snipped the actual argument and instead used
> > my example in your rebuttal. This, of course is usually unforgivable
> > but today I'm prepared to charitably forgive :-).
>
> Sorry. I believe your argument is entirely patent related.

It is.

>
> > The argument is that MS owns *patents* that prevent the legal
> > development of a clone of the .NET platform.
>
> What proportion of the world's population is theoretically restricted by
> these patents?

All of it. Ever heard of the Berne convention; we in SA are signatories
to it.

>
> > Just because they've
> > not gone ahead with legal action against mono does not mean that
> > they won't proceed with legal action against other clones of .NET.
>
> Speculating as to who MS will sue next doesn't change the status of .NET.

The status of .NET is that it is patent encumbered.

>
> > That is the reason (the only one, afaik) that .NET cannot be
> > considered an "open" platform;
>
> Then you must concede that it only applies to a few geographically isolated
> places, maybe 10% of people.

I don't have stats for what percentage of development in the world
comes
from which country, but I'd guess that the USA, India, Australia, China
and maybe soon the EU would be a tad more than 10%. I welcome
any hard numbers you have.

>
> > because even if the source code
> > to .NET was distributed under a BSD or public domain licence,
> > the patents still allow Microsoft to sue anyone implementing
> > their patents.
>
> I don't believe they could sue me.

And I don't believe in Allah. Belief, strange as it may seem, does
not have a place in a legal minefield.

>
> >    Microsoft has patented certain elements of .NET. Mono implements
> >    these elements nonetheless. This does not make .NET an open
> >    platform.
>
> As I understand it, all of the information required for me to write a .NET
> implementation is freely available and there is nothing to stop me from
> doing so.

Except the law. If you feel immune from the law or are in a
non-extradition-
agreement country (wrt the USA) then you are indeed safe.

If you would like that state of safety to continue, I'd suggest you do
your
best to prevent software patent law from being passed in your current
resident country.

> So I consider it to be free.

I cannot change your mind. You can consider it to be free just as I
can consider 9/11 a government conspiracy. You may even consider
that black is white and day is night[1]; the still fact remains that
..NET
is not open. I only took issue with that, after all.

After this discussion, .NET will still not be open for a suitable
meaning of "open" - i.e. free to reimplement and/or clone if I
feel the need.


[1] Yeah, I know .. sometimes I get all poetical :-)


goose,
   goodbye

goose wrote:
>> Then you must concede that it only applies to a few geographically
>> isolated places, maybe 10% of people.
> 
> I don't have stats for what percentage of development in the world
> comes
> from which country, but I'd guess that the USA, India, Australia, China
> and maybe soon the EU would be a tad more than 10%. I welcome
> any hard numbers you have.

India seems to be out. I was thinking of US, Australia and Germany, which is
<10% of the world's population. We certainly don't have software patents
here in the UK and I am not encumbered by Microsoft's US patents.

What patents do MS have that prevent cloning of .NET anyway?

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet

Jon Harrop wrote:
> goose wrote:
> >> Then you must concede that it only applies to a few geographically
> >> isolated places, maybe 10% of people.
> >
> > I don't have stats for what percentage of development in the world
> > comes
> > from which country, but I'd guess that the USA, India, Australia, China
> > and maybe soon the EU would be a tad more than 10%. I welcome
> > any hard numbers you have.
>
> India seems to be out. I was thinking of US, Australia and Germany, which is
> <10% of the world's population. We certainly don't have software patents
> here in the UK and I am not encumbered by Microsoft's US patents.

Those countries are a small percentage of the worlds population, but
they hold a large percentage of their wealth.

A company selling proprietery software that infringes on US patents
cannot sell to the US, which means they cannot sell to the worlds
largest market.  Companies/individuals giving away software cannot
infringe US patents either, because they will be at fault if their
software enters the US, they would only be safe if they lived somewhere
with no extradition treaty with the US.

Rob Thorpe wrote:
> A company selling proprietery software that infringes on US patents
> cannot sell to the US, which means they cannot sell to the worlds
> largest market.

If the context is developing an open-source .NET implementation, selling is
irrelevant.

> Companies/individuals giving away software cannot 
> infringe US patents either, because they will be at fault if their
> software enters the US, they would only be safe if they lived somewhere
> with no extradition treaty with the US.

How many people have been extradited to the US because an American
downloaded their source code and compiled it?

This all seems like unnecessary scare mongering to me...

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet

Rob Thorpe wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
> > goose wrote:
> > >> Then you must concede that it only applies to a few geographically
> > >> isolated places, maybe 10% of people.
> > >
> > > I don't have stats for what percentage of development in the world
> > > comes
> > > from which country, but I'd guess that the USA, India, Australia, China
> > > and maybe soon the EU would be a tad more than 10%. I welcome
> > > any hard numbers you have.
> >
> > India seems to be out. I was thinking of US, Australia and Germany, which is
> > <10% of the world's population. We certainly don't have software patents
> > here in the UK and I am not encumbered by Microsoft's US patents.
>
> Those countries are a small percentage of the worlds population, but
> they hold a large percentage of their wealth.
>
> A company selling proprietery software that infringes on US patents
> cannot sell to the US, which means they cannot sell to the worlds
> largest market.  Companies/individuals giving away software cannot
> infringe US patents either, because they will be at fault if their
> software enters the US, they would only be safe if they lived somewhere
> with no extradition treaty with the US.

No place on Earth is safe from such "extradition", legal or not (they
don't care).

Jon Harrop wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> > A company selling proprietery software that infringes on US patents
> > cannot sell to the US, which means they cannot sell to the worlds
> > largest market.
>
> If the context is developing an open-source .NET implementation, selling is
> irrelevant.
>
> > Companies/individuals giving away software cannot
> > infringe US patents either, because they will be at fault if their
> > software enters the US, they would only be safe if they lived somewhere
> > with no extradition treaty with the US.
>
> How many people have been extradited to the US because an American
> downloaded their source code and compiled it?
>
> This all seems like unnecessary scare mongering to me...

Yes, and when RMS proposed the GPL, a lot of people said it was
unnecessary too.

>
> --
> Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
> Objective CAML for Scientists
> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet

Jon Harrop wrote:
> goose wrote:
> >> Then you must concede that it only applies to a few geographically
> >> isolated places, maybe 10% of people.
> >
> > I don't have stats for what percentage of development in the world
> > comes
> > from which country, but I'd guess that the USA, India, Australia, China
> > and maybe soon the EU would be a tad more than 10%. I welcome
> > any hard numbers you have.
>
> India seems to be out.

I doubt it; any company outsourcing development retains liability
when they retain ownership of the IP. For example, you can outsource
your development to India, but you retain ownership of that code and
therefore can be sued for IP violations *in* *your* *country* even
though
development was done in a no-software-patent country.

> I was thinking of US, Australia and Germany, which is
> <10% of the world's population.

Surely not <10% of the worlds /software development/ population? I
would
guess the number to be closer to 50%, but I have no numbers to back
this up. Seeing as this only affects software developers, I would think
it
to be inaccurate to include the starving masses of Ethiopia in the
calculation, as they are currently *not* affected.

> We certainly don't have software patents
> here in the UK and I am not encumbered by Microsoft's US patents.
>
> What patents do MS have that prevent cloning of .NET anyway?
>

Doing a quick search of google turned up these results (the actual
patent numbers and/or links to the patents are in these links).

http://www.msversus.org/microsoft-response-to-net-patents.html
http://www.cookcomputing.com/blog/archives/000210.html

And, for a more laymans view:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-984052.html

No doubt a more thorough google search would turn up all the
discussions over this (pros, cons, moots).

goose,

Jon Harrop wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> > A company selling proprietery software that infringes on US patents
> > cannot sell to the US, which means they cannot sell to the worlds
> > largest market.
>
> If the context is developing an open-source .NET implementation, selling is
> irrelevant.
>

The context, when I entered, was whether .NET is 'open'. Seeing as how
we neglected to actually define 'open' I figure we can all be correct
and all be wrong at the same time, without needing to change our minds
:-)


> > Companies/individuals giving away software cannot
> > infringe US patents either, because they will be at fault if their
> > software enters the US, they would only be safe if they lived somewhere
> > with no extradition treaty with the US.
>
> How many people have been extradited to the US because an American
> downloaded their source code and compiled it?
>

One was arrested for IP violations upon landing when he arrived for a
conference. Thank Adobe for that (that's enough information to google
with).

> This all seems like unnecessary scare mongering to me...
>

It certainly is; if Microsoft executives will stop warning the press
that
Linux violates its (Microsofts) intellectual property I, for one, would
not
have gotten scared and looked further and found that .NET is patent-
encumbered.

Like I said in a previous post, Microsoft is in the unenviable position
of having no winnable way forward. Should .NET lose it's patented
status
(say, by Microsoft trying to pin a violator down and having the patent
declared invalid), then all software created on .NET is cross-platform
and Windows loses its monopoly status and enables mass migrations
*away* from Microsoft.

Should .NET patents be upheld then .NET is no longer 'open' and takeup
of .NET is likely to lose to Java or similar which *is* open *and*
cross-
platform (A nightmare for Microsoft if software is not written
exclusively
for Windows).

The only thing they can do is try to encourage people to use .NET
("Hey everybody - it's open; there's the ECMA standard") over Java
while trying to make sure that only Windows has a viable .NET platform
("Hey there! You cannot implement .NET on a competing platform -
you're violating my patents!").

This is indeed the scare-mongering you mention, and I really cannot
put it any simpler than that.

goose,

goose wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
> > goose wrote:
<snip>
> > We certainly don't have software patents
> > here in the UK and I am not encumbered by Microsoft's US patents.
> >
> > What patents do MS have that prevent cloning of .NET anyway?
> >
>
> Doing a quick search of google turned up these results (the actual
> patent numbers and/or links to the patents are in these links).
>
> http://www.msversus.org/microsoft-response-to-net-patents.html
> http://www.cookcomputing.com/blog/archives/000210.html
>
> And, for a more laymans view:
> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-984052.html

Personally I'm not to worried about the patents on the core of CLI and
..NET, Microsoft have been quite explicit about their royalty-free
status.  The problem though is that these things are a small part of
the system.  There are huge libraries attached that are used all over
the place, I expect there is almost no .NET code around that only uses
the ECMA standardised parts.  One example would be Forms, no-one really
knows the patent status of these libraries.

goose wrote:
>> How many people have been extradited to the US because an American
>> downloaded their source code and compiled it?
> 
> One was arrested for IP violations upon landing

Assuming you mean Dmity Skylarov, he wasn't arrested "upon landing", he was
arrested when he breached US law whilst on US soil by detailing how to
breach Adobe's eBook security in a lecture he gave.

> when he arrived for a conference.

The gathering, Defcon, calls itself "the largest underground hacking event
in the world".

> Thank Adobe for that (that's enough information to google 
> with).

This is a great example of the kind of scare mongering I'm talking about:

  http://www.freesklyarov.org

"he has young children"
"blind people use his software"

I'm not saying that the DMCA is a good law (it clearly isn't) but these
stories damage the argument against them, IMHO.

>> This all seems like unnecessary scare mongering to me...
> 
> It certainly is; if Microsoft executives will stop warning the press
> that
> Linux violates its (Microsofts) intellectual property I, for one, would
> not
> have gotten scared and looked further and found that .NET is patent-
> encumbered.

So now Linux isn't open?

> Like I said in a previous post, Microsoft is in the unenviable position
> of having no winnable way forward. Should .NET lose it's patented
> status
> (say, by Microsoft trying to pin a violator down and having the patent
> declared invalid), then all software created on .NET is cross-platform
> and Windows loses its monopoly status and enables mass migrations
> *away* from Microsoft.

Almost. Firstly, their position is anything but "unenviable". They have
maneouvered into a very strong position, again. Secondly, losing these
patents (and they expect to lose 99% of their patents because they're
blatantly silly, but they might win big on some of the 1% that make it) is
only a step towards mass migration away from Microsoft. Even if .NET were
patent free, making a free implementation is still very hard. Making one as
good as .NET is even harder.

> Should .NET patents be upheld then .NET is no longer 'open' and takeup
> of .NET is likely to lose to Java or similar which *is* open *and*
> cross-
> platform (A nightmare for Microsoft if software is not written
> exclusively
> for Windows).

That isn't a nightmare for Microsoft. They would love to have loads of
cross-platform software out there, just as long as it runs better on
Windows that anything else.

> The only thing they can do is try to encourage people to use .NET
> ("Hey everybody - it's open; there's the ECMA standard") over Java
> while trying to make sure that only Windows has a viable .NET platform
> ("Hey there! You cannot implement .NET on a competing platform -
> you're violating my patents!").

They don't need patents to make people use Windows. I'm converting from
OCaml/Linux to F#/Windows because it is better.

> This is indeed the scare-mongering you mention, and I really cannot
> put it any simpler than that.

I don't think it is very scary.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet

Jon Harrop wrote:
> goose wrote:
> >> How many people have been extradited to the US because an American
> >> downloaded their source code and compiled it?
> >
> > One was arrested for IP violations upon landing
>
> Assuming you mean Dmity Skylarov, he wasn't arrested "upon landing", he was
> arrested when he breached US law whilst on US soil by detailing how to
> breach Adobe's eBook security in a lecture he gave.

That's not what he was charged with. Further, according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov - "no DMCA violations were
committed at DEF CON, and the DMCA does not apply in Russia, so
Sklyarov was being arrested for something that was perfectly legal in
his jurisdiction".

>
> > when he arrived for a conference.
> ...
> "he has young children"
> "blind people use his software"
>
> I'm not saying that the DMCA is a good law (it clearly isn't) but these
> stories damage the argument against them, IMHO.
>
> >> This all seems like unnecessary scare mongering to me...
> >
> > It certainly is; if Microsoft executives will stop warning the press
> > that
> > Linux violates its (Microsofts) intellectual property I, for one, would
> > not
> > have gotten scared and looked further and found that .NET is patent-
> > encumbered.
>
> So now Linux isn't open?

Ask Steve Ballmer.

>
> > Like I said in a previous post, Microsoft is in the unenviable position
> > of having no winnable way forward. Should .NET lose it's patented
> > status
> > (say, by Microsoft trying to pin a violator down and having the patent
> > declared invalid), then all software created on .NET is cross-platform
> > and Windows loses its monopoly status and enables mass migrations
> > *away* from Microsoft.
>
> Almost. Firstly, their position is anything but "unenviable". They have
> maneouvered into a very strong position, again. Secondly, losing these
> patents (and they expect to lose 99% of their patents because they're
> blatantly silly, but they might win big on some of the 1% that make it) is
> only a step towards mass migration away from Microsoft. Even if .NET were
> patent free, making a free implementation is still very hard. Making one as
> good as .NET is even harder.
>
> > Should .NET patents be upheld then .NET is no longer 'open' and takeup
> > of .NET is likely to lose to Java or similar which *is* open *and*
> > cross-
> > platform (A nightmare for Microsoft if software is not written
> > exclusively
> > for Windows).
>
> That isn't a nightmare for Microsoft. They would love to have loads of
> cross-platform software out there, just as long as it runs better on
> Windows that anything else.

Seen this:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653 ?
What part of "MS doesn't want anyone else to exist" don't you get? 97%
or whatever the monopoly-meter is up to, is not sufficient. They want
ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Don't you get that?

>
> > The only thing they can do is try to encourage people to use .NET
> > ("Hey everybody - it's open; there's the ECMA standard") over Java
> > while trying to make sure that only Windows has a viable .NET platform
> > ("Hey there! You cannot implement .NET on a competing platform -
> > you're violating my patents!").
>
> They don't need patents to make people use Windows. I'm converting from
> OCaml/Linux to F#/Windows because it is better.

Hope you like Windows. You'll never be able to run your stuff anywhere
else (OS X, Solaris, Linux, ... well, anywhere). It's a one way street
(a.k.a. lock-in) and that's what they want. The fact you have to move
to Windows to use it shows at last that the product is not cross
platform, and Q.E.D.

>
> > This is indeed the scare-mongering you mention, and I really cannot
> > put it any simpler than that.
>
> I don't think it is very scary.

Luckily others are looking out for you.

>
> --
> Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
> Objective CAML for Scientists
> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet

toby wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
>> Assuming you mean Dmity Skylarov, he wasn't arrested "upon landing", he
>> was arrested when he breached US law whilst on US soil by detailing how
>> to breach Adobe's eBook security in a lecture he gave.
> 
> That's not what he was charged with. Further, according to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov - "no DMCA violations were
> committed at DEF CON, and the DMCA does not apply in Russia, so
> Sklyarov was being arrested for something that was perfectly legal in
> his jurisdiction".

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.

>> That isn't a nightmare for Microsoft. They would love to have loads of
>> cross-platform software out there, just as long as it runs better on
>> Windows that anything else.
> 
> Seen this:
> http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653 ?
> What part of "MS doesn't want anyone else to exist" don't you get? 97%
> or whatever the monopoly-meter is up to, is not sufficient. They want
> ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Don't you get that?

Of course, they are a company.

>> They don't need patents to make people use Windows. I'm converting from
>> OCaml/Linux to F#/Windows because it is better.
> 
> Hope you like Windows. You'll never be able to run your stuff anywhere
> else (OS X, Solaris, Linux, ... well, anywhere).

I already do.

> It's a one way street (a.k.a. lock-in) and that's what they want.

I can (and do) choose to use Windows as well as Linux.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet

toby wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
> > goose wrote:


<snipped>

> Hope you like Windows. You'll never be able to run your stuff anywhere
> else (OS X, Solaris, Linux, ... well, anywhere). It's a one way street
> (a.k.a. lock-in) and that's what they want.

You won't convince Dr Harrop; he's made up his mind, presumably
after weighing the pros and cons, and has found that it best suits
his needs, lock-in notwithstanding.

Since he sounds like a rational man, I assume that *for* *him* and
*his* particular needs, windows is the smartest choice (yes, even
including the non-portability and lock-in). Nothing wrong with that,
IMHO.

> The fact you have to move
> to Windows to use it shows at last that the product is not cross
> platform, and Q.E.D.

This is possibly the best argument I've seen.. Roughly rephrased:
if you have to move to $PLATFORM *just* to use a product, do you really

want to make the move? Wouldn't finding an equivalent for your current
platform (and others) be better?

>
> >
> > > This is indeed the scare-mongering you mention, and I really cannot
> > > put it any simpler than that.
> >
> > I don't think it is very scary.
>
> Luckily others are looking out for you.
>

Sadly, they (Stalman, et al) are demonised to the point of ridicule.
Even though
the state of events that Stalman warned about years ago is finally
starting
to happen, no one expects that the warnings he issues *today* are
relevant.

Talk about not learning from history!

goose,

goose wrote
(in article 
<1166280520.283410.75370@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>):

>> The fact you have to move
>> to Windows to use it shows at last that the product is not cross
>> platform, and Q.E.D.
> 
> This is possibly the best argument I've seen.. Roughly rephrased:
> if you have to move to $PLATFORM *just* to use a product, do you really
> want to make the move? Wouldn't finding an equivalent for your current
> platform (and others) be better?

This of course makes the assumption that a true equivalent for 
your platform exists, and is either free, or at least 
cost-effective as a solution.  That is not always the case.  In 
fact for some classes of software, it's almost never the case.

> Sadly, they (Stalman, et al) are demonised to the point of ridicule.

Actually, Stallman does all the work by himself.  He's in 
effect, a self-caricature.

> Even though the state of events that Stalman warned about years ago is 
> finally starting to happen, 

What warnings?  That people would be paying for software?  Oh 
no, not that.  that's unbelievable.  What's next, programmers 
will get paid for their work?  The horror...

> no one expects that the warnings he issues *today* are relevant.

I expect it's more likely that he'll be committed to an asylum.




-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those 
 who have not got it."  - George Bernard Shaw

goose wrote:
> This is possibly the best argument I've seen.. Roughly rephrased:
> if you have to move to $PLATFORM *just* to use a product, do you really
> want to make the move? Wouldn't finding an equivalent for your current
> platform (and others) be better?

I think it is worth looking at the details in this case. I'm developing F#
under Windows because the Visual Studio mode is better in some ways than
anything that exists for Linux (e.g. immediate graphical type throwback). I
regularly take OCaml/F# code that I've written under Windows and run it
under Linux. The code is perfectly portable. I also prefer writing OCaml
under Linux using emacs because I'm used to it and it is better in some
ways.

There is no lock-in from my point of view: both sides have extra features.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet

In article <1166130709.460164.264620@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, 
ruse@webmail.co.za says...
> Jon Harrop wrote:
> >
> > How many people have been extradited to the US because an American
> > downloaded their source code and compiled it?
> >
> One was arrested for IP violations upon landing when he arrived for a
> conference. Thank Adobe for that (that's enough information to google
> with).

You're not referring to Mr. Sklyarov who was arrested *after* he 
attended some shithead crackers' conference in the US, on account of 
how his company Elcomsoft had sold software for cracking Adobe e-books 
in the US?

If so you are ignorant or lying, at best.

- Gerry Quinn
  

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <1166130709.460164.264620@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> ruse@webmail.co.za says...
> > Jon Harrop wrote:
> > >
> > > How many people have been extradited to the US because an American
> > > downloaded their source code and compiled it?
> > >
> > One was arrested for IP violations upon landing when he arrived for a
> > conference. Thank Adobe for that (that's enough information to google
> > with).
>
> You're not referring to Mr. Sklyarov who was arrested *after* he
> attended some shithead crackers' conference in the US, on account of
> how his company Elcomsoft had sold software for cracking Adobe e-books
> in the US?
>
> If so you are ignorant or lying, at best.

The same Mr Sklyarov. However, he wasn't arrested for, or charged with,
any crime committed in the US.

> 
> - Gerry Quinn

toby said:

<snip>

> However, [Sklyarov] wasn't arrested for, or charged with,
> any crime committed in the US.

Wrong - he was guilty of not being liked by a big US corporation. Don't you 
go making the same mistake, y'hear?

-- 
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <1166130709.460164.264620@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> ruse@webmail.co.za says...
> > Jon Harrop wrote:
> > >
> > > How many people have been extradited to the US because an American
> > > downloaded their source code and compiled it?
> > >
> > One was arrested for IP violations upon landing when he arrived for a
> > conference. Thank Adobe for that (that's enough information to google
> > with).
>
> You're not referring to Mr. Sklyarov who was arrested *after* he
> attended some shithead crackers' conference in the US, on account of
> how his company Elcomsoft had sold software for cracking Adobe e-books
> in the US?
>

Oh my; I seemed to have touched a tender nerve when I posted. As
Toby says below, you have no point.

goose,

In article <1166330946.992096.267710@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, 
toby@telegraphics.com.au says...
> 
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
> > In article <1166130709.460164.264620@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> > ruse@webmail.co.za says...
> > > Jon Harrop wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How many people have been extradited to the US because an American
> > > > downloaded their source code and compiled it?
> > > >
> > > One was arrested for IP violations upon landing when he arrived for a
> > > conference. Thank Adobe for that (that's enough information to google
> > > with).
> >
> > You're not referring to Mr. Sklyarov who was arrested *after* he
> > attended some shithead crackers' conference in the US, on account of
> > how his company Elcomsoft had sold software for cracking Adobe e-books
> > in the US?
> >
> > If so you are ignorant or lying, at best.
> 
> The same Mr Sklyarov. However, he wasn't arrested for, or charged with,
> any crime committed in the US.

On the contrary, Elcomsoft sold their software to customers in the US, 
although Sklyarov was indeed in Russia at the time.  The ramblings of 
various barrack-room lawyers about push and pull technology have no 
obvious legal standing.

This product designed for the benefit of the blind, incidentally, was 
the latest in a long line of useful products for breaking into systems 
(a test aid for supervisors, obviously) and for harvesting e-mail 
addresses from webpages for - oh, I don't know, password security 
research or something, I guess.

There seem to be more of the wilfully blind than the visually impaired 
commenting on the case.

- Gerry Quinn
  

In article <1166344811.960399.228260@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, 
ruse@webmail.co.za says... 
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
> > In article <1166130709.460164.264620@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> > ruse@webmail.co.za says...
> > > Jon Harrop wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How many people have been extradited to the US because an American
> > > > downloaded their source code and compiled it?
> > > >
> > > One was arrested for IP violations upon landing when he arrived for a
> > > conference. Thank Adobe for that (that's enough information to google
> > > with).
> >
> > You're not referring to Mr. Sklyarov who was arrested *after* he
> > attended some shithead crackers' conference in the US, on account of
> > how his company Elcomsoft had sold software for cracking Adobe e-books
> > in the US?
> > 
> Oh my; I seemed to have touched a tender nerve when I posted. As
> Toby says below, you have no point.\

I simply pointed out that your allegations were false, and clarified 
the facts of the case for the benefit of those who might find them 
credible.  Isn't that point enough?

- Gerry Quinn