http://osindia.blogspot.com/2008/07/stakeholders-meeting-on-draft-patent.htm...
And the usual suspects who were pressing for OOxml as a standard. Bootlicking the devil is all the rage at these places i think.
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Infy-TCS-lock-horns-with-Red-Hat-over-I...
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 2:33 PM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
http://osindia.blogspot.com/2008/07/stakeholders-meeting-on-draft-patent.htm...
And the usual suspects who were pressing for OOxml as a standard. Bootlicking the devil is all the rage at these places i think.
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Infy-TCS-lock-horns-with-Red-Hat-over-I...
With the red shirts out of the government, how much longer before India starts to see software patents? Our politicians are too eager to please when the software industry uses buzzwords, and of course, everybody likes a greased palm once in a while.
On 29-Jul-08, at 4:57 PM, Nishit Dave wrote:
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Infy-TCS-lock-horns-with-Red- Hat-over-IT-patent/340200/
With the red shirts out of the government, how much longer before India starts to see software patents? Our politicians are too eager to please when the software industry uses buzzwords, and of course, everybody likes a greased palm once in a while.
we dont need red shirts - we have Nagarjuna
2008/7/30 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
With the red shirts out of the government, how much longer before India starts to see software patents? Our politicians are too eager to please when the software industry uses buzzwords, and of course, everybody likes a greased palm once in a while.
we dont need red shirts - we have Nagarjuna
Is this some kind of personal attack?
Anurag
we dont need red shirts - we have Nagarjuna
And we are proud to have him. If something like that comes in, let's do whatever it takes to keep the patents outta India.
Swapnil
Did you know? You can CHAT without downloading messenger. Go to http://in.webmessenger.yahoo.com/
On Wednesday 30 Jul 2008 18:42, Anurag wrote:
2008/7/30 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
With the red shirts out of the government, how much longer before India starts to see software patents? Our politicians are too eager to please when the software industry uses buzzwords, and of course, everybody likes a greased palm once in a while.
we dont need red shirts - we have Nagarjuna
Is this some kind of personal attack?
I think it's more a compliment. The reds have been the only political party with consistent logic and some long term vision. In sharp contrast to other political parties more worried about a pile of rocks under the sea or brokering lucrative contracts with whoever is ready to play ball or even worse - being immutably ignorant. Close parallels with the Software Patents issue.
On 31-Jul-08, at 9:57 AM, jtd wrote:
we dont need red shirts - we have Nagarjuna
Is this some kind of personal attack?
I think it's more a compliment. The reds have been the only political party with consistent logic and some long term vision. In sharp contrast to other political parties more worried about a pile of rocks under the sea or brokering lucrative contracts with whoever is ready to play ball or even worse - being immutably ignorant. Close parallels with the Software Patents issue.
certainly not a personal attack - I have differences with Nagarjuna, but he is the one person who almost single-handedly fought the OOXML battle. And he will not change his principles unlike the redshirts who will bend with the wind
On Thursday 31 Jul 2008, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
[snip] certainly not a personal attack - I have differences with Nagarjuna, but he is the one person who almost single-handedly fought the OOXML battle. And he will not change his principles unlike the redshirts who will bend with the wind
Didn't realise I'd wandered into the Politics-Mumbai mailing list. Right, so what do you folks think of, say, Raj Thackeray?
-- Raju
On Thursday 31 Jul 2008 13:07, Raj Mathur wrote:
On Thursday 31 Jul 2008, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
[snip] certainly not a personal attack - I have differences with Nagarjuna, but he is the one person who almost single-handedly fought the OOXML battle. And he will not change his principles unlike the redshirts who will bend with the wind
Didn't realise I'd wandered into the Politics-Mumbai mailing list. Right, so what do you folks think of, say, Raj Thackeray?
The politics referred to en-passant, seriously affects freesoftware. We are not discussing politics "per-se". And Raj Thackeray has - afaik - nothing to do with freesoftware.
jtd wrote:
On Thursday 31 Jul 2008 13:07, Raj Mathur wrote:
On Thursday 31 Jul 2008, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
[snip] certainly not a personal attack - I have differences with Nagarjuna, but he is the one person who almost single-handedly fought the OOXML battle. And he will not change his principles unlike the redshirts who will bend with the wind
Didn't realise I'd wandered into the Politics-Mumbai mailing list. Right, so what do you folks think of, say, Raj Thackeray?
The politics referred to en-passant, seriously affects freesoftware. We are not discussing politics "per-se". And Raj Thackeray has - afaik - nothing to do with freesoftware.
At one time (before they split) I did think of a Shubuntu for them, which would give information about Maratha history and that would help push GNU/Linux to the grass root level. Shub also means auspicious.
Anyone planning to go for this event? I'm planning to go, but need to team up with someone knowledgeable to prepare some sort of speech/document.
Thoughts from someone who has been to a previous meet of this kind?
Saurabh.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 2:33 PM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
http://osindia.blogspot.com/2008/07/stakeholders-meeting-on-draft-patent.htm...
And the usual suspects who were pressing for OOxml as a standard. Bootlicking the devil is all the rage at these places i think.
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Infy-TCS-lock-horns-with-Red-Hat-over-I...
-- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
I believe the problem is with the guidelines given in section 4.11.6.However the clarifications given in 4.11.8 will wean out most useless software patents. Don't you think?
Section 4.11.6: [...]The claim orienting towards a "process/method" should contain a hardware or machine limitation. Technical applicability of the software claimed as a process or method claim, is required to be defined in relation with the particular hardware components. Thus, the "software per se" is differentiated from the software having its technical application in the industry.[...]
Section 4.11.8: The claims relating to software programme product are nothing but computer programme per se simply expressed on a computer readable storage medium and as such are not allowable. For example, if the new feature comprises a set of instructions (programme) designed to control a known computer to cause it to perform desired operations, without special adoption or modification of its hardware or organization, then no matter whether claimed as "a computer arranged to operate etc" or as "a method of operating a computer", etc., is not patentable and hence excluded from patentability.[...]
Saurabh.
On Monday 04 Aug 2008 11:55, Saurabh Nanda wrote:
I believe the problem is with the guidelines given in section 4.11.6.However the clarifications given in 4.11.8 will wean out most useless software patents. Don't you think?
Section 4.11.6: [...]The claim orienting towards a "process/method" should contain a hardware or machine limitation. Technical applicability of the software claimed as a process or method claim, is required to be defined in relation with the particular hardware components. Thus, the "software per se" is differentiated from the software having its technical application in the industry.[...]
Having a hardware or machine limitation (hardware + software bundle) does not in anyway change the fact that a solution could be provided in pure hardware or pure software with a probale infinite number of permutations and combnations of hardware/software elements.
Section 4.11.8: The claims relating to software programme product are nothing but computer programme per se simply expressed on a computer readable storage medium and as such are not allowable. For example, if the new feature comprises a set of instructions (programme) designed to control a known computer to cause it to perform desired operations, without special adoption or modification of its hardware or organization, then no matter whether claimed as "a computer arranged to operate etc" or as "a method of operating a computer", etc., is not patentable and hence excluded from patentability.[...]
Consider a VHDL file that describes a PCI /AGP/USB/other device. Copyright serves the purpose of preventing copying or creating derivative works of this file. Any number of permutations of VHDL elements are likely to produce the same end result silicon (perhaps less effeciently). Now adding a driver to control this piece of VHDL code manifested in some silicon does not in anyway change the fact that one could recreate the same functionality with different VHDL + driver or only silicon without vhdl or only software on a DSP / processor or any number of permutation combinations. Why? because the vhdl is a description which tells the interpreter to produce silicon based on a silicon vendors library description of vhdl circuit elements. The resulting silicon will differ drastically from one silicon vendor to another. Similiarly a piece of software code will produce a different set of binaries depending on libraries created for a particular expression of silicon + compiler.
Should Patenting the physical device created from this VHDL program be allowed. MAYBE this and only this arrangement of circuit elements when not programmed into a silicon device which could be reconfigured to something else with different vhdl. Should patenting code which makes this particular silicon behave in a unique way be allowed?
Patent laws provided for patenting demonstrable Physical devices not mere description of physical devices or combination of description and physical devices or combination of mathematical algos created from descriptions of physical phenomena together with physical devices.
The new amendments are attempting to do precisely this.
The above piece is to make whoever goes there fully aware of the mine field of hardware described in software and combined with yet more software within the device + some piddling code known as drivers to activate the hardware - software combo. Software Defined Radios (Intel, Atheros), GPUs (Nvidia, ATI), Memory (Rambus), Sound devices (loooong list) and the new PITAS laptop ACPI microcontrollers and encryption chips.
Blurring of the line between physical device and their representation as mathematical models, then convinently splitting this representation into hardware + software must be resisted at all costs. ANY patent granted to software is an extremely slippery slope
JTD, thanks for taking out some time to write that mail, but I'm afraid to say that I couldn't understand a word of the following paragraph (which I is the crux of your argument). Could you please try explaining it with a different approach?
Consider a VHDL file that describes a PCI /AGP/USB/other device.
Copyright serves the purpose of preventing copying or creating derivative works of this file. Any number of permutations of VHDL elements are likely to produce the same end result silicon (perhaps less effeciently). Now adding a driver to control this piece of VHDL code manifested in some silicon does not in anyway change the fact that one could recreate the same functionality with different VHDL + driver or only silicon without vhdl or only software on a DSP / processor or any number of permutation combinations. Why? because the vhdl is a description which tells the interpreter to produce silicon based on a silicon vendors library description of vhdl circuit elements. The resulting silicon will differ drastically from one silicon vendor to another. Similiarly a piece of software code will produce a different set of binaries depending on libraries created for a particular expression of silicon + compiler.
Saurabh.
On Tuesday 05 Aug 2008 11:27, Saurabh Nanda wrote:
JTD, thanks for taking out some time to write that mail, but I'm afraid to say that I couldn't understand a word of the following paragraph (which I is the crux of your argument). Could you please try explaining it with a different approach?
Err i am trying...to describe the blurring of lines between physical devices and software and the dangers of creating laws based on present perceptions.
Consider a VHDL file that describes a PCI /AGP/USB/other device.
VHDL is a Hardware Descriptive Language very similar to ANSI C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHDL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_description_language
HDLs are used to describe and model hardware systems. The code is just like any other code. Running the code thru a compiler - logic synthesiser - produces a circuit diagram and a fusemap. You can use the circuit diagram and build hardware that will work just like you described in the HDL code. Or you can use the fuse map to blow / reconfigure an FPGA to create the circuit or send it to a fabhouse to create a custom ASIC.
(the above para is a gross simplification but suits us for now)
One can easily patent the resultant ASIC. So by extending the logic backward one can patent the Parent HDL code. However while patenting the ASIC one is patenting one single specific implementation of the circuit. If the HDL code were patented, One could reduce any code (even highily disimilar code which produces very different physical hardware, but capable of producing identical end results) to show that it is similiar to the patented code. Modern ASICs allow creation of FPGA + ASIC + Microprocessor + RAM blocks in a device. Add a driver which programs the FPGA and downloads an API so that it's functionality is exposed for use. Now patent the whole lot by extending the HDL-patent case a little more. It is after all a sort of software tied to specific machine limited hardware which makes a useless piece of silicon do something unique. Examples of such hardware in widespread use was in the previous mail.
From this point it is very easy to get rid of the hardware requirement completely and patent the HDL code ( description of specific hardware) + driver (software with machine limitation which downloads microcode for execution there bundled with application (more software with machine limitation). If you wanted to seperate this blob into HDL, microcode and application you would most likely be contaminated. Now just build your PC with gizmos in the previous mail examples and you have a completely un reverse engineerable combo of what? - non generic hardware?, software?, driver?. Since the API now exists within the patented blob reverse engineering will screw you up, unless you have an army of lawyers.
In short "specific hardware" is extremely generic until the software gets in whence it morphs into "special adoption or modification of its hardware or organization ".
In the above i have restricted myself to silicon. But the same could apply to full machines - robots -. What a robot does is totally dependent on the software. You could make it do flips or eye surgery.
What you should aim at is complete ban on patents for any software / process / method irrespective of it being tied to specific hardware, including the results of code being morphed into machine readable binaries, either for execution on, or modification of internal elements in FPGA / ASIC / General or special purpose machines, irrespective of it's method of storage or accessseaability
There are similiar parallels in the bioinformatics and pharma industry. Essentially it's capitalism gone beserk with patents being used to continue obsolete business practices. But that is another story.
JTD,
I'm extremely sorry, but I still don't fully understand your argument. I understand that you're against the clauses given in section 4.11.6 ([...]The claim orienting towards a "process/method" should contain a hardware or machine limitation.[...]), but your point does not "jump out" from what you've written.
You should probably try a different approach in articulating yourself.
Anyways, are you coming to Antop Hill for the stakeholder meeting tomorrow?
Saurabh.
I was just thinking, mentally we're prepared to *oppose* software patents. Shouldn't we be asking who *proposed* software patents in the first place? India did not allow it till now. Why was the sudden need for software patents? What losses were the pro-software patent companies facing due to previous/current laws?
Does anyone have access to the arguments of the other side?
Saurabh.
For all those who do want to come tomorrow, here's the address of the patent office in Antop Hill, Mumbai. Please come prepared, at least with a formal letter stating your position so that it can be placed on record.
Patent Office Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, S.M.Road, Near Antop Hill Post Office, Antop Hill, MumbaiI - 400 037. Phone : 24137701, 24141026, 24150381, 24148165, 24171457 FAX : 24130387 EMAIL: mumbai-patent@nic.in
Saurabh. -- http://nandz.blogspot.com http://foodieforlife.blogspot.com
On Wednesday 06 Aug 2008 15:06, Saurabh Nanda wrote:
I was just thinking, mentally we're prepared to *oppose* software patents. Shouldn't we be asking who *proposed* software patents in the first place? India did not allow it till now. Why was the sudden need for software patents? What losses were the pro-software patent companies facing due to previous/current laws?
Does anyone have access to the arguments of the other side?
Afaik it is to be in compliance with WTO requirements.
On Wednesday 06 Aug 2008 15:03, Saurabh Nanda wrote:
JTD,
I'm extremely sorry, but I still don't fully understand your argument. I understand that you're against the clauses given in section 4.11.6 ([...]The claim orienting towards a "process/method" should contain a hardware or machine limitation.[...]), but your point does not "jump out" from what you've written.
You should probably try a different approach in articulating yourself.
The definition of general purpose and special purpose hardware is very blury. Arguments can be turned around to bolster the need for software patents, if not formulated carefully.
Anyways, are you coming to Antop Hill for the stakeholder meeting tomorrow?
Saurabh.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:28 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
In short "specific hardware" is extremely generic until the software gets in whence it morphs into "special adoption or modification of its hardware or organization ".
In the above i have restricted myself to silicon. But the same could apply to full machines - robots -. What a robot does is totally dependent on the software. You could make it do flips or eye surgery.
What you should aim at is complete ban on patents for any software / process / method irrespective of it being tied to specific hardware, including the results of code being morphed into machine readable binaries, either for execution on, or modification of internal elements in FPGA / ASIC / General or special purpose machines, irrespective of it's method of storage or accessseaability
jtd, I have to agree with you. Given how easy it is to produce "specific hardware" nowadays, this can be a dangerous loophole.
Venky
On Wednesday 06 Aug 2008 20:52, Venkatesh Hariharan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:28 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
In short "specific hardware" is extremely generic until the software gets in whence it morphs into "special adoption or modification of its hardware or organization ".
In the above i have restricted myself to silicon. But the same could apply to full machines - robots -. What a robot does is totally dependent on the software. You could make it do flips or eye surgery.
What you should aim at is complete ban on patents for any software / process / method irrespective of it being tied to specific hardware, including the results of code being morphed into machine readable binaries, either for execution on, or modification of internal elements in FPGA / ASIC / General or special purpose machines, irrespective of it's method of storage or accessseaability
jtd, I have to agree with you. Given how easy it is to produce "specific hardware" nowadays, this can be a dangerous loophole.
After some thought my stance is that 1) Any physical device wether described as general or special purpose, if dependent on an additional input in the form of code (machine code, binary, fuse map, micro code etc.) to give the device it's uniqueness, is by this very requirement of code, a reprogramable general purpose machine. 2) Such code may exist internal to the device in ram, rom, fusemap, etc., or external to the device. 3) Such code maybe required to be set into the device once as part of the manufacturing process or intilization process (Commonly known as One Time Programmable), or at any time during the life of the device (Flashable or field programmable) 4) By changing the code we can create other unique characteristics for the very same device. Examples are provided below. 5) In fact the uniqueness is an attribute of the code, not the device. 6) Such code is amply protected by copyright laws. 7) Such devices maybe claimed to be special purpose by it's "inventors" simply because they choose to use it for that particular purpose. Cases in point Sound cards. These devices are used specifically for recieving abd reproducing sound. However sound cards are also used as oscilloscope, or a Software Defined Radio, Or a radio modem, simlpy by using different software. The sound card may be used external to a PC, in conjunction with a microntroller board (yet another special purpose device). Set Top Box: These devices can be used as controllers for a variety of purposes - motor control, robotics, Home automation. again merely replacing the code inside the device changes it's capabilities completely. 8) Therefore any claimed invention that has code in any form as part of it's claims should not be allowed to be patented. The merits of the invention must exist without any dependence on the code. Any requirements for protection of code is amply met by existing copyright laws.
Draft of letter i am submitting today.
TO Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks Boudhik Sampada Bhawan S.M. Road, Antop Hill Mumbai – 400 037.
Dear Sir,
We introduce ourselves as an embedded systems Company engaged in design and manufacture of products centered around embedded systems. We have been in business since 1990. Our products include Electronic Security Systems, Telematics systems, Biometric Access Control systems, Remote displays etc. These products are combinations of microntrollers, memory, FPGAs, plds, sensors and software (in the form of code, fuse maps and microcode).
We have serious concerns regarding proposed amendements to the patent laws which will allow patenting of combinations of hardware and “software”.
I have tried to present our objections in as simple a manner as possible. Our objections are as follows: 1.Any physical device wether described as general or special purpose, f dependent on an additional input in the form of code (machine code, binary, fuse map, micro code etc.) to give the device it's uniqueness, is by this very requirement of code, a reprogramable general purpose machine.
2.Such code may exist internal to the device in ram, rom, fusemap, etc., or external to the device.
3.Such code maybe required to be set into the device once as part of the manufacturing process or intilization process (Commonly known as One Time Programmable), or at any time during the life of the device (Flashable or field programmable).
4.It is well known practise to create microntroller boards with FPGA. It is even possible to create the entire board in a single device (called System on a Chip or SOC) These boards are given unique characteristics by reprogramming the internal memories and or fusemaps. As part of cost reduction techniqes, such reprogramming may be restricted to occur only once.
5.The uniqueness of these boards / devices is an attribute of the code, not the device itself. Such code is amply protected by copyright laws.
6.Such devices maybe claimed to be special purpose by it's "inventors" simply because they choose to use it for that particular purpose.
7.Examples of Special purpose devices used for entirely different purposes than originally intended. Sound cards: These devices are used specifically for recieving andreproducing sound. However sound cards are also used as oscilloscope, or a Software Defined Radio, Or a radio modem, simlpy by using different software. The sound card may be used external to a PC, in conjunction with a microntroller board (yet another special purpose device). Set Top Box: These devices can be used as controllers for a variety of purposes - motor control, robotics, Home automation etc. again merely replacing the code inside the device changes it's capabilities completely.
8.Therefore any claimed invention that has code in any form as part of it's claims, irrespective of the location of the code or the method of induction into the device, should not be allowed to be patented. The merits of the invention must exist without any dependence on the code. Any requirements for protection of code is amply met by existing copyright laws.
9.Should the proposed amendemts be allowed, it would provide scope for misuse, as it is possible to reproduce the functionality of a device in combination with some code, either completely in hardware or completely in software or some intermidate combination. Such amendements would therfore stifle innovation and progress as it would require everbody engaged in creative endevours using modern electronics to identify any probable infringment.
We submit that the Section 4.11.6: [...]The claim orienting towards a "process/method" should contain a hardware or machine limitation. Technical applicability of the software claimed as a process or method claim, is required to be defined in relation with the particular hardware components. Thus, the "software per se" is differentiated from the software having its technical application in the industry.[...]
Should be reframed to read as
[...]The claim orienting towards a "process/method" irrespective of wether it contains a hardware or machine limitation shall not be permitted. Technical applicability of the software claimed as a process or method claim, even if defined in relation with the particular hardware components shall not be permitted. Thus, the "software per se" or “Software in conjunction with a machine limitation” shall not be permitted.[...]
Section 4.11.8: The claims relating to software programme product are nothing but computer programme per se simply expressed on a computer readable storage medium and as such are not allowable. For example, if the new feature comprises a set of instructions (programme) designed to control a known computer to cause it to perform desired operations, without special adoption or modification of its hardware or organization, then no matter whether claimed as "a computer arranged to operate etc" or as "a method of operating a computer", etc., is not patentable and hence excluded from patentability.[...]
Should be reframed to read as
Section 4.11.8: The claims relating to software programme product are nothing but computer programme per se simply expressed on a computer readable medium and as such are not allowable. For example, if the new feature comprises a set of instructions (programme) designed to control a known computer to cause it to perform desired operations, irrespective of special adoption or modification of its hardware or organization, then no matter whether claimed as "a computer arranged to operate etc" or as "a method of operating a computer", etc., is not patentable and hence excluded from patentability.[...]
Thanking you Yours truly
J. T. D'souza
and while we were asleep three patents have been granted to Microsoft by the indian patent office.
Just reading the initial brief tells me it this a journalled fs coupled with some seek n sort. http://210.210.88.164/patentgrantedSearch/displayApplication.asp?application...
This one looks like DRM but could be SSH http://210.210.88.164/patentgrantedSearch/displayApplication.asp?application...
And this one hashes of loaded modules in mem to check that there is no trojan module. DRM? AV? http://210.210.88.164/patentgrantedSearch/displayApplication.asp?application...
I thought that the Chairperson at today's meet was defensive, perhaps even a bit derisive initially, but saw the opposition was stringent and cooled down. One can see why from the above. 991 patents applied for by M$. Three granted this year. And god only knows how many more submarine nukes waiting.
On Thursday 07 Aug 2008 18:29, jtd wrote:
I thought that the Chairperson at today's meet was defensive, perhaps even a bit derisive initially, but saw the opposition was stringent and cooled down. One can see why from the above. 991 patents applied for by M$. Three granted this year. And god only knows how many more submarine nukes waiting.
At least two pure software ones for HP. They have many for other printer related stuff so did not check all. 60 for IBM several of which seem to be pure software, including one for package management and one for compression using a dynamic lookuptable created on the fly. Bz2 anyone?
GOD. You could be sued simply for having a repo and some shitty scripts for updating packages.
I cant believe what i am seeing.
Email your opposition to :
Dr W M Dhumane (Joint Controller of Patents & Designs and Incharge of Patent Manual)
wmdhumane AT rediffmail.com
and CC a copy to Delhi patent office
delhi-patent AT nic.in
On Monday 04 Aug 2008, Saurabh Nanda wrote:
Anyone planning to go for this event? I'm planning to go, but need to team up with someone knowledgeable to prepare some sort of speech/document.
Agree with above. I am planning to go as well BUT it would be helpful if someone more familiar (e.g. senior members of FSF) with such meetings would list out:
1. what is going to be discussed e.g. draft of the software patent manual. If so a link to it.
2. who are likely to attend the meet.
3. how can members of the LUG participate/help at this meeting.
Agree with above. I am planning to go as well BUT it would be helpful if someone more familiar (e.g. senior members of FSF) with such meetings would list out:
Arun, where are you based in Mumbai? Office/home?
Saurabh.
Personal message
On Monday 04 Aug 2008, Saurabh Nanda wrote:
Agree with above. I am planning to go as well BUT it would be helpful if someone more familiar (e.g. senior members of FSF) with such meetings would list out:
Arun, where are you based in Mumbai? Office/home?
Saurabh,
I am based off Santacruz (west). How about yourself?
I am based off Santacruz (west). How about yourself?
Wadala. Antop Hill is close-by for me.
No one else wants to go for this, and go prepared, at that?
Saurabh.
Dear Arun,
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Arun Khan knura@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday 04 Aug 2008, Saurabh Nanda wrote:
Anyone planning to go for this event? I'm planning to go, but need to team up with someone knowledgeable to prepare some sort of speech/document.
Agree with above. I am planning to go as well BUT it would be helpful if someone more familiar (e.g. senior members of FSF) with such meetings would list out:
- what is going to be discussed e.g. draft of the software patent
manual. If so a link to it.
The Draft Patent Manual is at http://ipindia.nic.in/ipr/patent/DraftPatent_Manual_2008.pdf
- who are likely to attend the meet.
Nagarjuna, Saurabh, myself, Prof. Phatak from IIT Bombay. The delhi event had around 70 people attending. for more details, see my blog at www.osindia.blogspot.com
- how can members of the LUG participate/help at this meeting.
This document may be helpful. We had commissioned Lawrence Liang and his team at Alternative Law Forum to write this and they did a brilliant job of putting this together virtually overnight.
http://www.sarai.net/research/knowledge-culture/critical-public-legal-resour...
Also, the End Software Patents website (www.endsoftpatents.org) website may be useful.
Hope this helps?
Venky
Dear Venky,
On Wednesday 06 Aug 2008, Venkatesh Hariharan wrote: ... snip ...
Hope this helps?
Yes! Thamks very much for the useful info. Your response is very timely. Saurabh has already pointed me to the draft document. I will take a look at the other links you have suggested.
Yes, I will attend the meeting tomorrow.
Regards,
-
Anurag -
Arun Khan -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Nishit Dave -
Prashant Shah -
Raj Mathur -
Rony -
Saurabh Nanda -
Swapnil Bhartiya -
Venkatesh Hariharan