Gateway fails to successfully exit British market

Gateway re-enters foreign markets

Hi there,

I read with interest your article about Gateway re-entering foreign markets,

The Teesside Retail Park branch of PC-Word details as follows:

Teesside Retail Park
Stockton On Tees
Teeside
TS17 7BW
Tel: 0870 2420444

Had (or still has..) a Gateway Laptop (s) on display for sale. I noticed it Thursday 25th of November,

And as an ex-employee of Gateway Europe was more than a little interested....suffice it too say PC-World staff were less than well informed about the unit or future of the brand....

Cheers
Mark W

HP Itanic ship approaching iceberg

Eva

Very beautiful prose this morning. I always love to read your insights.

Your report about intel buying the Itanic team from HP, coupled with the gutting of the VMS/itanic team news also this morning, plus the killing of Alpha, plus the very real consideration that the Itanic is dead, leaves me scratching my head.

On the flip side, the article at this link, raises the possibility that IBM is considering tossing its pc business out the door and becoming a purely server and services business. It also, and apparently justifiably so, is claiming bragging rights about its upcoming power processor upgrade.

Meanwhile, HP has killed the alpha, killed pa-risk, selling Itanic rights, which is apparently dead, tossing VMS, starving tru64, and no longer has the internal development power to improve HP-UX and has to go to third parties to bring in much needed functionality. Oh their printers are good, pdas are popular but desktops risk being plowed by dell... wonder how their instruments business is doing... probably killing that too.

the IBM move I can understand. The desktop division has been loosing money for years. there are plenty of shops which will buy IBM servers at the drop of the hat, but go to other vendors (dell, hp/compaq) for desktops. They most probably will then go out to the market and put IBM badges on white boxes to cover the accounts which really, really want fully ibm badged kit...

When will the HP shareholders wake up and smell the coffee? The company they own is being turned into a shell with ever decreasing future potential. At one point it looked as if SUN might be going down this path too, but then it woke up and is charging out of that hole pushing its solaris and new opterons like crazy.

Anyway, love and kisses
Elmars O.

Multinationals use offshore subsidiaries to avoid law

Just reading this article. Saw the phrase "India, is the biggest recipient of IT job imports, followed by Communist China". "Communist China", hmm, not sure when they reverted back to a state economy, perhaps your correspondent is in need of re-education? Or perhaps they're confusing capitalism for communism?

Please, there is no need name calling. You could have written, "Other countries benefitting include slavishly shaved Brazil, Money-Hungry Mexico, or Terrorist sponsoring Malaysia".

Get with it. There are no communists countries producing IT goods or services.

Regards
Francis Liu
Australia

In No sound reason for Philadelphia to fund wi-fi, Evan Wilner asks "What would make anyone think that the barrier to universal broadband access in Philadelphia - wired or wireless - is the nature of the provider?"

Simple: The provider doesn't deliver! Verizon might be very good at providing telephone lines, but they're a lot better at lobbying and at cutesy advertising than actually delivering broadband. In prime areas for selling DSLnot only do they find it inconvenient to provide it, they don't even know when (or if) they will get around to it.

If you were looking for a business reason for that, you might wonder if it will be a lot easier to switch customers to Verizon's wireless broadband, when (if!) they get around to rolling it out, if the customers are using (expensive) Cox cable rather than cannibalizing their own DSL business. So Verizon might very well think that delay in providing DSL will be a convenience for themselves.

Sincerely,
Giles Morris
McLean VA

iPod Engraved

Hi Mike,

I hail from the sunny island of Singapore (homeground of Creative). Recently I purchased an ipod mini thru the web, primarily because of the offer of free engraving from Apple for my wife's birthday. To her dismay, the first ipod mini had the engraving of her initials LW aligned to the left of the apple logo. This was NOT the expected condition as promised by the simulated picture shown on their website when I placed the order.

So naturally I asked for a replacement (see the correspondances below), I was asked to send in a photo of the condition so that the agent may get "approval" from her management.... all in all the process took another 3 weeks plus till we received the 2nd replacement ipod...

To our shock and dismay ... the 2nd Ipod had the SAME problem... obviously they didn't understand the problem or they didn't bother... I have asked for a refund... but altogether it has been about 5 weeks + since I placed my first order and my wife still haven't got her present :(.

We are contemplating supporting our local company and buy and Creative ;) ... hope you can publish this.. I am not sure if others have faced this problem.. but the public should be warned...

Thanks

Linus Torvalds slammed over software patent stance

Hi Inq'ers,

Cynical lot that you are, you should have added your opinion to the article. I wonder what that would have been? This is my view:

Laws are (usually) made to curb certain behaviour the citizens of a country deem immoral, unethical or generally bad for us within the first two concepts. Failure to comply with these laws makes a person (or a company) a criminal. If the illegal behaviour comes to the attention of the law-enforcers, the person or company gets prosecuted and if found guilty, punished.

Companies that use other countries with different laws to circumvent laws in a particular country should be considered criminal in that country, with all of the consequences that entails. Having the means to avoid the law does not mean that a person or company should, or be allowed to. People and companies should behave within the letter and intent of the laws of the country they are in.

People are generally expected to respect the intent of the law. It is specifically not the case that if there is no law against it, then it is allowed. Companies and persons who find loopholes like operating from off-shore postboxes are violating the intent of the law and should be prosecuted, or at least prevented for persuing their activities.

The goal of increased profit for leaders and shareholders of a company at the expense of citizens of any country is no excuse for violating the intent of the law in that country, even if they have the means to do so.

Regards,
Maarten

Hello Mike,

Read your article on the Torvalds - Colins software problem. I must point out that patents cost a small fortune and not every software engineer can afford them, and I think that could be the reason why Linus is against them. Furthermore by law you immediately have copyright the moment you create something. The only problem is 'proving' you created it at a certain moment in time can cost as much as a patent itself - lawyers fees etc.

We have developed a system whereby you can legally register software, source code etc (www.software-reg.com) from the moment it was conceived... at the push of a button. You can legally register in the European Union and/or USA. And it does not cost a fortune. In fact it's free for students and academics.

Kind regards,

Brian C. Hoolahan
CEO, File-Reg International

Et tu, Brute

Hello,

In reponse to the idiot you quote in this article. Linus Torvalds has no difficulty in distinguishing software and software code. Mr. Collins however obviously has difficulty in distinguishing a competitive market and a state endorsed monopoly.

The computer industry has always been based on free expression of software ideas. Now His Billness wants to stop anyone duplicating his efforts by enforcing a patent regime worldwide.

I'm not surprised lawyers are in favour, it's more work for them. However what they fail to see is that if patents had been the norm in times past the market would currently consist of one word processor, one spreadsheet, one database package etc... And they certainly wouldn't be Microsoft's efforts because they didn't get there first. Now M$ have taken the original ideas and IMPROVED on them. That would not have been possible if the originals were patent protected. See how that works Mr. Collins?

In order to promote a free market in the software industry people have got to have the freedom to take their own version of a software product to market. Software patenting would stop this practice dead in its tracks for any new application that comes along. What we have then would be a lack of inventiveness, because software progress is and always has been an evolutionary process, not a revolutionary one. Where would the incentive to evolve a product be? We've already seen M$'s lack of interest in improving IE. This would spread to all products covered by patent.

So what? I hear the patent lawyers ask. Just create something new. The problem is that it would be impossible to create any sizeable software product that would not infringe on hundreds of existing spurious patents.

I suggest Mr Collins pull his head out of his ass and actually look into how the software development process works. Perhaps if he understood the process he'd understand just how little actual inventiveness is required.

In short: protect specific software package implementations [copyright]=support free market, protect software ideas [patent]=lock the market up.

Phil Rutter

ID Cards

Mike,

If the Labour government is so convinced that ID cards are a great idea perhaps they should issue them for free, at least we would not need to waste any more of my money, although we will have paid for this nonsense through tax.

Just think of all those false ID dealers rubbing their hands in delight, just when they were thinking on how they could expand their business, the Labour government hands them a brand new marketing opportunity.

As to making Britain a safer place, how? Are they made of Kevlar? so we can keep them in our top pocket to deflect the AK47 rounds. Perhaps we could have man sized ones we can hide behind when we hear the ticking bomb. Ludicrous !!!

I think the best way this current mob could make Britain safer (and cheaper) is leave!!!

Regards

Name supplied

That's Entertainment

Dear Mike and co,

What an entertaining argument discussion. It's funny how, when something gets people really riled, they always resort to silly snipes.

There have been quite a lot of articles around on these issues over the last few weeks, on the Inq and elsewhere (for example, the Economist has taken a few shots at the patent system). The overwhelming impression which these have left is one of misunderstanding and a lack of communication.

Firstly, in the UK and Europe, patent applications are generally prepared and prosecuted by patent attorneys (also known as patent agents). These fine men and women almost always will have a technical background, going on to sit the various national and European legal examinations after completing a first degree (and often a PhD) in their chosen technical field. I wouldn't know John Collins if I walked past him in the street, but I note from the Marks and Clerk website that he does indeed have a PhD in physics and specialises in software (http://www.marks-clerk.com/patentandtrademarkattorneys/index.html). I guess he understands the differences between a software concept and software code, or maybe the requirements for becoming a partner at the UK's largest firm of patent attorneys are just pretty lax.

Software patents are already granted, both by the European Patent Office and the UK Patent Office. These are not illegal, at worst they can be described as invalid. While there are always a few clangers which slip through the nets, it is probably true that most software patents are not invalid (my technical field is chemistry, so I'm not the best person to ask, I would suggest John Collins might be a good one…). The European Patent Convention essentially says that patents shall be granted for inventions which do not relate to computer programs per se, the UK law is almost similar but uses ‘as such' instead of ‘per se'. Patents are therefore granted where the invention is not specifically the computer program, such as where a computer program is part of an invention. The EPO commonly refers to the need to show some ‘technical effect'.

This is where the law currently stands and much of the proposed changes are simply to codify existing practise. That is typically how laws develop, as people find holes and grey areas in current legislation, case law develops, holes and grey areas are plugged according to case law. Its not quite that simple with patents, since the patents are granted by one body (EPO, UKPO) and litigation normally occurs in another (Courts).

Others have explained the difference between copyright and patents. Copyright stops someone copying your code, patents stop someone having a piece of code which essentialy does the same thing as yours (whether the code is actually the same, similar or totally different code). However, what wasn't mentioned is that patents are a monopoly right - you own the patent, no-one can work it without your permission. Copyright is not a monopoly right, if someone independently comes up with identical code to yours, that's just unfortunate and you cant do anything about it (even though its unlikely to happen). To get a patent, you need to disclose the invention, once your 20 year protection expires people are free to do as they chose with what you have disclosed. Copyright protection occurs as of right and in Europe lasts for 70 years from the death of the creator, much, much longer than patents. Also, with copyright you don't have to disclose your code, there is even protection in the law to stop people decompiling it. On a final point, which I may be wrong about, I believe that copyright protection extends beyond the basic code of a piece of software and could cover the structure as well.

Large corporations, which probably will benfit most from wider granting of software patents, have a very loud voice. Individuals who spend their time moaning about the difference between software and software code are going to miss the boat. I think if the software community wants to have their say, then they need to work with the legal profession. Personally, I think patent attorneys are here to help.

Please don't print my personal details if you use this email, the opinions are my own and I should really be doing other things!

Regards
SG

net.wars: Ubiq

Enjoyed your bit on the Japanese - it's not only the robots who can have trouble with English.

My parents lived in Tokyo for 4 years; a fellow American gave them a good language story. The apartment building where they lived had a small coffee shop off the lobby; Dave (strong Texas accent) was about to leave the building one morning when a sudden downpour of rain sent him into the coffee shop instead. He ordered coffee, and then told the waitress, "It's raining like Hell out there." She looked at him quizzically, then a light of comprehension dawned. She went into the kitchen, and when she reappeared, she brought him a bowl of oatmeal! My mother asked what happened next, and he said, "I ate it."

On a second, more personal note, an article in Smithsonian magazine informed me that the name Wendy first appeared in Peter Pan in 1904 - coined by James Barrie from a lisping young admirer's nickname for him, "Friendly". I had always supposed Wendy, like Gwen, to be a diminuitive of Gwendolyn. The 100th anniversary of the first public appearance of your name will be December 27th. Happy Birthday!

John

P.S. John is older than the hills. God's grandfather was named John.