News Blog

It's 2018 and the Nazis are about to return from space to an unsuspecting Earth.

Sound weird? It could happen. And it does in Iron Sky, a new movie whose preview will be available for download on the 5th of May.

The story is a follow-up from the guys who made the cult film Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning. That $20,000 sci-fi parody of Star Trek has been downloaded 8 million times since it appeared on the Internet three years ago.

This is the story of Iron Sky:

In 1945, when World War II is almost over, SS officer Hans Kammler and his staff make a breakthrough in anti-gravity research. From a secret base in the Antarctic, they launch the first Nazi spaceships and establish a military base on the so-called dark side of the moon.

By 2018, they're ready to return to an unsuspecting Earth, but they face some serious trouble.

(Credit: Star Wreck Studios)

The Star Wreck Studios team, based in Tampere, Finland, has built a virtual studio for Iron Sky and an open-source platform that gives anybody the chance to make a film at no cost. They have recruited American Stephen Lee as managing director, and the chairman of the board is John Buckman, mostly known as the founder of Magnatune, a record label he created in Berkeley, Calif., in 2003.

Board member and serial entrepreneur Peter Vesterbacka says the aim of the open-source project is "wrecking the Hollywood model."

"Hollywood only distributes 700 films a year, but there are 100,000 people in Hollywood with film ideas," said Vesterbacka, who formerly worked for Hewlett-Packard and is also co-founder of the global social event Mobile Monday.

With this Web-based platform, people interested in film can make high-quality productions at almost no cost. The content can be anything from short films to feature films and can be distributed on the Internet or mobile devices or in theaters.

Vesterbacka says open source for film hasn't worked so far, because of the complex production requirements.

"But now anyone can buy a HD video camera on a level with Hollywood. It's all more affordable, and for special effects, such as rendering of a spaceship, you only need a PC."

Then again, a PC and an HD video camera don't automatically make you George Lucas.

Nonetheless, like Iron Sky, a number of companies and artists are using the Web to get around the studio system. Crackle, formerly called Grouper, has evolved into a site for up-and-coming artists. The site is also pulling in major sponsorship and ad dollars from known companies. Before, when Grouper showed user-generated videos, advertisers stayed away, General Manager Jonathan Shambroom told CNET News.com recently.

And as with software, the quality of a movie can actually be better the more people are involved. Universal had professional translators doing the Star Wreck subtitles for the Norwegian market, but the collective work of the fans was more accurate.

The business model for Star Wreck Studios is reversed--first free, then for pay and there is a very long tail; Star Wreck has spilled over into other things such as games, merchandise, and a very lively discussion on sci-fi.

The board has discussed moving the whole self-funded operation to the U.S., but think that they're still fine "with these crazy guys from Finland."

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office head Jon Dudas believes there's a place for software and business method patents, but he's as concerned as the next guy about keeping questionable patents out of the system.

(Credit: Declan McCullagh/CNET News.com)

HOLLYWOOD, Calif.--Open-source and free software fans who despise software patents shouldn't look for an ally in the head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Patent Commissioner Jon Dudas says his office is all about staying "technology neutral," so long as the invention meets certain standards.

"The system we've had has worked to promote technology for 200 years, and it can do that in the software industry, so long as you follow the principles that (a technology) is useful, new, and nonobvious," Dudas said during a wide-ranging interview with CNET News.com at a technology policy conference here this week.

Read on to hear more about what Dudas, who has also held the post of Commerce Department undersecretary since June 2004, had to say about things like business method patents (think Amazon.com's infamous one-click purchase patent and eBay's newly acquired patent covering its "Buy It Now" feature), so-called "patent trolls," Congress' attempts to overhaul the system he oversees, and the Patent Office's own efforts to curb bad patents from the start. (Editor's note: Responses have been edited for length and clarity.)

On software patents: "Software, biotechnology, business methods--In the United States, the Supreme Court has consistently held that those are areas where there should be patents, and those industries have flourished.

"Specifically with open source, I think the two should coexist very well. If someone gets a patent, then that intellectual property has to be respected, but so long as that patent isn't used, open source can be as open as it needs to be. You can license some (patents) and not license others. There are some who feel by definition you should only have open source or only have a patented model. The administration's position has always been that...both open source and patents help innovation thrive."

On business method patents: "We essentially said, we shouldn't base whether or not something is patentable on what type of technology it is or even what kind of method it is...so long as it's new, useful, and nonobvious.

"Probably in the last three years, of all the (business method patent) applications that have come in the door, the office has said 85 percent of these are not allowable. The patent system, I believe, is working very well... We're starting to get a higher percentage of business method patents being approved, probably in the 20 percent range."

On "so-called" patent trolls and whether they're overhyped: "It depends on how someone defines a patent troll. 'Patent troll' is meant to be a pejorative term. Some have defined it as someone who doesn't develop a project commercially. Certainly, someone who comes up with a great idea and licenses it, that's a very efficient way to do it.

"I think the concern there is more a concern with the judicial system as a whole than it is with the patent system."

On gripes by large technology companies that patent infringement fines are too high: "The administration has said we do think judges could give better guidance to juries. We definitely feel that in the case of damages, it would be good if judges could give very specific guidance to juries. With the provisions in the existing bills right now, the administration has said, 'We oppose the entire bill based on that because they favor one type of damage model over another.'

"There are a variety of different factors you can apply to determine what the right compensation is, and you, as best as possible, want to mimic the market. But the bills direct you to a certain couple of factors that may or may not mimic the market. We're saying the judge should tell the jury; don't just say, 'Here's 15 factors; figure it out for yourself.' The judge should tell jury, 'Here are a number of factors. These 3 seem critical; look at factors 2, 5, and 6."

"When they talk about damages awards and things like that, people say there's a lot of bad patents. When you get to the point of a damages award, there's a judge and jury that already determined this is a valid patent... By the time you look at damages awards, you're talking about good patents and you're talking about actual infringement of intellectual property."

On weeding out "bad" patents from the get-go: "Making sure applicants can give good information up front...will lead to a much better patent system--more than anything else. (The Patent Office is proposing that applicants) do a basic search (for "prior art," which is previously published technology that relates to an invention) and short report about why their invention should be patented.

"In 27 percent of cases, nothing is submitted in terms of prior art. In another 17 or 18 percent of cases, people just give us a long list of references. There really is a responsibility for people to come in and say, 'Here's why I think I deserve a patent; here's some of the areas to look at.' The decision will always rest with the patent examiner. The patent examiner will always do the full search and review and analysis."

On reducing in-court patent litigation: "The administration proposed post-grant review (a process within the Patent Office where people would be able to challenge patents just after they're issued). It has to be a true alternative to litigation. We don't think the idea is to have another way to question a patent, and then you can go to court and you can go to post-grant. The standard we've held is that there should be a threshold in order to get a post-grant review, an actual threat of litigation.

"The second thing--this is the critical point--if you choose to go to post-grant review, any issue you raise or could've raised, you have to raise there, or you can't raise it again. You don't want an innovator to have hurdle after hurdle after hurdle after they've gotten a patent."

On whether Congress and the Bush administration can reach an accord on new patent system rules: "We feel like senators and members are cognizant and care about concerns of the administration. Ideally we'll have a bill with a letter from the administration saying we support this bill as it is. That's our goal."

On handling a flood of patent applications: "We've hired more examiners in terms of raw numbers and percentages in the history of the office. We've said very clearly, hiring more examiners in and of itself won't be the solution. Even hiring 1,200 examiners, even increasing a lot of different flexibility initiatives that increase productivity...we still get more applications in the door than we're able to examine.

"What we really need to do is get higher quality applications. The allowance rate, those applications that are approved, used to hover between 62 and 72 percent, back 35 to 40 years ago. In the last 6 years, it went up to 72 percent in 2000, then dropped steadily down to a 43 percent allowance rate. So what we see is 57 percent of what comes in the door doesn't lead to a patent. "

On the long line to get a patent--and how some may game the system: "Most of the time when people say it takes me 33 months to get a patent, people think, "What's taking so long?" The examiner only takes a few weeks. That time is all waiting in line. That line is getting longer and longer and longer--filled with applications that never get approved. What's, in lots of ways, more disturbing is in over half the cases where we say this isn't patentable, people just file again and get back in line.

"We put out a rule (that was supposed to take effect last November) saying that you can only do that three times. But we were sued. (A judge issued a temporary injunction against the rule.) Right now, the way the law has been interpreted is people have unlimited opportunities to refile their application. You have more opportunities to have us look at your patent application than you do to appeal your death sentence.

"We want to make certain that people can't apply with a very broad patent application, which they know will get rejected. And then they get back in line, and meanwhile, they're looking out and seeing what's happening in the market. Sometimes they see that if they focused that broad claim, it could cover an existing technology... Then, (going by) the date of first filing, they can then say, 'I own that technology'... That's a very real concern. That gets more in line with concerns of troll behavior--someone who is literally watching the technology...so they can rise up out of the bridge and sue people."

I couldn't help but comment on this news out of Australia that 2Clix is suing an online forum because a few forum members think 2Clix's products stink. The open-source world thrives on transparency. Not so with dear little 2Clix, which wants everyone to speak nicely about it, regardless of truth. Even in the proprietary world, this is extreme behavior.

The problem with such vendor-defined truth is that, well, it's often not very truthful. Dialogue is actually helpful for establishing such truth and motivating purchase decisions. Apparently, 2Clix can't see this.

From the article:

Firefox just passed the 400 million download mark, according to the Spread Firefox site for promoting the open-source, extendable Web browser.

That number shouldn't be confused with actual installations, Mozilla's public relations folks rightly caution. (I'm sure I've downloaded it at least a dozen times this year, and I'm only using copies on three computers at present. On the flip side, there are any number of other ways to get Firefox, including Linux installations.) Nevertheless, 400 million is an achievement worth noting, given that just a few years ago it looked like Microsoft had the market locked up with Internet Explorer.

However, not everything is going swimmingly in Firefox land. Mozilla had hoped to release a Firefox 3 "Gran Paradiso" beta in July. Instead, Mike Schroepfer, Mozilla's vice president of engineering, now says it's due "this fall."

Qualcomm's handoff of its Eudora e-mail software to the Mozilla Foundation has taken an important step: release of the first beta version of the software, 8.0.0b1.

Mozilla already has an open-source e-mail program, Thunderbird, and the new Eudora will be a branded offshoot with some new features, according to the release site. In addition, a related extension called Penelope will provide some extra features to both Eudora and the regular Thunderbird.

Eudora rose to popularity in the dial-up days of the Internet, but it was mostly supplanted by Microsoft Outlook Express and by Web-based e-mail services. Qualcomm launched its last commercially supported version of its classic Eudora last October. However, six Qualcomm Eudora programmers are now working on the Mozilla version.

The beta version is available for Windows and Mac OS X.

(Via Slashdot)

Advanced Micro Devices will release open-source driver software to improve Linux support for its ATI graphics chips and is contributing help and funding to outside programmers who are improving the driver, according to a Linux graphics expert.

AMD is sharing specifications, releasing source code of one software component, and funding programmer work on the project, said Michael Larabel of the Phoronix site, which measures Linux performance. AMD is working with Novell's Suse Linux programmers on the project, he said.

An AMD representative told CNET News.com that the company plans to release details later Thursday about its open-source driver strategy.

An open-source driver, though not as full-featured as the proprietary software the company already releases for Linux users, is a dramatic change for ATI and AMD. Historically, ATI has been cool at best on the idea of an open-source Linux driver. But proprietary drivers aren't just unpalatable to open-source purists; they also pose practical problems for software updates and other support issues.

In contrast, Intel began work on open-source graphics drivers for Linux in 2006. However, Nvidia, which like ATI chiefly sells standalone or "discrete" graphics chips, is still firmly in the proprietary camp.

Linux has reasonable support for 2D graphics, but 3D graphics are another story. That issue has come to a head with work to advance fancy desktop graphics on Linux.

ATI, the graphics chip business Advanced Micro Devices acquired, is planning to release new graphics drivers for Linux, and the move should provide a much-needed performance boost and a new open-source approach, one expert said Wednesday.

"The performance overall for the past sixteen months has been stagnant," said Michael Larabel, who runs the Phoronix site to monitor Linux graphics performance. He tested the driver and said the new 8.41 version will be available within the next week. "The new driver delivers massive performance improvements."

That's handy for the graphics wonks who want fancy 3D-graphics desktop effects through software such as AIGLX, Beryl and Compiz. Drivers let operating systems communicate with hardware, but with ATI's proprietary drivers, open-source programmers have been beholden to ATI.

Perhaps more significantly, AMD could be following Intel's open-source graphics driver. "In the near future, AMD will be making an announcement about accelerating efforts within the open-source community," Larabel said. Depending on how far AMD goes, that could make Nvidia the odd man out when it comes to staying proprietary.

AMD plans to make an announcement Thursday regarding "open-source drivers for their graphics cards," according to press invitation Wednesday, but the invitation offered no further details.

Adobe Systems has embraced open-source software for some products, but its core Creative Suite line looks like it'll remain proprietary.

In a blog posting Sunday, Adobe's top creative products executive, John Loiacono, made unflattering remarks about open-source alternatives whose free cost is offset by the time that creative pros have to spend fiddling. "Time is money," he opines, not without merit, and links to a blog posting by Eric Vreeland, who observed, "Debugging recent installs of certain open-source software has wasted immense amounts of my spare time; charged at my hourly rate these hours represent a pile of cash bigger than that which full list price versions of comparable commercial software would require for purchase." Vreeland opted for the $2,500 Creative Suite Master Collection, which bundles 12 Adobe products, such as Photoshop, Premiere and Illustrator.

Loiacono legitimately points to his open-source credentials as the top Sun Microsystems software executive who oversaw much of that company's work releasing its Solaris operating system as open-source software. But his logic is a little wonky in this case.

"Obviously, I have thought about whether open source has a place in Adobe's creative products strategy. But what designers need is tightly-integrated workflows and high reliability right out of the box, so the really important question to ask is what's the impact to the user," he said, then concludes, "Open-source software can be a perfect solution. It's just not right for everything. Or for everyone--like many creative professionals who are on deadline and prefer to innovate vs. integrate."

It's well and good to look at things from the user's perspective, but in this case it leads to a false dichotomy. Loiacono appears to be considering only outside open-source alternatives such as Inkscape or the Gimp.

There's nothing technological stopping Adobe from releasing software that's both open-source as well as integrated and easy to use. But it's misleading to point to the shortcomings of others' open-source software as a reason why Adobe shouldn't open-source its own.

Of course, Adobe would face no shortage of business and legal obstacles--free Photoshop no doubt would appeal to a lot of people who today pay hundreds of dollars for it--and that would be an issue I'd like on which I'd like to hear Johnny L's thoughts.

After 18 months of revision, the Free Software Foundation has released version 3 of the General Public License (GPL).

The license is both a legal foundation and a manifesto of the free and open-source programming movement. Not all are fully happy with the new version though, including Linux leader Linus Torvalds.

The text of the new license can be read on the FSF's GNU Project Web page.

The new license is geared to adjust to changes in the software industry that have arisen in the 16 years since GPL 2 was released. One of the biggest changes: the free and open-source programming movement has been transformed from an academic, legal and philosophical curiosity to a powerful force in the commercial computing industry.