Slashdot Mirror
Domain: base.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to base.com.
Comments · 62
-
More companies' statements on software patents
-
More companies' statements on software patents
-
Hey, this is five years old!
A little URL editing gives us the containing directory, with lots of statements about patents from lots of major companies (Autodesk's seems good, there's also IBM, Borland...) - and the last modified date is 29 May 1994. There's more material on patents in the parent directory - have a poke around.
Sorry to post thrice in one thread, but I thought it was worthy of note...
-- -
Things you can't patent?According to the site, you can't patent:
Inventions which are:
- Not useful (such as perpetual motion machines); or
- Offensive to public morality
Who says perpetual motion machines wouldn't be useful? I think they meant "inventions which violate thermodynamic laws."
Also, I'm not sure about their standards of what's offensive. Most
JMC
-
This reminds me....
...of a short "essay" I came across awhile back. I can't remember if it was posted on Slashdot or not....
http://www.base.com/gordoni/found/job-suck.html -
Re: Latin lessons & Hillis infoWhile where on the topic, can someone please confirm that virii is in fact the plural of virus, and not just some silly neologism (like octopi)? I'm pretty sure that virus is third declension, with plural viri.
Also, I'd like to point out that Danny Hillis was the founder of Thinking Machines Corporation, not "Connection Machines". The Connection Machine was TMC's core product. One of his current projects is to build a clock that will run for ten millenia.
-
1800 domains and countingLinux is really starting to take off.
By my counting, we are now up to 1800 registered Linux domains in
See http://www.base.com/gordoni/linux.html for the complete list (plus some other useful Linux market intelligence I have gathered).
-
Freely available to allNope, a FOIA request won't work, it's already been tried...
In responding to a FOIA request submitted by Corsearch in 1996 requesting a copy of the domain name database (NSF FOIA No. 96-090 Request), the NSF claimed (NSF FOIA No. 96-090 Response):
"NSF does not possess or control the domain name database
An administrative appeal of this decision was made (NSF FOIA No. 96-090 Appeal). This appeal was rejected. The words "possess" and "control" are being used here in the context of the Freedom of Information Act to determine if the database is an "agency record", and not in respect of claims to ownership of intellectual property. These are the same terms used in the FLITE case (Baizer v. Department of the Air Force, 887 F. Supp. 225 (N.D. Cal. 1995). The FLITE decision has been criticized for its "broad assertion of an exemption from FOIA for 'library' materials, and its questionable use of legal precedent" ( Supreme Court Decisions in FLITE database, Information Policy Notes, Taxpayers Assets Project). The Flite decision draws upon the Supreme Court decision in Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 US 136 (1989).
So, the NSF has the right to obtain a copy of the database from Network Solutions, but because the NSF has not chosen to obtain the database, it is not possible to obtain the database from the NSF under the FOIA. And even if the NSF did have a copy of the database, it is not clear, in the light of the FLITE decision, whether the NSF would be required to make the database available under the FOIA.
-
Freely available to allNope, a FOIA request won't work, it's already been tried...
In responding to a FOIA request submitted by Corsearch in 1996 requesting a copy of the domain name database (NSF FOIA No. 96-090 Request), the NSF claimed (NSF FOIA No. 96-090 Response):
"NSF does not possess or control the domain name database
An administrative appeal of this decision was made (NSF FOIA No. 96-090 Appeal). This appeal was rejected. The words "possess" and "control" are being used here in the context of the Freedom of Information Act to determine if the database is an "agency record", and not in respect of claims to ownership of intellectual property. These are the same terms used in the FLITE case (Baizer v. Department of the Air Force, 887 F. Supp. 225 (N.D. Cal. 1995). The FLITE decision has been criticized for its "broad assertion of an exemption from FOIA for 'library' materials, and its questionable use of legal precedent" ( Supreme Court Decisions in FLITE database, Information Policy Notes, Taxpayers Assets Project). The Flite decision draws upon the Supreme Court decision in Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 US 136 (1989).
So, the NSF has the right to obtain a copy of the database from Network Solutions, but because the NSF has not chosen to obtain the database, it is not possible to obtain the database from the NSF under the FOIA. And even if the NSF did have a copy of the database, it is not clear, in the light of the FLITE decision, whether the NSF would be required to make the database available under the FOIA.
-
Freely available to allNope, a FOIA request won't work, it's already been tried...
In responding to a FOIA request submitted by Corsearch in 1996 requesting a copy of the domain name database (NSF FOIA No. 96-090 Request), the NSF claimed (NSF FOIA No. 96-090 Response):
"NSF does not possess or control the domain name database
An administrative appeal of this decision was made (NSF FOIA No. 96-090 Appeal). This appeal was rejected. The words "possess" and "control" are being used here in the context of the Freedom of Information Act to determine if the database is an "agency record", and not in respect of claims to ownership of intellectual property. These are the same terms used in the FLITE case (Baizer v. Department of the Air Force, 887 F. Supp. 225 (N.D. Cal. 1995). The FLITE decision has been criticized for its "broad assertion of an exemption from FOIA for 'library' materials, and its questionable use of legal precedent" ( Supreme Court Decisions in FLITE database, Information Policy Notes, Taxpayers Assets Project). The Flite decision draws upon the Supreme Court decision in Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 US 136 (1989).
So, the NSF has the right to obtain a copy of the database from Network Solutions, but because the NSF has not chosen to obtain the database, it is not possible to obtain the database from the NSF under the FOIA. And even if the NSF did have a copy of the database, it is not clear, in the light of the FLITE decision, whether the NSF would be required to make the database available under the FOIA.
-
Freely available to allNope, a FOIA request won't work, it's already been tried...
In responding to a FOIA request submitted by Corsearch in 1996 requesting a copy of the domain name database (NSF FOIA No. 96-090 Request), the NSF claimed (NSF FOIA No. 96-090 Response):
"NSF does not possess or control the domain name database
An administrative appeal of this decision was made (NSF FOIA No. 96-090 Appeal). This appeal was rejected. The words "possess" and "control" are being used here in the context of the Freedom of Information Act to determine if the database is an "agency record", and not in respect of claims to ownership of intellectual property. These are the same terms used in the FLITE case (Baizer v. Department of the Air Force, 887 F. Supp. 225 (N.D. Cal. 1995). The FLITE decision has been criticized for its "broad assertion of an exemption from FOIA for 'library' materials, and its questionable use of legal precedent" ( Supreme Court Decisions in FLITE database, Information Policy Notes, Taxpayers Assets Project). The Flite decision draws upon the Supreme Court decision in Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 US 136 (1989).
So, the NSF has the right to obtain a copy of the database from Network Solutions, but because the NSF has not chosen to obtain the database, it is not possible to obtain the database from the NSF under the FOIA. And even if the NSF did have a copy of the database, it is not clear, in the light of the FLITE decision, whether the NSF would be required to make the database available under the FOIA.
-
Monopolistic tendanciesA year or so ago I followed the procedures Network Solutions requires for requesting access to the zone files. In my email request I stated that I agreed not use any of the information derivered from the zone files for sending spam, and that my sole reason for requesting access to the zone files was I was becoming increasingly concerned about the risk of monopoly control of DNS, and that I wanted access to these files to prevent this threat. This should have qualified as a legitimate reason for access to the zone files. However, Network Solutions never even dignified my request with a reply.
I find the present DNS situation highly disturbing. I have written a very comprehensive document explaining why this is such a big threat.
Network Solutions monopolistic ambitions are clear. The difficult question is how to stop them. Right now there appears little that can be done other than trusting that the government and ICANN don't screw up.