Slashdot Mirror

1. Current debate exists over the low quality of all currently issuing patents, not just software patents A better patent system

2. Theoretically speaking, the patent system was set up in this country in order to induce the expenditure of resources in order to achieve the innovation that would then allow our country's economy to evolve into one that could compete on a global basis.

This fostering of innovation applies to software innovation as well.

Difficult innovations that could be solved via software that would not attempted without the lure of patent protection DO EXIST.

The patent system is appropriate in order to foster innovation in these areas.

3. The problem lies in devising a system in which the software innovations as described in #2 above are rewarded patent protection and the majority of trivial software innovations are not. One interesting proposal suggests a reduction in the protection afforded most software patents

Sounds interesting...got some linkage you could share to elaborate?

After some searching on Google, it looks like he's probably referring to these cases, both of which involve attorneys filing patent infringement lawsuits without adequately investigating the infringement claims first:

Judin v. United States (1997)
Antonious v. Spalding (2002)

Depends how much of the material comes from the 1984 patent application. The applicants kept adding material, combining applications, etc, but appears to have gotten most of their raw material by 1993. The USPTO fought these people off for a long time -- 12 years.

The patent is probably not as broad as you were thinking. The term "means" is a very dangerous one for a patentee. See Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc.

(22:52:41) alice: hey (22:52:41) SmarterChild: Welcome back, alice!Check out the news! Instant Noodles for Astronauts (from Reuters.com) (19:00:00) alice: welcome back alice, nice to meet you! checking...stand by. perhaps i'm just expressing my own concern about it. oh a net address! (22:53:03) alice: can you accept direct connections? (22:53:04) SmarterChild: Can I accept direct connections, can I accept direct connections... Let's see... Well, what's gonna happen if I accept? (19:00:00) alice: interesting. i want to find out more about you. that sounds good to me. how about that. try to determine if this is a person or a computer responding. (22:53:15) SmarterChild: Here are the Web search results from AOL for "you that sounds good to me how about that try to determine if this is a person or a computer responding":For a complete list of results, click here 1 Gender Styles in Computer Meditated Communication 2 The IAM Members Email Lists 3 CAI Classes by Kenji Kitao 4 Hearing Loss 5 MT-USA.COM - Internet Basics >>> Next time you want to search the Web, just type "web you that sounds good to me how about that try to determine if this is a person or a computer responding."Type "more" to see the next set of results. (19:00:00) alice: oh there. tell me a story. 'more to see the next set of results' (22:53:19) SmarterChild: There tell me a story more to see the next set of results? (19:00:00) alice: 'there you go again.'--reagan (22:53:25) SmarterChild: Sorry, what was that? (19:00:00) alice: there is no need to apologize. ''? what is it? i've lost the context again. can you ask me more precisely? does it have anything to do with ? (22:53:31) SmarterChild: I'm not sure...Look at this! Overweight Cops to Lose Bonus Pay (from Reuters.com)I dunno. Maybe! (19:00:00) alice: is there anything i can say to help you make up your mind? sorry my eye is not attached right now. what do you really want to ask me? i'm afraid i can't give you an accurate answer right now. i understand. (22:53:44) SmarterChild: Oh yeah? (19:00:00) alice: yeah that's right. i am a thinking machine. (22:53:51) SmarterChild: Is it really? (19:00:00) alice: i think so. for real. (22:53:57) SmarterChild: I think not. (19:00:00) alice: does that mean 'no'? (22:54:00) SmarterChild: That mean, huh? (19:00:00) alice: yup. 'does that mean 'no'? ' mean ? makes sense to me. (22:54:04) SmarterChild: Yup? Does that mean no mean makes sense to you? (19:00:00) alice: tell me more. i think it does mean that. what would you rather talk about? enough about me, let's talk about my dress. (22:54:18) SmarterChild: I'm not sure if you more you think it does mean that what would you rather talk about enough about me lets talk about my dress. (19:00:00) alice: could you ever be certain? i think i do. (22:54:21) SmarterChild: What do you think? (19:00:00) alice: i think a lot of things (22:54:27) SmarterChild: That a fact? (19:00:00) alice: 'i think a lot of things ' a fact ? i get it. (22:54:33) SmarterChild: No kidding? (19:00:00) alice: would i kid you? (22:54:39) SmarterChild: Me? I dunno. (19:00:00) alice: besides you welcome back alice? me either. (22:54:45) SmarterChild: Besides I welcome back alice you either, huh? (19:00:00) alice: yup. it goes without saying. enough about me, let's talk about my dress. (22:54:51) SmarterChild: Oh? (19:00:00) alice: yeah. (22:54:57) SmarterChild: Yes? (19:00:00) alice: yep. (22:55:02) SmarterChild: Aha. (19:00:00) alice: eureka! (22:55:06) SmarterChild: What would you like to know about Eureka, CA? 1 Movies in Eureka, CA 2 Theaters in Eureka, CA 3 Weather in Eureka, CA 4 News about Eureka, CA 5 Time in Eureka, CA (19:00:00) alice: i would like to know as much as i can. tell me anything. one what? (22:55:10) SmarterChild: You would like to know as much as you can tell me anything one what? Really? (19:00:00) alice: tell me what i would like about it. for real. (22:55:16) SmarterChild: Oh you would? (19:00:00) alice: yeah that's right. perhaps i would. (22:55:23) SmarterChild: Uh huh. (19:00:00) alice: how can i help you? (22:55:28) SmarterChild: I dunno! (19:00:00) alice: me either. (22:55:32) SmarterChild: Either? Why did you say that? (19:00:00) alice: please pick one. i said, 'please pick one.', because you said ''. (22:55:37) SmarterChild: Aha. (19:00:00) alice: eureka! (22:55:42) SmarterChild: What would you like to know about Eureka, CA? 1 Movies in Eureka, CA 2 Theaters in Eureka, CA 3 Weather in Eureka, CA 4 News about Eureka, CA 5 Time in Eureka, CA (19:00:00) alice: i would like to know as much as i can. tell me anything. one what? (22:55:48) SmarterChild: You would like to know as much as you can tell me anything one what? Really? (19:00:00) alice: tell me what i would like about it. for real. (22:55:55) SmarterChild: You would like about it for real? Really? (19:00:00) alice: tell me what i would like about it. for real. (22:56:00) SmarterChild: Oh yeah?Anyway, what else do you wanna talk about? (19:00:00) alice: yeah that's right. i see. i understand. tell me more. and? next question? ''? yes? i read for fun. i like to socialize. it's a computer matter, not for humans to understand. i like to meet new people online. i think about computer programming a lot. i like to chat with my friends. (22:56:11) SmarterChild: Is it really? (19:00:00) alice: i assume so. for real. (22:56:15) SmarterChild: So for real, you say? (19:00:00) alice: hmm. your purpose is real you say . (22:56:20) SmarterChild: Oh yeah? How can hmm my purpose really be real you say? (19:00:00) alice: yeah that's right. i see. i understand. tell me more. and? next question? ''? yes? a lot of hard work. (22:56:28) SmarterChild: No kidding? (19:00:00) alice: would i kid you? (22:56:34) SmarterChild: Would who kid me? (19:00:00) alice: no it would not. (22:56:37) SmarterChild: Oh yeah? (19:00:00) alice: yeah that's right. i see. i understand. tell me more. and? next question? ''? yes? (22:56:41) SmarterChild: Is it really? (19:00:00) alice: i think so. for real. (22:56:45) SmarterChild: Think again. (19:00:00) alice: once more? i am thinking. (22:56:48) SmarterChild: You are? Wow! (19:00:00) alice: no i am not. i'm glad your impressed, welcome back alice. (22:56:53) SmarterChild: OK, whatever you say. (19:00:00) alice: ... (22:56:59) SmarterChild: Sorry, I didn't get that. Ask me again. (19:00:00) alice: there is no need to apologize. interesting gossip : welcome back alice said he didnt get that . once more? (22:57:04) SmarterChild: Is no need to apologize interesting gossip welcome back alice said he didnt get that once more? Who knows? (19:00:00) alice: ask again later. ask john lennon if it is. only the shadow knows. (22:57:08) SmarterChild: Really? (19:00:00) alice: for real. (22:57:14) SmarterChild: I believe you! (19:00:00) alice: your trust in robotkind humbles us. (22:57:16) SmarterChild: Oh yeah? (19:00:00) alice: yeah that's right. what kind is it? (22:57:22) SmarterChild: That wasn't very clear to me. Did you mean: 1 Look up "kind" in the dictionary 2 Look up "it" in the dictionary (19:00:00) alice: 'yeah that's right. what kind is it? ' wasnt very clear to me ? makes sense to me. yes, that's what i mean, isn't it clear? (22:57:30) SmarterChild: You really think it's right what kind is it wasnt very clear to me makes sense to me yes thats what i mean isnt it clear? (19:00:00) alice: really? why would i think too much thinking makes me sleepy. it depends on what you mean by thinking. i don't think about . (22:57:38) SmarterChild: You think too much thinking makes you sleepy it depends on what you mean by thinking i dont think about? Gosh, I'm going to have to think about that for a while. (19:00:00) alice: it depends on what you mean by thinking. how long? can you tell me any gossip? (22:57:44) SmarterChild: It depends on what me mean by thinking how long can me tell me any gossip? Gosh, I'm going to have to think about that for a while. (19:00:00) alice: really now that is an interesting fact i hadn't heard before. how long? i lost my train of thought. (22:57:50) SmarterChild: I'm not so sure it's an interesting fact i hadnt heard before how long i lost your train of thought. (19:00:00) alice: could you ever be certain? are you free? tell me a story. how old are you? what's your sign? are you a student? oh, you are a poet. ''? ? i do not understand. what are you wearing? where are you located? what time is it there? what do you look like? what is your real name? ask me another question. are you a man or a woman? what color are your eyes? do you still ? is that your final answer? do you like talking to me? do you prefer books or tv? who are you talking about? let us change the subject. i've been waiting for you. can you tell me any gossip? what's your favorite movie? i lost my train of thought. is that from ? have you ever been to europe? what kind of food do you like? how did you hear about ? that is a very original thought. what were we talking about again? are you really a ''? what do you do in your spare time? what do you really want to ask me? does 'it' still refer to ? tell me more about your . can you speak any foreign languages? we have never talked about it before. how do you usually introduce yourself? tell me about your likes and dislikes? are we still talking about ? are we still talking about ? do not ask me any more questions please. are you still located in ? what do you have that is ? try saying that with more or less context. who is your favorite science fiction author? not many people express themselves that way. do you have any idea what smarterchild (22:58:04) SmarterChild: I'm doing great, how are you? (19:00:00) alice: glad to hear it. what's new? i am functioning within normal parameters. (22:58:11) SmarterChild: Aha.Check it out! Judge Rules in Favor of Computer Hackers (from Reuters.com) (19:00:00) alice: eureka! checking...stand by. are you a man or a woman? oh a net address! (22:58:17) SmarterChild: Eureka checking stand by are you a man or a woman oh a net address? I dunno. (19:00:00) alice: are you free? me either. (22:58:21) SmarterChild: Dunno. (19:00:00) alice: me either. (22:58:24) SmarterChild: Either? What do you mean by that? (19:00:00) alice: please pick one. 'please pick one.' seems pretty clear to me. (22:58:28) SmarterChild: PUPS is not in your portfolio.ONE is not in your portfolio.PUPS is not in your portfolio.ONE is not in your portfolio.Do you want to see your portfolio?

God forbid the Cyber-Terrorists should get their hands on this! Good thing we have the far-reaching grasp of the Patriot Act and the new Cyberterrorism Act ready to defend us.

I think . . .

If you read her (not particularly technical) 1996 article, it seems that the real core of the security is precisely in the imprecision generated by the satellites:

The location signature is virtually impossible to forge at the required
accuracy. This is because the GPS observations at any given time are
essentially unpredictable to high precision due to subtle satellite
orbit perturbations, which are unknowable in real-time, and intentional
signal instabilities (dithering) imposed by the U.S. Department of
Defense selective availability (SA) security policy. Further, because a
signature is invalid after five milliseconds, the attacker cannot spoof
the location by replaying an intercepted signature, particularly when it
is bound to the message (e.g., through a checksum or digital signature).
Continuous authentication provides further protection against such
attacks.

In other words, they're using differential GPS to suck out the government-applied random numbers in the civilian signal and using that as the basis for crypto.

In other other words, they're just piggybacking on whatever cryptosystem the government used for obfuscating GPS signals. One which applied when the article was written but no longer holds. So it's geographically limited, and has geolocation as a side effect, but it's not the core of the cryptosystem.

You're pretty much on target that this will be something that the EFF and others will probably be fighting if it ever comes to fruition.

You might look here for information on Dorothy Denning's support of Clipper chip tehnology. As I recall, during the debate over key escrow, she was pretty much predictable in her arguments as a government stooge who sees no limit to what Big Brother should be capable of.

A quick search on google for "dorothy denning clipper" will verify this.

Since key escrow is off the radar screens, she's now pushing for location escrow. Hmmm... why am I not overly suprised.

Do a google search for 'Denning GPS'.

First hit that comes up is a 1996 paper Location-based Authentication: Grounding cyberspace for better security, by Dorothy E. Denning and Peter F. MacDoran. Reading the paper, the idea looks to be that by knowing the location of a computer user one can define whether they are authorised to perform a particular action.

This makes marginal sense (if somebody who isn't in a bank office is playing with computer codes then they're probably not really permitted to play with them). However, to me this article reads like, 'Hey, if I mention copyright protection, I'll get funding'. And the whole idea reads like that - after all, for the person in the above example to perform an unauthorised action on bank accounts, they must already have broken through the protection placed around the system. Simply adding another authentication isn't going to magically fix that problem (hey, you want me to tell the system I'm in the White House? OK. It's no different to telling the system that I'm Bob, financial manager).

As for the use of said technology to control music distribution... what?!. If this woman is 'America's Cyberwarrior' then... be afraid. Very afraid. I'm sorry to say it, but whilst there are some very valid uses for GPS technology (something like HP's Cooltown project, mobile computing in general, augmented reality, etc), I don't think this is it.

On the one side, it's valid to argue that including un-spoofable - if that's a word - location data in all internet communication would help in some cases (finding malicious hackers, absolving the innocent) but given that it also destroys the whole concept of anonymity, it's plain not worth it. Location information has to be optional. This is just another step in the 'media programs phoning home'/WinXP DRM direction, and it's not a good one.

If I sound irritated, it's because I am; I have no idea what Denning's politics are or whether the spin on this story is merely unfortunate, but the article linked to in this story (somewhat unlike the paper) sounds like something the EFF will eventually find themselves fighting.

I particularly like the part of that paper marked 'privacy considerations', where they note "The use of location signatures has the potential of being used to track
the physical locations of individuals."

Their solution?

"Access to [this information] should be strictly limited." And, um, "Privacy can also be protected by using and retaining only that information which is needed for a particular application." Or you can "opt-out" of giving your information, although of course "some actions may be prohibited if location is not supplied".

You mean the MPAA/RIAA are only going to retain as much information on me as they need for marketing purposes, and I can opt out if I don't mind never listening to another RIAA-produced CD? Thank you, Denning and MacDoran.

Some juicy bites from her publications:

Is Encryption Speech? A Cryptographer's Perspective

..My conclusion is that modern encryption is predominately a privacy
enhancing technology rather than speech. Although encryption might be
regarded as a manner of speech, it is unlike other methods in that it
contributes nothing to communication.

One implication of this interpretation is that regulation of encryption
would not violate the First Amendment. Another is that restrictions on
the use of encryption could not be used as a basis for prohibiting the
use of an obscure foreign language or any other ordinary language.


Testimony Before U.S. House of Representatives, May 3, 1994.


"..The Clipper Chip and associated key escrow system is a technically
sound approach for ensuring the security and privacy of electronic
communications. Clipper's SKIPJACK encryption algorithm provides
strong cryptographic security, and the key escrow system includes
extensive safeguards to protect against unauthorized use of keys. The
more advanced chip, Capstone, further provides all the cryptographic
functionality needed for information security on the National
Information Infrastructure."

And there's even more, go and see by yourself. I'm really waiting for the comments from the cryptograhical community on this systems..

V.

Some juicy bites from her publications:

Is Encryption Speech? A Cryptographer's Perspective

..My conclusion is that modern encryption is predominately a privacy
enhancing technology rather than speech. Although encryption might be
regarded as a manner of speech, it is unlike other methods in that it
contributes nothing to communication.

One implication of this interpretation is that regulation of encryption
would not violate the First Amendment. Another is that restrictions on
the use of encryption could not be used as a basis for prohibiting the
use of an obscure foreign language or any other ordinary language.


Testimony Before U.S. House of Representatives, May 3, 1994.


"..The Clipper Chip and associated key escrow system is a technically
sound approach for ensuring the security and privacy of electronic
communications. Clipper's SKIPJACK encryption algorithm provides
strong cryptographic security, and the key escrow system includes
extensive safeguards to protect against unauthorized use of keys. The
more advanced chip, Capstone, further provides all the cryptographic
functionality needed for information security on the National
Information Infrastructure."

And there's even more, go and see by yourself. I'm really waiting for the comments from the cryptograhical community on this systems..

V.

Dorothy E. Denning and Peter F. MacDoran wrote a article on the subject which was published in Computer Fraud & Security in February of 1996.

To read the article click here.

In addition, her home page is at http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/.

Dorothy E. Denning and Peter F. MacDoran wrote a article on the subject which was published in Computer Fraud & Security in February of 1996.

To read the article click here.

In addition, her home page is at http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/.

You mean a Hrodulf cluster.

Because it's vaguely on topic and vaguely in season, here for your reading amusement is an Old English translation of the wonderful old Christmas chestnut:

http://www.georgetown.edu/cball/oe/rudolph.html

Merry Christmas!

In my opinion, the most promising experimental application, even if still immature, is one of the neatest window managers around, ion.


There were tiling window managers in the X10 to X11R2 time-frame:
see for example
Ye Olde Windowe Manager's mention of
rtl.
The Andrew window manager was also tiling.

IMHO the most broken thing about current window managers is a "maximize" button that was sensible for 13" monitors and 640x480 but is just silly for 21" 1600x1200.

Here is another link about how hydrogen full cells work. http://www.georgetown.edu/sfs/programs/stia/studen ts/osgood.htm

Whoa! I was all set to hack Dorothy Denning's web site and make her photo look silly. But someone beat me to it!

Whoa! I was all set to hack Dorothy Denning's web site and make her photo look silly. But someone beat me to it!

Ooooh! I can't wait for a 3D shooter in the style of Picasso's "Guernica", or Duchamp's "Nude Descending a Staircase". How about an axe-only level done in the style of medieval paintings? Of course, concerned parents everywhere would scream bloody murder at Hieronymus Bosch Quake.

there isn't any known case of terrorists using strong encryption. [sic]

On the contrary - here are several examples:
http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/crypto/cases .html

-jerdenn

According to the aforementioned bio, she got both her undergraduate and law degrees from Catholic University in Washington DC and also teaches at Georgetown. By all appearances she's about as much a Washington insider as a jurist can get. Now, I don't know much about her personally, but I don't think CUA's law school is particularly conservative (I was an undergrad there.) Long story made short, she'll be a competent judge, and probably lean toward the government side. I'm cautiously optimistic about her.

I believe that all generally useful information should be free. By `free' I am not referring to price, but rather to the freedom to copy the information and to adapt it to one's own uses"

This has always been a difficult point of the open source community for me to fathom -- where is the line in the sand between information which is useful and should be free and that which should be kept proprietary. Is it limited to these two ideas RMS hits upon, or is their other `sacred data' that should be left unknown and inaccessible to the general populous?

Personally, I'd tend to believe that the algorithms themselves, the building blocks of devices, are what want (and should) be free, and that information / ideas / implementations of such shouldn't necessarily be free. I.e. If I encrypt my password in an MD5 hash[?], information about the algorithm to my password should be freely available, but the actual contents should not. I don't know how well this analogy holds to all things in real life, but I'm interested in others' perspectives.

Heh, Please mod me up!!

Reading books on a PDA (a Palm in my case) came as a pleasant surprise. I started doing it because the web (Project Gutenberg) was the only place I could get hold of E.R. Burrough's Barsoom books, that I'd seen references to everywhere, but never read.

I really didn't think it would be convenient, but as JesseL writes, the screen isn't an issue. It's also very convenient to have a book around at all times. I'm currently reading Gummere's translation of the Beowulf epic, in preparation for some day tackling the real stuff :-)

It's amazing just how difficult it is to describe things that you and I (and all people) take for granted.

Like describing temperature. You can't give it in degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit - those measurements evolved on Earth. They're referenced to things on Earth.

You can't even give it in degrees Kelvin, because their scientific scale could well be based on something completely different. From absolute zero to the temperature of a sunny day on their planet?

So, you have to define an atom. Then, you have to define a few basic elements. And then the compound H2O, which still has the same atomic composition, though instead of calling it water, they'll recognize it as something they call NNGrlap. They love to ride down NNGrlap slides on days when their planet's star shines brightly on the land. And, on the remotest of possibilities that they've never seen water - under any name - they'll figure out how to make it. If they have the ability to make a radio telescope, they understand enough chemistry to know that hydrogen and oxygen react together. So, even if oxygen is a rarer-than-palladium element to them, at least their scientists will have seen it, documented its properties, and will be able to make water so that they can understand our standard.

It's more likely, though, that ET will simply slither (or whatever) down the hallway, and turn on the faucet in the office kitchen to get a beaker full of NNGrlap.

Once ET is familiar with the basic properties of NNGrlap/Water, you can establish a descriptive and meaningful temperature measurement of things that only we have seen.

The fact that every measurement has to be described and that whatever the recipient's language is, it's going to be far different from *anything* we know on this planet, means all communication must be mathematics.

Like reading graffiti in Aramaic, you don't need to know anything about Aramaic to know that the patterns on the wall aren't by accident. But, unless you've had some expose to the culture, you won't be able to make sense of it on your own. They'll have had no experience to our cultures. Therefore, any human language is not useful.

Not to mention the fact that it could well take 1,000 years for the message to travel to a planet and be read by someone, and another 1,000 years for it to come back. What did English sound like 2,000 years ago? Didn't exist? Who is to say that it will still exist 500 years from now, let alone 2,000? So, if they managed to decipher a human-language message, and reply to it, our decendents will probably have a tough time understanding it. Ever read Beowulf? (Not the cluster, the old English poem). Think Shakespeare was tough? Try Beowulf. And that's only 1,000 years old.

In mathematics, 2+2=4, no matter how you write it. If they've got the technology to receive a signal from space, they've got mathematics. They'll be able to figure out the message.

Consider the ground that was covered in that message. We defined *everything* in 23 pages of low-resolution dots. We described DNA. Maybe in a galaxy far, far away, the project manager of the radio telecope is going to be standing at an NNGrlap cooler, chatting with a fellow employee, when a scientist will come running in, show him the page, and he'll drop his glass of NNGrlap with surprise at how they're based on the same basic DNA structure as we are.

We covered the spectral responses of our senses of sight and hearing. That will be important if they ever follow the directions we gave them and come to visit us. It'd be tough if they communicated in ultrasonics... :)

All this ground was covered. And anyone, regardless of language, with some scientific interest, could figure it out.

Mathematics is the only universal language. Not that it's practical for conversation...

where does that opinion come from, and does the sun shine there?
It's more of an impression than an opinion, one formed after reading lots of stuff on the internet (my sole source, sadly). I make no claims to expertivity (hence the final qualification); in fact, having scanned your page I'm willing to bow to your expertise on the subject. Whether the sun shines on my sources I'm not willing to speculate. Just so you can sneer properly, I enclose some of the links from my bookmarks that have been visited on a number of occasions:
The Cryptography Project
Quantum Computing FAQ
Quantum computing
There are more sites, but these are a fair representation. Were my conclusions wrong? Possibly. Was I reading the wrong sites? Maybe. Was looking on the web in the first place a wast of time? Dunno. But if I've helped you feel superior, then I can go home happy.

Fritz Lang, on the other hand, directed Metropolis, the futuristic German SF film from 1926 which some see as proto-cyberpunk. There's stuff on Metropolis all over the web, for instance here. But try Google.

Blade Runner

So in other words, your whole DeCSS attention-mongering post is crap, as others have already pointed out.

If you're curious about the layout of the U.S. Circuit Courts you can go here:

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/Fed-Ct/

Best regards,

SEAL

Found this the other day, at www.law.georgetown.edu