Slashdot Mirror
Barcode Maker Responds After Forcing Drivers Offline
The following was sent in by Doug Davis from Digital Convergance. Plain text is his. Bold text is mine.
Digital:Convergence understands this Linux issue and the concerns expressed by the community. Had Digital:Convergence been approached by developers we would have been (and still will be) happy to work with them in a constructive direction. Instead, our products were reversed engineered and what has occurred is a public display of what is clearly our intellectual property. It is unfortunate the supporters of the open source community have taken steps to publicize intellectually property in-order to further their own goals and desires. Unfortunately, for us all, some of the people conducting these efforts would not voluntarily remove our IP, even after being contacted.
Thank god. These folks worked hard to write code to use this piece of hardware, and it would be unfortunate if they were forced to take it down. Imagine if Linus had been forced by Intel to take down kernel versions that used their intellectual property in the early part of the last decade. A lot of companies have bullied a lot of people in the last couple of years, and it's only getting worse. Your CueCat, like DeCSS, is going to redefine what IP is. Personally, I hope that when I get a barcode reader, or a DVD-ROM drive (or a car, or phone, or any other physical thing), that I'm allowed to rip it apart and tinker with it at my discretion. I think that's my right as a consumer.
In the strictest legal terms we had no choice but to proceed protect our interests. By posting our IP to the Net the Linux Community has forced us into a position of having to legally defend our technology . Under IP law if we don't PROTECT our IP, we loose any remedies under law to PROTECT our IP. This IS NOT ABOUT stopping hackers, but trying to get the "hackers" and such to WORK WITH US AND NOT EXPOSE US and destroy over 5 years of hard work by a group of "geeks, hackers and techno-whizzes" like each of you!
IP is a weird beast. If you don't defend it, you don't have it. I imagine if Adaptec or Matrox defended the IP created by the work of their "geeks, hackers and techno-wizzes" by forcing Linux driver writers to take down code utilizing their SCSI controllers, hard drives and video cards, their IP would also be unusable under Linux. Which is too bad because I use hardware that they created every day. Oh, and 5 years of development for "base64+XOR"?
Any professional and serious developer will understand the following: .........Unfortunately the Linux Community could of inadvertently created the WINDOW for the BIG companies to come in and control and profit from this process we have created. So if M$ or some other company decides to do what you are doing *for profit" and DigitalConvergence allows the open source group to continue with out proper licenses, DigitalConvergence could loose its ability to effectively stop them. The Linux Community would of actually had a DIRECT HAND in creating what it stands most vehemently against!
You start it off by saying "Any serious Professional will understand" which is a none-too-subtle way of saying, "If you're smart, you'll understand." Fortunately you don't say that any serious developer will agree. What you're saying is that the Linux community should happily take down the code out of fear of some big company (mentioning Microsoft is poor form: it screams like a bad political commercial where they mention a bunch of scary things just to make their ideas seem more true). If big scary Microsoft came along and released their own distribution, there is nothing we could do about it (provided that they played by the common rules of the GPL). That reality constantly exists, but that doesn't slow anyone down. It's not the point. If Microsoft wants to play by the rules of the GPL, I say let 'em. But by your logic, nobody should ever write and distribute source code, for fear that Microsoft would take it. That strikes me as a bit backwards.
It is our hope the Linux community will help us in our efforts by
- working with us to create a product to support your needs, and;
- stop and remove illegal posting efforts, and;
- encourage others in the Linux community to work with us
hand-in-hand to develop a various solutions and useful applications.
You too, can be part of this valuable tool and project!"
The weird thing about open source development is that code gets written where programmers itch. I bet you'll find support for #1, but less so for #2. See, your itches might not be the same as their itches. We all define valuable tools and projects differently, and our needs might be a bit different then yours. I don't think that folks posting this code constitutes "an illegal posting effort" any more then I think posting a driver for a scanner does.
Digital:Convergence supports the Linux/Unix community and plans to make a version of its software available for Linux available in the near future. Also, licenses are available for any developers wishing to work with any aspect of our technology. We welcome the individuals of the community to contact us and use a more professional, orderly and productive manner in adjusting our products to better serve, in tact and based fully upon our various Patents and Intellectual Property, your community, . Professional Licenses and Development contracts are available to the Linux/Unix community and we welcome your direct and professional contact.
If I own a Ford, do I need a Ford wrench to fiddle with my engine? If I buy a frame, do I need a nail & hammer from the same company in order to hang a picture on my wall? If your tools are the best tools, and at the right price, then by all means, I'd happily use your nail & hammer, but we live in a marketplace where competition drives everything, and you have competition. You have the advantage: you have the technical specifications and the most developed tools, wheras the open source guys are groping blindly in the dark looking for answers. Oddly enough this groping is a large part of the fun. It's a challenge.
And, by the way, the AT HOME - PERSONAL USE DEVELOPER LICENSE is $20 USD! So please, HELP US PROTECT, what a group of talented developers, have worked so very hard on for over the last 5 years!
J. Jovan Philyaw - Chairman & C.E.O. ceo@digitalconvergence.com
Doug Davis - President Technology Group ddavis@digitalconvergence.comI seriously wish you guys the best of luck, and hope you figure out a way to work with the developers who are writing this cool code. If you haven't alienated the developers, I bet they would be happy to work with you. My fear is that your business model is shaky: you've given away zillions of barcode readers, (no doubt at great expense) but failed to realize that they, like iOpeners and TiVos and Furbys and AIBOs and DVD-ROM drives and everything else physical, can (and will!) be ripped apart and played with by people. You're trying to use lawyers to take away people's rights to screw around with their own hardware, and that's a problem... your service strikes me as being about a lot more then a silly little barcode scanner and what people do with it. If your software serves a need, people will use it. If some hacker finds some cool other use for the hardware, maybe people will use their code too. This is very real, but this is a free country where we can tear apart our toys and rebuild them if we want.
On a practical note, you have a website and a net service. Thats different. Thats not a physical piece of hardware that someone can hold in their hands. You should focus on that, and not waste your energy going after hackers who are just poking around with a cool piece of hardware. I'm not a business guy, so I don't know what the answers are, but I do know a dead end when I see it. And don't forget that the percentage of people who are actually gonna mess with this stuff is very tiny. You should concentrate on making your services better for the huge majority of your users who don't run Linux, and wouldn't run software other then yours even if it did exist. It's the blinking 12:00 syndrome. Most users just don't change the defaults.
I'd also like to say something to the readers: don't get angry and attack these guys. They're just a group of guys trying to feed their dogs by coming up with ideas to make a buck. Yelling and screaming doesn't help anyone. It's easy to forget that every company is just a group of people trying to accomplish something; they aren't evil, even when they make mistakes or do things that we disagree with. But don't stop writing the code. I can think of many uses for this barcode scanner (like maybe software to index my DVDs?). It's still legal to reverse engineer, and that sure better never change.
This is a sort of half-assed, secondary argument by the Napster legal team. It carried no weight with the appeals court that has taken over the case.
Napster's winning card is the fact that Congress legalized all non-commercial copying of music by consumers using any digital or analog recording device in 1992, in exchange for mandatory "royalty" payments to the music industry whenever you purchase any blank digital audio recorder or media. Napster's defense is not based on fair use -- it's based on a statutory exception that defines all non-commercial copying as non-infringing. Hence, if Napster's users are not infringing copyrights, then Napster cannot be contributing to said non-existant infringement.
Would be nice if they'd admit that they didn't write it rather than implicitly claim it as their own work.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
---- ----
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
And when presented in this fashion, it positively begs for a line-by-line debunking. In fact, after reading it again, I found myself taking issue with almost every line of the thing. This letter is a load of BS from a company that obviously doesn't respect our rights as consumers. I'm offended by it and I don't blame Taco for being offended by it and responding to it either.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Not so. The DMCA protects, in the way you're thinking of, access controls. If the numbers encoded with a barcode are copyrighted and encrypted content, then the DMCA would say something about software which unencrypted them. But hardware and software which simply displayed to the user the encrypted data as read from the paper would be okay, because they'd still need the approved access control software to view it.
But, because barcode aren't encrypted, the DMCA doesn't apply at all. The UCITA does, if you're in a location that has it, but that's it. And that only applies if you install the software.
No laws were broken by writing this software.
True. And as imp states, the phone-home is at the next level (actually, several levels up :-) in the stack. Application layer versus hardware layer.
Frankly, I don't see how this hack can threaten their business model.
A Linux guy writes a device driver that allows it to scan barcodes and not phone home. BFD.
Something that might bave been a threat to their business model would have been a Linux device driver that did phone home -- to somewhere other than Digital Convergence -- and tried to build a database of customer information for future resale to some other privacy invader.
While it's still possible that someone might code such a thing, who the hell would run it?
(For that matter, how many of us geeks would have run their Windoze software that phoned home to DCNV? ;)
Interesting thought - Windoze users are used to getting closed-source binary-only distributions of software, which makes this type of product (the :CueCat that phones home) feasible.
I wonder if DCNV will release source code to the Linux version of their client.
I wonder - if they do - who among us will compile and run it?
Maybe we don't want our computers phoning home.
Broader question: In a world in which there exist open sourced apps which don't phone home and which can be inspected at the source code level to verify that they can't phone home, why would anyone choose to run an app that couldn't be trusted?
The "Give away the razor, sell the blades" model isn't in jeopardy. Despite their management team's abysmal English skills, DCNV has an interesting product and viable strategy for compiling large databases of consumer preferences.
What might be in jeopardy, two or three years down the road, is the whole "hide functionality from the user and collect data surreptitiously" business model espoused by everyone from MSFT (think .NET) and Doublefsck on down to DCNV.
Trying to sue every species of penguin into extinction is gonna be a much bigger different kettle of herring than a cat-shaped barcode reader and some flying butt monkeys...
None of the stuff you mention even applies to this case though. Even if they were claiming IP rights to the actual printed codes, nobody is copying their bar codes. The protocol was reverse engineered, something that is apparently (remains to be decided in court) upheld even by the DMCA. Even if they claim it as a trade secret, reverse engineering can make it legally public.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You can patent a business model and keep others from using the same model. They've mentioned no such patent, and it wouldn't apply in this case anyway since nobody is trying to duplicate their business model (probably with good reason).
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
US6098106: Method for controlling a computer with an audio signal
Though I don't get the audio signal part. The text of the patent seems pretty similar though. And the patent seems really trivial.
Also, the patent covers the whole application, not the specific encoding scheme that the CueCat uses to talk to the computer with. So if the linux driver only allows reading of barcodes, it should be okay and not get tangled in this patent...?
--
What might be ammusing is an app that does phone home, based on an ID you choose and a list of barcodes that you choose...
You could choose to use the serial number from your scanner or one made up, and to scan a list of barcodes from your favorite products, or to download a list of such from the net...
Imagine if you and all of your friends started scanning the barcodes for your favorite small bands, thus tweaking the demographics "Hey look bob, thousands of our customers are fans of Band X, they've got as big a following as the Spice Girls (or whatever)."
Then they sell these demographics and companies like the RIAA buy them, and then start promoting bands like Band X more because of their already large following.
Use their own invasive techniques against them. Like a Neilson family taking bribes to watch certain shows.
Even better, you wouldn't have to sign any contract, and you'd be performing this intended use of the site, to look up products by their barcodes, so they'd have no legitimate problem with this.
Then, if they get too uppity, we simply reveal than a huge percentage of their demographics are completely false, driving them out of business when people refuse to pay for incorrect statistics.
Especially when many other barcode readers were out there allowing access before the CueCat came out.
--
They have no patent. As other posts have pointed out, they've not listed any patent numbers, so it's reasonable that they do not hold a patent on what was reverse engineered.
Secondly, the "protect it or lose it" defense does not apply to patents. This only applies to trademarks. Since there are most likely no trademarks being infringed upon in the reverse engineered drivers, this does not apply either.
I would say the fact that they are attempting insuate both of these in their letters, without providing proof of either (probably because they don't have either) is a fairly bogus thing to do. The best it will do is upset people, the worst it will do is bring legal action back against them.
** Martin
Actually the bullseye and rectangular codes were competing standards, the rectangular code you see today was sponsored by IBM. This was in the 70's when IBM was "it", so their standard won. Note: this information is from a good article in Smithsonian magazine from last year.
Your are correct about barcodes being read from every direction, its part of the spec.
Sure, and they can do that by having you sign an agreement up front restricting how you are allowed to use it. Unfortunately for DC, they didn't do that. Too bad.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Actually, according to their EULA, they claim that they're only loaning the CueCat to you, therefore, it's their property and they can control how you use it.
The problem they have there, is that the scanner is a GIFT untill you agree to the EULA and allow that it is a loan. OTOH, if you just throw the CD away unopened, it remains a nice gift. Even if you dod click agree on the EULA, it might still be a gift since the legality of click-wrap licenses is questionable. UCITA is not in force in most states and may never be.
It seems that by trying to maximise the hype by making what was intended as a loan look like a gift, they unintentionally made it an actual gift. Serves them right IMHO.
In his position, I would be pretty pissed off with all the self-righteousness and posturing in these messages, just 'cos some guy decided to reverse engineer his protocol and put his livelihood at risk, not even for serious reasons, but as an amusing hobby.
Two things. First, I'd be a lot more pissed at myself for not forseeing this inevitable outcome, and for relying on such a weak business model as this one could end up being. Second, it remains to be seen whether his business model will succeed or fail. I think the number of people who use these readers in unintended ways will be completely insignificant next to the number of people who take one home, throw it in a drawer and never touch it again.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Digital Convegience and Radio Shack didn't give this away for you to have fun with! You're supposed to make them rich! Now, get it right and go back to Radio Shack and buy stuff! Geez... darn iggorant public anyways... can't trust em to do anything...
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Unless they keep it encrypted all the way to their web site, where they've got the mate to the key that signed it.
What Intellectual property?
Exactly. If you go into Radio Shack, they try to shove it into your bag, they don't try to warn you that it could be taken away later.
--
Patents can be enforced or not enforced; it's up to the holder therof to determine if they're actually being infringed.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Those Tercel's kick ass! I've got one, a 97', and my mom still drives her 85'! I wish they hadn't stoped making them :(
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The CueCat reverse engineering is remarkably similar to this, except much more simple. The hackers merely had to figure out what the output meant, which apparently was pretty easy. They treated the CueCat as a black box, recording the output from the scanner and figuring out what it meant. No harm, no foul.
Copyright NEVER protects against reverse engineering. Only patenting does. And patenting also protects against clean room implementations. You cannot use the invention specified in the patent to accomplish the patent's claims, and ignorance is no excuse. You can make a clean room implementation and hope that it doesn't use the same methods to accomplish the same goal. If it
does use the same methods to accomplish the same claims, you are in violation.
I think in this case the intellectual property is probably copyrighted, and they are screwed.
No big trick. barcodes are designed to be read bidirectionally. Also, the cuecat has a single light sensor, Hold it however you want; all it looks for is changes in luminosity. That's why a "quiet area" is needed before and after the barcode itself.
---- ----
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
This is like Bill Gates claiming that Linux destroys 5 years work in NT (assuming Linux were a threat to NT). If you spend all that effort making a driver for Windows that works with all kinds of OS configurations and sound cards, and along comes a Linux driver ... THAT is NOT a theft of any of your work (even though if Linux were a threat to it, which I highly doubt, it only means your work is wasted, not stolen).
:CUE:CAT only useable for its intended purpose. I suspect design shortcuts were made in ignorance of the resourcefulness of the inhabitants of the people that really created the Internet so other people like Jovan could use it to market to millions.
Just how much of that work is really stolen in this? If DC does make and release a Linux driver, then what? I can assure you that if it is not satisfactory to the Linux community, they will still tear it apart. If you make the driver in object code binary only, they will reverse engineer it to source code anyway. An army of lawyers can't stop it because it all happens and millions of copies made before a lawyer even wakes up.
It sounds to me like MOST of what DC did was investment, and wants to even count Net Talk Live in it just to up the apparent ante.
It also sounds to me like technology poorly done. I don't know what technology you actually used because I haven't looked at it. But I know that I could have picked technology that could not have been cracked and thus made the
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
This whole situation reminds me of X10. They come up with some pretty cool hardware that appeals to geeks. They give away a starter kit for free--give away the razors, sell the blades idea. Pretty cool, a ton of geeks fork over the $5.00 S/H. X10 sells a bunch of gear.
Geeks come up with some cool implementations of this hardware. They write some software, that works with Linux (X10 hasn't released any that I know of). X10 sells a bunch more gear.
The difference is that X10 is giving away the razors and selling the blades. The Digital Convergence guys are giving away the razors and trying to sell blades that can easily be made of of normal everyday household items.
Which, isn't neccessarily a flawed business model--someone brought up the blinking 12:00 analogy.
Also, convenience is an issue: Kool-aid sells two main types--with sugar and without. They make a much better margin on the 'with sugar' ones--but they aren't quite as popular as the 20 for $1 kind. I guess I mean that people will pay a lot for value added convenience--and Digital Convergence needs to work hard to provide it.
Anyway, I don't understand why it is that they don't sell a SOHO multi-purpose barcode? Seems like a cool peripheral. Hopefully someone will see the demand for such a product and release one--perhaps even X10.
-k
Should be a correction. There are instances in which it can be illegal to use a product in a manner inconistent with it's stated purpose. Generally because using the product improperly could harm others. This is why we have laws about what you can do with your car, guns, etc. I can't think of a single such law that would be applicable in this situation though.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Intellectual Property law takes on three main forms: Trade Secrecy Law, Patent Law, and Copyright Law.
Actually there are four since trademark law should be included as a form of IP (and a particularly insidious form at that).
It doesn't fall under Patent law unless they have a patent that hasn't yet been mentioned (this would have to be a patent on the software, because that's what's being recreated)
It's not even the software that's being reverse-engineered. It's just the protocol that the reader uses to send data to the computer.
It is a company's sad obligation to go after everyone who is violating one of these IP laws, lest they lose protection under the law
This simply isn't true. At least not in the sense that they are claiming. Companies are obligated to enforce their trademarks or risk having them become diluted and therefore public domain (note that the bar for a tm being considered "diluted" is still set pretty darn high). Since trademarks don't seem to be the issue here (though it could be, they were extremely vague regarding their "IP"), this doesn't apply.
Trade secrets must also be enforced, but in a different way. Companies must actively prosecute anyone violating an NDA or commiting espionage against the company. If the company can show that the secret was obtained illegally, they can prevent it from being used. However, if the secret is reverse-engineered, then it can be legally published. That's the trade-off of a trade secret versus a patent.
Something that I just learned is that there is a certain requirement placed on patent holders as well. According to this, patent holders may lose their recourse if they knew or should have known about an infringement, but take no action for 6 years or more. It should be pointed out that this does not require them to take action in all cases or risk losing control of their patent, which is what they seem to be claiming in their letter regarding their "IP." It simply means that they can't knowingly allow the infringement to occur for an unreasonable amount of time without taking action in that particular instance. Failing that, they only lose their recourse against that particular company or individual, not the rights to pursue other infringers. This seems to be designed to thwart "submarine patents." Not sure how effective it is at that, but since they don't mention any patents in their letter, it doesn't seem to apply in this situation.
Companies can selectively prosecute copyright violations to their heart's content. There is no requirement for enforcement, so this doesn't apply either.
Now, given that none of the forms of IP have been violated, what exactly are they claiming that these developers have done wrong? That's the real question, and one that they conveniently glossed over in their letter, instead preferring to try to intimidate, scare, and finally appeal to some imagined form of kinship. I found the letter to be quit offensive and demeaning. I'm going to write an email to them and tell them that myself.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Wrong. Removing a firing pin from a semi-automatic weapon, thereby converting it into a fully automatic weapon is illegal, even though you haven't harmed anyone. Same with sawing off the barrel of a shotgun if you make it too short.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Read the law:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ 35/ch29.html
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Personally, in this case I don't mind CmdrTaco's comments with the story. Just think of it this way: it kept 100 or more people from posting them instead. The argument the corporate droid gave is obviously bogus, so best to knock it down straightaway and then we can argue how bogus it is instead of whether it is bogus. :-)
---
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
The guy asked the question and I answered.
And I got +2 because after a certain amount of karma gained you automatically get + 2. You should try it instead of hiding behind A/C with your comments
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
Actually, since reverse engineering is legal, and since all D:C did was send a nice, threatening letter...nobody on either side has broken any laws. But this is the least of the problems with your argument...
They sure will. But will they bust you for taking apart your radio? No. You have every right to take apart your radio, and even to build a transmitter with the parts. They'll just bust you for transmitting over regulated frequencies without a licence.
You're wrong again. I can take any part of my car off that I want to, including the bumpers. And as long as I'm driving my bumperless car on my own property, the police have no right to stop me. On the other hand, if I go onto public roads like that -- if I go onto property that isn't mine, and break the rules set by the property owners -- then yes, they certainly can stop me.
--
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
It is a company's sad obligation to go after everyone who is violating one of these IP laws, lest they lose protection under the law
Wrong, this is only true if there is an infringement of a trade secret or a trademark. Copyrights and Patents do not lose their clout if undefended, they can be successfully selectively enforced.
-- iCEBaLM
I believe you may be under the impression that I think reverse engineering is bad; quite the opposite. I am not opposed to things like DeCSS, the cuecat fiasco, satellite decoding, or anything else whatseover. I am very much in favor of it.
If we use DeCSS as a rough example, we see that, once accused of doing something 'illegal', the DeCSS crowd responds with 'but we had a moral cause; we wanted a linux DVD player'. This is nothing but 'making an excuse'. The *REAL* answer should be 'we don't NEED an excuse to do what we did. It is our right'.
I very much understand the history of software in use today.
If you make excuses for the reverse-engineering you do, based on some high moral cause, or whatever, you simply give your opponents (the industry) ammunition to fight back with. If you flat out come out and say 'I've always had the right to do this.' what can they say? They cannot fight you other than to try to show how you do not have that right.
But there's no law that says "if a manufacturer says that you can only do X with their product, then you must listen to them" for every X that a manufacturer could dream up.
--
What I meant was that I was making an assumption about what the previous poster meant because I didn't understand them. Not an assumption about what the :C:C actually does.
This is what IS protected, and the DMCA states if you try to go around this scrambling you are "circumvent[ing] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title [DMCA]."
What copyrighted work are you claiming to be protected by the :C:C? Some copyrighted barcodes? The DMCA states, in the introduction:
In other words, if there are thousands of other barcode readers, then the :C:C doesn't effectively prevent copying the barcode data.
Or are you claiming that the DMCA covers the :C:C in some other bizarre way? No other data is being copied with the Linux driver, so I don't see how it could be anything else.
--
>>Intel wasn't able to stop AMD and Cyrix from using MMX, even though intel claimed that it was something that was necessary to protect their business.
Well, that's not really true. Intel has a broad cross licesense with National Semiconductor and IBM. Both or those companies can clone and market any intel chip. So, Cryix, AMD etc. had IBM and National make their chips. This is also how VIA gets away with making some of thier chipsets for US consumption.
The Bazaar is being run by Fascists.
And populated by Chicken Littles, if you're any evidence. Do you realize that under real fascism, you would have been censored, or worse, for what you just posted?
Do you realize how much your statement dilutes the definition of fascism?
Make me aerodynamic in the evening air
Right. If you kill someone with a product, it's the illegal act of killing that's a problem, not that you did something unauthorized with the product.
--
This is not the same as trademark law. A company can still selectively enforce its patents without risking the loss of control that a trademark holder can suffer due to dilution. The link you give just explains that a company cannot take an unreasonably long amount of time to bring suit against someone allegedly infringing on their patent because it could result in material predjudice to the defendant. This bit of law could be designed to undermine "submarine patents." It does not require that the patent holder prosecute every known infringement as trademark law does, therefore their "defend it or lose it" claim is still false.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Actually, according to their EULA, they claim that they're only loaning the CueCat to you, therefore, it's their property and they can control how you use it.
Counter-examples abound... renters can't completely control how you use their apartment... bankers can't completely control how you use their money they loan to you.
--
If $20 actually got you white papers on the a project, that would be well worth it. ESP. if the white papers in this case did include information regarding the Audio:Cue system. I have no interest in audio cues, but someone out there just might. But what I might find insulting is IF for $20 you didn't get any documenation, do developers kit, and a contract agreeing all software is the property of Digital Convergence. An ACCEPTABLE contract would be a 'free for non-commercial use' as is standard in the Linux world. Terms like that from a corp. would be accepable, and no one could fault them for protecting their own interest. Now, for $20, a licence to profit from the CUECAT device on the other hand is a good deal, depending on the terms of the contract. A viewbar from AOL for example would likely pay for it self in a matter of days. Assuming a profit, it's most just for the provider of the hardware be compensated. But what really insults my inteligence, is the fact that these people are the copyright holders of their own software works, and those rights SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN AWAY . But let us put these statements to the test. I'll make an inquary regarding being a linux developer and who to contact in regards to bla bla bla. Let's see what happens?
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
This applies if, for instance, I, under NDA with the MPAA posted the CSS code and the player keys. As long as they took reasonable steps to stop disemination of this information, they could still claim it was a trade secret.
But if I reverse engineered it, they lose all trade-secret rights (against people who base their code off of the reverse engineering) immediately. They could still continue prosecuting people who had violated the NDA, or did so in the future.
Not quite true. In the first example, 'resonable steps' aren't enough. If the secret gets 'widely disseminated' it's not a trade secret anymore, no mayyer how reasonable the steps to prevent it.
In the second example, if you reverse eigineered it, and the company bought your resultant information and/or product before it went widely public, and kept it internal, then it would still be a trade secret, even though it was reverse engineered on the outside.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
You can lose a patent by selectivly enforcing it
I don't want to be disagreeable, but I have to disagree. You can't lose a patent or copyright by failing to defend it. If I'm wrong, you'll be able to prove it by picking up an introductory textbook for a course on IP law. Email me the title of the book.
I agree that CmdrTaco should have kept his opinions as a sidebar or bookends to the letter in full. As I read, I skipped over the baldfac- er, boldface material and read the letter itself.
Aside from the interspersed comments, are we sure this is actually from a lawyer or official of this company?
There's several grammatical errors that make the letter sound like it's coming from, well, from a twenty-something hothead. "Would of"s and ranting allcap phrases are what I expect to see in the less decorous 'leet crowd, not from someone at the helm or hire of a respectable company.
Besides, if there was intellectual property litigation involved, the company would probably best be served by holding its temper and its collective tongue.
"Major asshole." --Dubya Bush "Big time." --Dick Cheney
[
True, but that wasn't what this tangent was about. They can bind you to certain things if you sign a contract with them, but they have no inherent right to control the products you purchase from them (or that they give you for free).
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Almost, except for the credit clause in older BSD licenses... Don't they have to give credit, or is this only if they claim they're using the BSD code?
And, mightn't they be liable for fraud by claiming they wrote the code themselves, regardless of the BSD license? I'd be a little pissed if I bought software from a company that they claimed to write for my specific application and I found out they just used free code and called it theirs...
If you sell something, or give it away, you no longer own the thing itself, so you are not in the strongest position to control use. Hence, expect the quecat folks to claim that they still own all those bar code readers they apparently gave away, and that some contract came into play when the reader was received.
Ok, let's pursue that. Let's assume the strongest position (I imagine, IANAL): A bar code reader recipient actually signed a contract promising to adhere to conditions of use dictated by quecat, in exchange for physical custody of the reader.
What's wrong with that? Well, if the law currently permits dictating any conditions whatever (except requiring breaking laws) in a contract that specifies conditions of use, why is that permitted?
Is it a natural or Constitutional right to micro-manage (as opposed to veto) the use by someone else of your property? Or should there be a private-black-box (PBB) model, where it would be illegal to write (or legal to ignore) conditions governing use inside the PBB. You could only write conditions based on activity or results observable outside the PBB, or having significant risk of harm outside the PBB. IOW, you could say "return it undamaged," but you couldn't say "destroy it when you're done with it." The former is outside the PBB, the latter inside.
I believe it's time to rein in rampant EULA hubris. There needs to be some limit on the conditions of use and terms of service that may legally be specified.
Most of the time -- unless your privacy is being invaded -- you can ignore stupid rules inside your PBB, so it comes down to the exceptional cases where a legal pretext to invade your PBB can be concocted, and that can't reasonably happen unless there's conditions and/or laws supposedly governing inside-PBB activity.
That's the real threat, and the real reason that contract conditions and laws governing inside-PBB activity should not be allowed. Existing laws whose intent is really to control outside-PBB effects should be rewritten in terms of outside-PBB observables, if at all possible. (It may not be, if the intent is to control risk, which is not directly observable).
Invading your PBB is Constitution-level stuff. There should be no easy way to create a pretext, and none without due process.
This applies if, for instance, I, under NDA with the MPAA posted the CSS code and the player keys. As long as they took reasonable steps to stop disemination of this information, they could still claim it was a trade secret.
But if I reverse engineered it, they lose all trade-secret rights (against people who base their code off of the reverse engineering) immediately. They could still continue prosecuting people who had violated the NDA, or did so in the future.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
I'd like to share with everyone here, what I think to be, a striking revelation. As I sit here and read these comments, all filled with "IANAL", but still being quite insightful and informed on the laws of the land, I realized something.
Companies can't pass off intellectual property legal FUD on our community.
Then I wondered why this was, and the answer was right under my nose. Because our whole community is based on knowing intellectual property laws. From reverse engineering drivers, to open source licenses, the whole community is dependant in knowing these laws and using them for the betterment of the community. Without knowing the laws none of this would have been possible, not the GNU General Public License, not reverse engineering a printer driver, not building some of the most technically advanced operating systems amd tools in the world (*BSD, Linux, GCC, etc).
So this is just a small whack in the head with the cluestick for all you would be Digital Convergence's out there:
Intellectual Property Law FUD doesn't fly here.
(neither does most FUD, but thats a whole other story)
-- iCEBaLM
It did NOT take them 5 years to make a barcode reader and write the drivers for it... I have something akin to a week or 2 to write several device drivers for my one class, and the devices are harder to code for than a barcode reader...
It maybe took them 5 years to match up all of the numbers to websites, but that's not really the work of geeks, and it's not really related to us making their barcode reader work.
Heck, so WHAT if we make drivers for a free barcode reader, it could be... USEFUL! You're afraid of people finding something else to do with your barcode reader than look at web content. Look, I can surf the web with barcodes, all linked off a nice little database. I indirectly pay a company to do this for me.
We're not stealing your content, which is what you are really selling, right? I mean, you don't expect every grocer in america to toss their checkout counter for a silly cat shaped laser, do you?
Why not just say it, if people find something USEFUL to do with your barcode reader, they might realize that looking at advertisements on the internet based on barcodes is *GASP* just as boring and stupid as clicking on banner ads....
No offense to your lovely company. I'm sure that the barcodes are put to good use... The shopping cataloges and such come to mind...
Eh...
Taking something apart to see how it works, and describing your findings to others, is not a violation of any legitimate law. (The DMCA is illegitmate and unconstitutional, and its architects and supporters need to be cleansed via the flaying and boiling ritual described above.)
Furthermore, the DMCA is irrelevant in this case anyway. It only matters if you break encryption to gain access to a copyrighted work. I highly doubt that anyone is trying to claim copyright to the bar codes that are intended to be scanned with this thing. Even if they did somehow, the substantial non-infringing use of scanning bar codes you printed yourself should be sufficient to make the Linux CueCat driver legal.
You have a point. By media, I meant Big Media (i.e. the major networks, newspapers, magazines, publishers, cable companies, etc.), not the little guys. When you get to be a certain size, and are publicly traded, IP becomes this jealously guarded treasure that you will stop at nothing to accumulate, defend, and Congress-willing, extend your control over.
I too would love to hear the various parties' positions on IP issues. I just don't think they'll be willing to discuss it. That should scare us.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I support this business model. Free trials are a great way to get people to use a product and maybe later, pay for it.
What I object to are laws that say people have a right to make money on this sort of stuff.
You mention Sony and the PS2... They sell a PS2 at a loss hoping the license fees for games make up for it. A valid business model imho.
But, what about someone who decides they don't like the PS2? Sony is out a bit of money if the person buys the system and gets the default game, plays it once and tosses it in a box, never to buy more PS2 games. Should the law mandate purchase of at least twelve games?
What if I buy a PS2 and play games on it, thus satisfying Sony's business model, but would also like to run Linux on it. Do they have a right to say I can't?
If they're concerned, they should sell the system *and* twelve games, or whatever they need to break even, as a unit, or with a clearly written contract requiring the purchase of these games by a certain date. Unfortunately, few people would be willing to spend the $800 or so that this would cost on a system they may not like, so Sony would sell few units.
Instead, they gamble. If the PS2 is good, the games will rock and people will buy them. If the PS2 sucks, nobody will buy them and they'll lose money.
I would have been willing, had DC asked politely, without threats and lies (yes, provable lies) to makre sure any CueCat software I wrote would *by default* communicate with their servers, if used in a network mode. That is, if the user scanned something and wanted to look it up, the default server would be theirs, changeable to Amazon(etc) only if the user wished. Instead they lie and threaten, telling us any unquthorized use is against the contract (this is fraud on their part) and demand we don't use the product in any way they disagree with. This is where I stop supporting them in any way.
Instead of them having a reasonable business which I would support, and hobby usage as well, they try for 100% of the pie instead of 99.9% and lose my support and the support of almost everyone else.
It's not their business model, it's them. They're lying, threatening, assholes commiting fraud and I'll take any and all actions I can to see them bankrupt in a short a time as I can manage.
Step 1: Flood their service with repetitive and automated scans and created serial numbers.
Step 2: Reveal this to their potential customers, dropping the value of their data to zero.
Maybe the next group of people to try this business model will realize that fraud and lies aren't going to help them, those people I will support.
First off, it seems odd to have a separate copyright for every single CueCat they manufactured.
Also, it seems odd to copyright something so trivial and small. See the copyright office's circular "Copyright Basics : What is not protected by Copyright?". It mentions "Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents" aren't copyrightable. Short strings of gobledygook are pretty close to "short phrases" or maybe a few other ones.
--
Heck if they put "CueCat" in the output somewhere, that would be copyrightable, and therefor protected under the DMCA
No, short phrases and names aren't copyrightable. Trademarkable though.
The ula states that, in more or less words everything about the cuecat is copyrighted
Yes, they'd like to control the CueCat as much as possible. Of course. But the consumer wants some control over their lives too, and the lines have to be drawn somewhere in between. In the end, democracy and capitalism were created to benefit the common citizen. Companies are a means to that end, not a roadblock keeping you from that end.
--
Funny, but it seems that they are trying to do on a larger scale exactly what the Nielson folks do.
My parents have been scanning things for Nielson for years. They have a nifty scanner that they use to scan purchases, mostly groceries, that are then sent to Nielson by using a cradle-like device attached to the scanner held up to the phone. They then get points that can be used to get gifts from a catalogue.
Thing is, I don't see how the data that CueCat gets would be of any use. The Nielson scanner has an entire keyboard attached that is used to classify stuff scanned and knows of all large stores in the area. CueCat seems to think they can produce solid data from noise. Good luck (not!)
Not sure when LZW expires per se, but according to the article in The Standard, the GIF patent expires in 2003.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
He said he'd need my name and address -- standard procedure for all RS purchases anyway, IME. So I said "sure," and happily gave him someone else's address. He handed it over with a catalog, and off I went.
Arriving at home with my new toy, I took a good look at the bag it was in, to see if there was anything written on it like "By using this device, you agree to blah blah blah..." There wasn't. So, I tore that open, and took out the bag the CueCat was in. Again, no writing on it, and it wasn't even sealed. So I, er, let the cat out of the bag, and examined the device itself. There's a catalog number ("Cat. number" it says..heh), FCC compliance notice, Made In China...and for all you people wondering if it's patented -- Patent Pending, it says.
So here I have a CueCat that *would* be hooked up to my computer if I didn't have an AT-style connector (gonna go pick up an adapter later). I have agreed to no licence, nor have I even seen one. In fact, if it weren't for Slashdot, I wouldn't even know about one at this point.
And I don't plan to, either. The software's going in the trash.
--
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
Wow, your rousing "I have a dream" speech reply to my post didn't even come close to answering my question.
There was a display in this RS location touting MSN internet access. "Stand here and experience the web," it said, or something like that.
On the screen was an old Win3.1-style error dialog (the white ones with the big grey buttons) saying basically, "Your system is dangerously low in resources. Should I close the program Explorer to free up some resources?"
Ahhhh, yes. Experience the web, MS style.
--
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
Searching the USPTO.GOV Site I have found the following information. Perhaps this can spread more fuel on the burning cat?
:CUE:CAT
:CUECAT
Trademarks:
1. Word Mark CUE CAT
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: COMPUTER SOFTWARE, HARDWARE AND PERIPHERALS, INCLUDING - HAND HELD INPUT DEVICES, BAR CODE READERS AND SCANNERS, INCLUDING - HAND HELD INPUT DEVICES FOR ALLOWING INPUT OF INFORMATION TO A COMPUTER; BAR CODE READER FOR ALLOWING INPUT OF INFORMATION TO A COMPUTER AND RELATED APPLICATIONS; SCANNER FOR READING CODED IMAGES ON AN ASSOCIATED PICKUP FOR RECEIVING CODED AUDIO FOR CONTROLLING A COMPUTER REMOTELY TO CONNECT TO THE GLOBAL COMPUTER NETWORK; SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE FOR INTERFACING BETWEEN A GLOBAL COMMUNICATION NETWORK AND RADIO, TELEVISION AND PRINT MEDIA
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 76020649
Filing Date April 7, 2000
Files ITU FILED AS ITU
Owner (APPLICANT) DigitalConvergence.com, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 9101 N. Central Expwy., 6th Floor Dallas TEXAS 75231
Attorney of Record Lawrence E. Abelman Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Current Status: Newly filed application, not yet assigned to an examining attorney
2. Word Mark
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: COMPUTER SOFTWARE, HARDWARE AND PERIPHERALS, INCLUDING - HAND HELD INPUT DEVICES, BAR CODE READERS AND SCANNERS, INCLUDING - HAND HELD INPUT DEVICES FOR ALLOWING INPUT OF INFORMATION TO A COMPUTER; BAR CODE READER FOR ALLOWING INPUT OF INFORMATION TO A COMPUTER AND RELATED APPLICATIONS; SCANNER FOR READING CODED IMAGES ON AN ASSOCIATED PICKUP FOR RECEIVING CODED AUDIO FOR CONTROLLING A COMPUTER REMOTELY TO CONNECT TO THE GLOBAL COMPUTER NETWORK; SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE FOR INTERFACING BETWEEN A GLOBAL COMMUNICATION NETWORK AND RADIO, TELEVISION AND PRINT MEDIA
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 76020648
Filing Date April 7, 2000
Files ITU FILED AS ITU
Owner (APPLICANT) DigitalConvergence.com, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 9101 N. Central Expwy., 6th Floor Dallas TEXAS 75231
Attorney of Record Lawrence E. Abelman
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Current Status: Newly filed application, not yet assigned to an examining attorney.
3. Word Mark
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Hand-held optical reader apparatus that reads machine readable codes on magazines newspapers, and other publications and products, for converting the machine readable codes to specific instructions to interface with a computer program for the purpose of, in combination with the computer program, connecting a user's computer to a web site on the global computer network
Mark Drawing Code (3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS
Design Search Code 030104 241714 261709
Serial Number 76094794
Filing Date July 24, 2000
Files ITU FILED AS ITU
Owner (APPLICANT) DigitalConvergence.:Com Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 9101 N. Central Expressway, Suite 600 Dallas TEXAS 75231
Attorney of Record Sharon McClinton
Description of Mark The mark is described as: The colon and first "C: are colored for red, and the following letters are in stylized form with the second C being part of a design.
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Current Status: Newly filed application, not yet assigned to an examining attorney.
Also wanted to point out that barcode produced 254 records so I don't think the invented that. Actually this dude invented the bar code!.
I will also run a patent search tommorow at work!
A typewriter puts characters onto a piece of paper.
The :Cat (official name of the hardware) puts characters into your computer.
Could Smith-Corona resonably claim that you were stealing their IP for using a typewriter they made to type onto a different brand of paper than what they sold? NO
Could they sue you for it (and win)? NO
Can Digital Convergence resonably claim that you're stealing their IP if you're using a :Cat to scan barcodes into a different "brand" of computer OS? NO
Can they sue you for it and win?NO
You can use a typewriter to fill in the blank on a form.
You can use the :CAT to fill in the blanks on a form (their server, using their software). Lets call it the "send me to a website about _____ product (and trace who I am, where I live, etc.)" blank.
Could Smith-Corona resonably claim that you were stealing their IP for using a typewriter they made to fill in blanks on a form they did not print? NO
Could they sue you (and win) for it? NO
Can Digital Convergence resonably claim that you were stealing their IP for using a :CAT to fill in blanks on someone elses software or server? NO
Could they sue you (and win) for it? NO
Now lets turn it around a little:
Digital Convergence gave away (through Radio Shack, Wired, etc) the :Cat scanners. They now say that they aren't ours, and they only lent them to us. They say we agreed to this because we could have read the license agreement which was sealed up on their CD or filed away on their website. They also claim that we are only allowed to use the :Cat with their software and, by extention, any data developed by using the :Cat (eg. Joe scanned a UPC on a Playboy Magazine, Joe must have a Playboy Magazine, Joe probably reads Playboy Magazine, {or atleast looks at the pictures}, Joe might be interested in Penthouse Magazine) is theirs to review and use.
Can they resonably believe this is a valid agreement?NO
Can they sue you (and win) for not complying with this invalid agreement?NO
Can they sue (and win) flyingbuttmonkeys if they read a few lines of output (not program code) and make a program that uses their scanner? NO
Can Crayola sue (and win) Joe Bob's Crayon Company for making a red crayon after Joe Bob saw a child's drawing that was made with a red Crayola? NO
Lets say Smith Corona gave away typewriters. After we accepted the typewriters, they said that they aren't ours, and they only lent them to us. They then said we agreed to this because we could have read the license agreement which was sealed up on in an envelope in the box with the typewriter or the sign in the lobby of their corporate office. They also claim that we are only allowed to use the typewriter with their paper, and that anything we type (contracts, love letters, your "Great American Novel") is theirs (Maybe exclusively) to review and use.
Can they resonably believe this is a valid agreement?NO
Can they sue you (and win) for not complying with this invalid agreement?NO
Can they sue (and win) Joe Bob's Publishing for publishing your "Great American Novel" because you used a Smith Corona typewriter to write it? NO
Could Digital Convergence have made the :Cat to only be able to read their barcodes, which would only be meaningful with their software/servers? Probably
Would many people use want them or use them often? Probably not
Could Smith Corona make their typewriters able to only type on (their) specially coated paper, which you would have to send in to them to be developed (like film)? Probably
Would many people want them or use them often? Probably not
Could they sue (and win) Joe Bob's Quicky Developer if Joe Bob figured out a way to develop the documents developed on this paper? NO
Isn't it amazing what the answers are once you compare this issue with the "non-tech" world?
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
We're talking about computers here. By that measure, the DMCA applies to everything, because everything computers do processes information. For example, I can't access slashdot without running a special program designed to decode slashdot's output. Does that mean the DMCA applies to Slashdot, and reading slashdot is a crime? I don't think so -- Judges aren't that stupid.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Can't be, there's nothing creative about taking one set of numbers and encrypting it. You can't copyright something that doesn't entail some creative input.
Sure, I mostly agree. If the information you use in your business was a trade secret which was leaked by someone under NDA or something, often you're denied the right to use it, until it's spread so widely that you can't help but to know it.
And yes, in the second example I assumed you were going public. If you let the company buy your silence, it would remain a trade secret.
What chance? I went to Radio Shack. They asked me if I'd like a scanner. No mention of any licensing whatsoever. Absolutely no indication that any license is involved at all. So, you're saying that all it takes is a license posted on an obscure web site, and I'm now obligated to follow it, even though I've never been informed about it? I don't think so.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Judging by your choice of words, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when it comes to hardware and software, and probably don't know what a driver is. I'm not saying this to put you down, just to point out that you may need to do some more research before attempting to write about technical issues. In all honesty, there aren't really any relevant technical issues in this case, except perhaps how the reverse engineering was done. However, since the RE seems to have been done properly, DC really has no case. You seem to be thinking this is a copyright issue when it's not. They didn't copy anything from Digital Convergence. They figured out how the piece of hardware worked and they wrote their own driver for it. That's it. DC has no legal right to prevent them from doing that. At least they shouldn't under traditional copyright law, and currently don't even under the DMCA. If the DeCSS case continues to go badly, they could end up with such a right in the future, as it would be only a small step farther than what is happening to 2600.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
These guys could sell the reader at Radio Shack for $20 and still make a tidy profit. I took one apart and checked the design, the bill of materials and manufacuring can't be more than $5 per device. And for $20 they could move A LOT of these suckers, if you compare that to the price of your average barcode reader.
What they're really after though is consumer behaviour. From what I understand about the way the software works, each time you scan something it sends the encoded string to their web site where it gets decoded and then sent back to you. They also create a log of the serial number of the reader, the barcode read, and who the reader is registered with. This gives them a nice log of consumer behaviour. THAT'S what they're really after, and that's how they can justify giving away millions of readers. In the end all they want to do is sell targeted mailing lists to third parties.
Uwe Wolfgang Radu
I wonder how they can forbid using their data format only because it is their invention.. how about other uses.. imagine the design and the shape of the device make it usuable as a bottle opener. Do they forbid me to use the thing as a bottle opener only because its shape is their IP and they give it away for free (assuming that I use it for other purposes than opening bottles)? Can they forbid me to tell other people that it is a great bottle opener and how to use it as such?
Probably not, every judge would laugh at them if they would try to sue me because I use their free gift as a bottle opener. So what's the difference?
The CEO and his pal had a number of grammar errors in their official response. They should have spent the past five years increasing their communication skills.
You don't pull a microwave apart and put it back together then complain when you get radiation poisoning do you ? Why should this be any different ?
'cause no one is claming to be hurt. your talking about the "falling down an open manhole cover" syndrom. IE: idiots doing something to kill themselves. Reverse engenering a product is NOT ILLEGAL. they are not taking away money from these people. they are not cutting into their profits. are the police being sued for using superglue to find fingerprints instead of sticking things together?
Dirty Pirate Hooker
Then you would need a legally binding contract signed by both parties. You can't just hand somebody something and then say that it was given under a list of terms and conditions. You have the right to be notified of the terms and conditions before you accept them.
Also, doesn't the right of first sale come in to play here? Once they give it away, they are stuck with whatever I choose to use it for.
As one final note, I know that they will say encryption was broken under the DMCA, however, when you read this you are breaking my encryption of the post. I encrypted it by converting all characters to their ascii values. Everyone who reads this posted has now broken my encryption to view copyrighted material.
--
Mike Mangino
Sr. Software Engineer, SubmitOrder.com
Mike Mangino
mmangino@acm.org
Wouldn't it make more sense to charge for the hardware and give away the idea? It seems that they are giving away the hardware and then trying to sell the ideas. This is like trying to move pudding uphill using a rake. Let's take this into a different arena: Has anyone ever used Avon Skin So Soft? (the non US /.'ers might not get this one). Have you ever seen the list of things that SSS is supposed to be good for? Everything from bug repellant to engine de-greaser, right? The comparison would be if Avon tried to sell those lists but then give away the product. Does this make any sense? Of course not, but tech companies don't seemed constrained by the laws of good sense any more, do they?
I think(hope) that this is one of the effects that we will see from the open source revolution. Companies are going to have to quit selling poorly implamented ideas as a product and instead go back to selling more tangible items. Luckily all the smartest people are on the side of the revolution. Can you imagine what would happen if these guys had developed some REAL encryption? Can you imagine what would have happened if CSS would have consisted of solid technology?
Politics, Culture, Food?
It's like their renting you the device, not giving it to you - the price of the rental is that you pay them for it's use.
It's a little scary, isn't it? We seem to be lacking the ownership of ANY property... we LEASE our car from the corporation, we LICENSE our software from the corporation, the insurance company and the bank OWN our houses, homes, and land... we don't OWN the barcode scanner, it's given to us...
I'm just getting worried about all this now...
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Surely the source code should be hidden in barcodes, no ;-?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Because in this case, we didn't complain. If we had came to their tech-support crying "I broke my reader while hacking Cue:Cat! Please help me!", that would have been another thing. But now they want to put a lock on the microwave to inhibit me from opening it an radiation-poisoning myself!
I am sad this happened in the EU. I was blue-eyed and thought that such things "only happen in the US". OK, the court havn't approuved it yet so it is yet just a stupid company atempting to frighten people. Perheaps we should try to get a law tthat forbids companies to frighten people?
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
This rather poor reaction on their part seems to be thinking like a software developer when giving away hardware.
Software for a long time it seems has been developing these ridiculous licenses which the developer could make the end user "legally" bound to use their product anyway they wanted to. This has slowly built up to the point where the developers have and are attempting to pass legislation to protect these ridiculously broad IP "rights" which they have developed (ie DMCA and UTICA). These changes to IP make these developers think they can control their market by writing a license restricting the use of their software rather than designing a sound buisness model.
The problem is that this sort of use license shouldn't be available for any IP, in software or hardware.
What DC has done is attempt to extend these rights to a piece of hardware, and they can't seem to understand why this doesn't make sense to people. Oddly enough, people however still seem to think hardware that they have in their hands is theirs. Hopefully this attitude will be much harder to change than the attitude to software was.
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
I just can't wait until these guys show up on fuckedcompany.com. They just made my pick o' the week...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
>I'm beginning to think that many of the reverse engineering projects these days are losing site of the fact that they are destroying a potential revenue stream for the original developers.
So just cause a commercial app exists, I would have to ask to develop an alternative? I bet Linus never asked anyone they would allow him to make his own OS. the Gnumeric guys never asked M$ whether they were allowed to make a spreadsheet. Boohoohoo.. someone may not make money on a certain product. big deal. but how ethical is this: You can use the hardware we gave you. but only with our software. How else are we going to invade your privacy?
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
They "encrypted" their messages with base64+XOR. That is just like the Microsoft click-thru-license and Samba: under DMCA, workarounds are illegal. Prove me wrong, please?
What a promised land of corporate freedom; freedom of bullies to rule over people.
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
Mr. Taco, I think it's in bad taste to intersperse Digital Convergence's response with your rebuttals. Better to post their whole response un-mangled, then post your commentary afterwards if you must.
-- That whole third paragraph about the linux community helping Microsoft is hogwash.
;)
Though this reply isn't about the Linux Community, per se, the people as nmap believe that Windows 2000 is using NetBSD's IP stack
TCP Initial Window -- This simply involves checking the window size on returned packets. Older scanners simply used a non-zero window on a RST packet to mean "BSD 4.4 derived". Newer scanners such as queso and nmap keep track of the exact window since it is actually pretty constant by OS type. This test actually gives us a lot of information, since some operating systems can be uniquely identified by the window alone (for example, AIX is the only OS I have seen which uses 0x3F25). In their "completely rewritten" TCP stack for NT5, Microsoft uses 0x402E. Interestingly, that is exactly the number used by OpenBSD and FreeBSD.
http://www.insecure.o rg/nmap/nmap-fingerprinting-article.html
Hey wait,
Taco deserves the freedom to Editorialize as he wishes on his web page. I am happy he did it. I enjoyed reading it. I think it was well written and complete.
Enough of this Politically Corect, lets not ruffle any feathers crap.
When we have no rights left (they were sold to corporations by our duly elected reps in congress and executive offices) we will be dreaming of opportunities such as this where we can defend our rights.
BTW: The business model of this product (I picked up one from Radio Shack on Thursday) implies that they are recording the data and selling it without the users permission (or was it hidden in the shrink wrap). I think their model is flawed. Just like I think the Grocery chains model of holding us ransome for 'preferred savings cards' panel id card is flawed.
Adults are obsolete children. - Dr. Seuss
Perhaps some definition of the term "clean room" is in order. A clean room implementation is one in which the hardware is treated as a black box, and then software is written to imitate its behavior under ever conceivable circumstance. The classic example of this was the Compaq reverse engineering of the original IBM PC BIOS. It would have been trivial for Compaq simply to slurp the BIOS off the EEPROM and make copies onto their own chips. That would be stealing, and not OK.
What they did instead was to give the BIOS to engineers who has not seen the assembler code on the chip and instruct them to duplicate it based on its behavior. So they sent various signals to the chip, and watched what it did as it booted up, and basically systematically looked at precisely what it was doing. They were then, with some trial and error, able to write code that duplicated all the observable behavior of the IBM BIOS. That is a cleanroom implementation, as evidenced by the fact that Compaq came out with a fine clone of the BIOS and was legally allowed to sell it. Mere use of the hardware is not enough to make it not a clean implementation
The CueCat reverse engineering is remarkably similar to this, except much more simple. The hackers merely had to figure out what the output meant, which apparently was pretty easy. They treated the CueCat as a black box, recording the output from the scanner and figuring out what it meant. No harm, no foul.
Walt
Very simple, sits and waits for a scan and then decodes. Use or abuse at your risk. Works for me, but YMMV. ISBM check number code swiped from elsewhere(cuecatd1.0 I believe). The rest is original
/\./,$value;
#!/usr/bin/perl
#initalize hash
$dec{"C3"} = $dec{"n"} = $dec{"Z"} = "0";
$dec{"CN"} = $dec{"j"} = $dec{"Y"} = "1";
$dec{"Cx"} = $dec{"f"} = $dec{"X"} = "2";
$dec{"Ch"} = $dec{"b"} = $dec{"W"} = "3";
$dec{"D3"} = $dec{"D"} = $dec{"3"} = "4";
$dec{"DN"} = $dec{"z"} = $dec{"2"} = "5";
$dec{"Dx"} = $dec{"v"} = $dec{"1"} = "6";
$dec{"Dh"} = $dec{"r"} = $dec{"0"} = "7";
$dec{"E3"} = $dec{"T"} = $dec{"7"} = "8";
$dec{"EN"} = $dec{"P"} = $dec{"6"} = "9";
$string = "";
while ($string eq "") {
print "scan code:";
$string = ;
chop($string);
$type = CueCatDecode($string, 2);
if ($type eq "15") {
$ISBNcheck = &CheckDigitISBN($string);
}
$decode = CueCatDecode($string, 3);
print "\n\n decoded = ".$decode . $ISBNcheck."\n\n\n";
open (outfile,">>samples.txt");
print outfile "input: ".$string."\n";
print outfile "output:".$decode . $ISBNcheck."\n\n\n";
close outfile;
$string = "";
$ISBNcheck = "";
}
sub CueCatDecode($$) {
$value=$_[0];
$s=$_[1];
@v=split
$dc="";
for ($i=0;$ilength($v[$s]);$i++) {
if (($i % 4) == 0) {
$c = substr($v[$s],$i,2);
$i ++;
}
else {
$c = substr($v[$s],$i,1); # Get One Byte of Data
}
$dc = $dc . $dec{$c}; # Builds BarCode from bcode
$c=""; # Clear Out Readdate
}
return $dc;
}
sub CheckDigitISBN($)
{
$value = $_[0];
$sss=0;
$ss=0;
$sum=0;
for ($i = 0; $i 9; $i++)
{
$sum = (10-$i);
$sss= $sum * substr($value,$i,1);
$ss=$ss+$sss;
$sum = (11-($ss % 11));
}
return $sum;
}
I don't think that open-source developers really "seem to feel they can do whatever they please", as you state. In fact, I don't think any of the developers of these drivers at any point considered copying the hardware design for the cuecat and selling or giving it away or giving away illegal copies of their software. What the driver authors did (as suggested by earlier posters) is similar to taking a car apart to write a manual about it. But in reality, the software developers are even nicer than that-- it would be like driving a car around a little bit to write a manual about it. AFAIK, disassembly of the devices was not required to write the drivers.
None of the developers are attempting to take IP from the company. It's been asked before and I'll ask it again-- what IP are we talking about? The hardware? Designs for that have not been published. The software? It is not being illegally distributed, nor was it used in the production of the drivers. The central server softwar? Not only not copied or distributed illegally, but also not used at all by the drivers. Reverse engineering is and has been legal for quite some time.
No one is doing "whatever they please" in a way that violates a law I'm aware of. Nobody is being screwed or trampled. How does this driver screw or trample anyone, and how was anyone screwed or trampled in its production? IP is valuable to OSS developers. OSS developers protect their IP with just as much zeal as closed-source developers, and have a full understanding that not everything can be free. However, until there is a law that takes away the right to make your own software (that in no way infringes on IP)-- there will always be people who out of the goodness of their hearts provide free software to make our lives a little better.
It's in the last line:
"Even if you don't read this EULA, you must abide by all of the above before using our product.
Editorial independance: "Andover will not encourage me to quash stories that are unfavorable to them or to editorialize in their favor when I feel differently."
Non-biased reporting: "I will refrain from advocacy when reporting stories."
I see Slashdot as a very political site, I can even remember a Presidential endorsement recently. I don't expect non-biased coverage of the things I read here, but fortunately I am a believer in Free Software so the advocacy doesn't bother me.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Even if Microsoft programmers are as incompotent as people at slashdot paint them from time to time (and I know they aren't), I doubt that it would take more than a day for them to reverse engineer the protocol.
Current US laws allow for reverse engineering to effect interoperability. Nothing more than that was engaged in here.
Finally, I think they are just a bunch of crybabies out to give opensource a bad name. Look how much whining they did. Look how unspecific they were about what IP was allegedly stolen. My guess is that they lost sales of some development kit or another, or fear such loss, and are using the IP argument to scare people into not blabbing.
What about the VW beetle? Last time I checked that thing was tore apart every which way, modified, published, and more. This sparked a craze that continues even today - the VW beetle is apart of US history as one of the longest selling cars, most popular, etc - even though the thing came from Germany.
What is the difference here?
Reading through the letter, it becomes obvious that these folks don't know what Intellectual Property is. Intellectual Property law takes on three main forms: Trade Secrecy Law, Patent Law, and Copyright Law.
Anyone taking apart their barcode reader and creating software from what they see isn't violating Trade Secrecy law, because reverse-engineering is permitted under Trade Secrecy law. It doesn't fall under Patent law unless they have a patent that hasn't yet been mentioned (this would have to be a patent on the software, because that's what's being recreated), and it doesn't fall under Copyright law unless folks are actually using code from the barcode reader's software or ROM, or producing a work heavily derived from them.
It is a company's sad obligation to go after everyone who is violating one of these IP laws, lest they lose protection under the law, but it's a sadder 'obligation' for a company to use FUD (even when they're apologizing at the same time), under the guise of protecting legal rights, to try to dissuade people who have every right to do what they're doing.
The question here is whether D:C knows it has no legal footing, but is ding everything it can to get people to stop anyhow, or if they read too much slashdot and think 'that's our intellectual property! We must defend it!' without knowing the ramifications of IP law.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
Bayer also lost the trademark to Heroin, the pain reliever they were pushing before Bayer Aspirin (reg tm) became popular.
:)
And yes, it is spelled "aspirin" unless your first name is Robert and you write science fiction.
- Robin
What most people have to realise is that this idea against reverse engineering in general is again an invention of the software developement industry.. In all the other industries, reverse engineering is common, and used by all.
For example, if you visit a car manufacturer you will see they have groups dedicated to tear down and study in detail their competitors' cars. I know also a few persons in the microelectronics field, who had as a project to design machines for helping reverse engineering. (for a big big player in the market) (those were physical machines to permit the manufacturer in question to open the chips and study each layer of them)
. . . . . . .
may u!sh 2 sm!le at dz!z bad nn.!m!tat!ion
They do have IP rights on specific issues of their barcoding,
Oh? Like what? Copyright, patent, or trade secret?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
------
They are defending their right not to have their intellectual Property reverse engineered and openly distributed.
-----
Sure they are. Unfortunately, there is no such right if the IP protection is protected by trade secret or copyright rather than by a patent. Trade secret protection is governed by state law. Here is an excerpt from the North Carolina statute. I'll bet your state's laws aren't much different.
(1) "Misappropriation" means acquisition, disclosure, or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied authority or consent, unless such trade secret was arrived at by independent development, reverse engineering, or was obtained from another person with a right to disclose the trade secret.
Elsewhere in the NC statute is wording that makes reverse engineering an affirmative defense against trade secret misappropriation.
If the CueCut dudes filed a claim in court claiming that their trade secrets were reverse engineered, it would be a simple matter to get such a claim dismissed.
States are pre-empted from passing laws which give patent like protection of IP. If you want patent protection you have to get a patent. Otherwise if you sell a product, people get to take it apart and see how it works.
Michaelangelo
I cannot disagree more!
All that has happened here is that someone has taken their scanner, plugged it into a computer, scanned some barcodes, seen what they got, figured out how it was converting the barcode into the data it supplied and finally wrote a bit of code to turn the data from the device into something useful. They didn't go near the distributors software (it wasn't even close to being complicated enough to need that) so all they did was use the hardware the manufacturer gave away for free as it was intended with different software.
Now ask yourself this, if Ford gave away car fresheners for their Fiesta and then asked people to remove from websites the instructions for how to fit the freshener to other models of cars would you say "the right channels have to be used when dealing with other peoples work is concerned"?
I think this is a simple case of a company who are trying to implement a business plan with a potential flaw ("the WINDOW for the BIG companies to come in and control and profit from this process we have created"). Guess they should have made sure that door was closed BEFORE they handed the things out. Besides, do you really think that MS would need the Open Source community to help them crack this OR that MS would be deterred from rolling drivers for this into their software by claims of infringment of IP rights.
Bottom line I think they are stupid....not mallicious just stupid.....ah well so much for another dot.com dream!
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
With regards to your other comment, I understand your point, but being a crappy coder I could more quickly build a barcode scanner (the parts are available at radio shack) then code a new toolkit. But if I wanted to use QT I wouldn't mind paying for the licensing fee, and in this case the BC software is $20!! That's piddly to about 90% of programmers out there. You know it and I know it.
-- there's no such thing as "Defend it or lose it" under IP law. If 200 people rip off MS Windows and MS prosecutes 2 of them, there's no such defense as "Well, your honor, MS didn't prosecute the other 198 people..." This is a MASSIVE LIE made up by companies who want to shift responsibility. ANYTIME you see a company say "We had to ... or lose it" they're lying.
There's no such thing as 'defend it or lose it' under copyright law. It is true under trademark law (dilution of trademarks), but, while they don't identify just what IP has been 'violated', it seems like trademarks are unlikely to have anything to do with it, so you're right enough in this case.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
The best part was that the store was having a sale -- buy a microwave, get a free home microwave inspection (where a guy would come out and test your oven for RF leaks). Of course Josh had the guy come out and test the microwave AFTER he had taken it apart and used it to make his standing-wave-generator. The guy was scared shitless but tested the apparatus anyhow.
My point is that your example is a particularly cogent one about using a product in a manner for which it's not intened.
Ever use a car as a nutcracker? You jack up a drive wheel, put it in fourth and put a brick on the gas. Then you throw nuts into the gap between the wheel and the ground. Works VERY WELL with fresh walnuts.
Ever use a stereo as a degausser? You short a speaker line through a long spool of wire, ram a bunch of iron things into the center of the spool, and use the volume knob to degauss.
Ever use a Craftsman screwdriver in a way for which it wasn't intended? Did you break it?
Using products in ways in which they weren't intended is a big part of the American ideal. If the Wright Brothers hadn't used bicycle parts in a way for which they SERIOUSLY weren't intended, it might take a lot longer to get to that ski vacation today...
- Examine software
- Abstract to figure out how the software works
- Write new implementation
because the problem there is that they directly saw DC's IP (their software source code).But the FlyingButtMonkeys didn't reverse engineer the software, they reverse engineered the protocol and built their own software to use the protocols. So clearly they didn't copy any of DC's source code.
--
Which means that the Commander wouldn't be able to guarantee that his inspired thoughts would be foremost in our minds if he opened them up to the hazards of moderation. I hope that he (and his compatriots) will do this in the future, and even consider modifying this story to remove his commentary.
-- there's no such thing as "Defend it or lose it" under IP law. If 200 people rip off MS Windows and MS prosecutes 2 of them, there's no such defense as "Well, your honor, MS didn't prosecute the other 198 people..." This is a MASSIVE LIE made up by companies who want to shift responsibility. ANYTIME you see a company say "We had to ... or lose it" they're lying.
Completely untrue. Are you a lawyer? This is a major tenant of trade secrecy law.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
>You don't pull a microwave apart and put it back together then complain when you get radiation poisoning do you ? Why should this be any different ?
:) I *won't* complain to these people if the GPL'd driver doesn't work.
Shit! I installed the Linux driver for this thing, and I've got 4th degree plasma burns. You're saying I have no right to complain about such an unsafe product??
Quick - someone get me a dermal regenerator!
Heh. I don't know why you even attempted to argue against LEGAL reverse engineering... you don't even attempt to provide a solid case, just a mini-troll. Anyone can call anything IP, as they call their generic scanner product.
My best interpretation of your statement is, "you don't pull apart this scanner driver with your own, then complain your driver does not work.". To this I would say, true
If anyone is smart over there, they may be reflecting on how they could have worked with the community better. UMAX does not bully the SANE people who write drivers for their scanner. Hardware drivers are the *perfect* candidates for GPL'd software... my UMAX scanner was made OBSOLETE under Windows 2000 because UMAX chose not to write Win2K drivers, suggesting instead I buy a new scanner from them (to which I say "fuck you!").
The Linux scanner driver crew SANE hey have no profit motive for screwing customers.
The business model relies on a web server-based lookup, based on the handle that the plastic cat reads. If they have the dawnings of a clue, then their server won't care what the client is.
:Cues.
This might actually be the reason for their actions in the first place.
From the other article:
When they sent the letter (Aug. 30), my software did not touch the DCNV servers to look up
It might have bugged them that someone was writing software for their hardware that just looked up ISBN#s on amazon instead of their server (and in general leave the coice of servers to the coder/user). This would indeed seem to be a threat to their business model, although IMHO a minor one due to the above mentioned blinking 12:00 syndrome.
Thomas claimed that the protocol is IP. I think that's false. Even if it were, the actual embodiment of "the protocol" is not one specific string of bits that it spits out (no more than an image generated by a Adobe Photoshop is the IP of Adobe), but rather the set of rules for generating that string of bits, namely the logic/code stored in the CueCat and in the driver on the computer.
Additionally, if this were the case, I think they'd have to have a patent on the rules for the protocol. Otherwise, the rules for the protocol were independantly figured out, which is a legal way to get the information under trade secrets law.
--
OK, let's see here:
- So many CAPITAL LETTERS whenever he's REALLY CONCERNED that you DON'T GET HIS POINT. The guy reads like Robert McElwaine. You know, "UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED."
Well, ACTUALLY, in this CASE, this guy's DIS-couraging it, but MY BASIC POINT is the SAME!-
Abysmal English skills. This guy's a CEO?
Finally, and most seriously, a complete failure to grasp the concept of IP. Nowhere in his rambling spiel does he actually articulate to what "property" he makes claims of ownership.- "reversed engineered"?
- "intellectually property"?
- "we loose any remedies"?
- "the Linux Community could of inadvertently" Could OF?
This in just two paragraphs. Jesus H. Christ, I've seen kids in grade school with better English skills. Call FuckedCompany now!- "if we don't PROTECT our IP, we loose any remedies under law to PROTECT our IP"
The rest of the screed is more of the same. Incoherent rants about how a geek with a few lines of Perl is a dire threat to their entire business model and a furtherance of the Micros~1 monopoly. Yeah, and flying monkeys might come out of my butt. (Oh, wait a minute... that's what started this!)No, you dipsticks, that's trademark law. If I create something called the CueCat (without the dippy colon in front of the "C"), and it's a plastic cat-shaped barcode thingy, and he doesn't sue me, he stands to lose the right to use the word ":CueCat" to describe his plastic cat-shaped barcode thingy.
Netpliance (with the I-Opener and the resulting arms race of BIOS upgrades and anti-hack measures they wasted time with) missed the clue train, but at least can claim they faced a genuine threat. And even they didn't try to sue anyone.
But these guys, good Lord, they haven't just missed the Cluetrain, they aren't even at the friggin' station!
In closing, I'm pretty sure think there's more than one reason the "threatening letter" was merely a vaguely-threatening letter and not a real cease-and-desist.
1) As flamed ad infinitum on /. last week, any case against the developers of :CueCat(tm)-related hacks is likely to be extremely weak.
2) If Digital Convergence doesn't even have proofreaders, what the fuck are they using for corporate counsel?
3) And on that corporate counsel, if they do have corporate counsel, could one of them kindly bitchslap their management team and explain the difference between trademark law and "whatever the ring-tailed rambling fuck" (that's waht I'm calling it, because they've utterly failed to explain it - again) they're trying to use as grounds to sue an open-source developer with a funny domain name?
Is there by chance a Windows version as well? I'd love to take an inventory on CDs.
Or better yet, have a program where you can find drivers for said hardware just by scanning in said hardware's barcode.
Yes, but if:
1) no patent exists that covers the protocol, and
2) the direct object code wasn't disassembled and copied
then there can't be any problem. It doesn't matter if I buy a Ford, throw away everything but the motor, figure out how the motor was connected to the rest of the car, and create a different rest-of-the-car (without even looking at the origianl rest-of-the-car). Unless the interface between the moter and the rest-of-the-car is protected, I can do whatever the heck I want with it. I could pee on the motor if I wanted. I could record the electrical outputs of the motor and broadcast them on the internet.
It would be illegal for me to use a star-trek like replicator to exactly atom-for-atom replicate Ford many times, put my own brand name on them, and sell them as mine. Otherwise, it's legal.
--
Yes, they chose to give it away (actually, to provide it to Radio Shack for a price, it's Radio Shack who gave me mine). If they don't like what I choose to do with my new toy, they shouldn't give me any more. Other than that, they're out of luck. If I want to take it apart, use a driver some has written, and generally take advantage of the gift they gave me, they're out of luck. Let'em whine, "unhappy" doesn't equal "wronged".
Tough.
Nels
See what I've been reading.
I'm thinking that their "5 years" of development was in making the processor in the CueCat itself. If you take your CueCat and scan something, you'll notice that you can scan forwards, backwards, sideways, upside-down, flipped to the right, to the left, and so forth. All of these methods work really well, and that obviously took a _lot_ of talent, IMHO.
Is this a joke?
Recall your last visit to the grocery store. Does the clerk at the front take the item, find the barcode, align it so that it faces a certain direction, and then carefully guide it straight across the scanner?
Does the pen-like thing they use to scan your library card have sticker that says "this side up?"
I don't know anything about the science behind barcode scanning (and obviously neither do you!) but it seems this is a mechanism built into every barcode scanner since the creation of barcode scanning.
--
Then they would have the right to cancel your rental agreement and take the scanner back!
It still does not give them the right to take my code away.
Ex-Nt-User
IMHO, if a company wants to try to limit access through specialized tools, fine, but they shouldn't be able to stop me from using whatever tools I want or develop on my own.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Um... Aren't pre-binding contracts illegal? Isn't the entire point that both parties agree?
Oh, wait. Not after UTICA* I guess.
* Probably the wrong acronym.
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
My father-in-law gave me his reader (which some magazine helpfully mailed him), and I was going to use it under Linux, but I've changed my mind. If I want a barcode reader, I'll go buy one that's free of this kind of crap.
Ah, but you see yours is free of that kind of crap. According to federal law (which would supercede the "you're just borrowing our hardware, and you're forbidden from reverse engineering our hardware" provision of their license.) any unsolicited item mailed to you may be considered a GIFT. As a gift, it is 100% yours, and you don't have to worry about the provisions that claim the hardware is really theirs.
This however wouldn't apply to the ones picked up from Radio Crack.
The code was never illegal.
No one had to dissassemble (reverse-engineer) the device itself to figure out what was going on.
The code was developed by sniffing the protocol and what it was doing over the cable.
The courts have upheld that sniffing the protocol/cable has always been legal.
This is just a company crying out about not having a lock on what people do with their toy.
A host is a host from coast to coast
but no one uses a host that's close
"I used to work at a library, our barcode scanners could do the same thing, this was about
five years ago, so this technology existed before the CueCat people even began
developing the CueCat."
I think it would be really, really funny, if the
method used by your library scanner was Patented,
and the CueCat device violated that patent. It would be a nice, ironic underscore to the fact that the software in question is LEGAL, while Patents are another concept entirely.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
How cute, next -- even if you don't sign my contract binding you to giving me all your property if you take this candy you still must abide by it.
This is why EULA's are abhorrent/stupid and UTICA/DMCA are going to make even more of a mess out of the IP landscape.
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
Indeed. Witness the huge flap when Unisys suddenly decided to enforce their patent on the GIF algorithm. Unisys' official story on the subject was that although in theory, the GIF format should have been free, it contained a patent-protected algorithm (LZW compression), and their failing to charge license fees over it was "an oversight." It wouldn't surprise me if this was actually true (as opposed to a convenient fabrication), but it still sucked.
On the other hand, the Unisys GIF thing at least had the effect of forcing some people towards PNG, which is a good thing. With apologies to Princess Leia, "The harder you grip your intellectual property, the more clients will slip through your fingers."
Get over it. You guys GAVE me the barcode reader "Come in to Radio Shack and pick up YOUR free barcode reader!" the ad said. It's mine. And just to piss you off I picked up 4 from 4 different stores. Paid cash and gave then a bogus name and address at each. Wank! Wank! Wank!
As I read this article, my first thought was "Comments should've been plaintype, original letter in bold." Putting his thoughts in bold just made it seem like he was stuffing his ideas down the letterwriters throats without giving the public forum an opportunity to comment.
In as much as Cmdr's comments are so tightly woven with the core of this story, this post represents a form of fascism, imho.
It's such a radical departure from the way this view would have been discussed in the past, and leaves a bad taste.
The Bazaar is being run by Fascists.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Shortly after that, they offer this bit of enlightenment:
I assume that this includes all data pumped out by the reader, which then conveniently covers the translation of said data into a format usable with something other than DC's software. It continues:Here, they cover their ass some more by saying, "If you figure it out, you have to tell us. And, by the way, don't use that info with anything but our software." This is completely in line with the above response from their CEO. He's saying the exact same thing.So, according to this license agreement, anybody who posted the code to circumvent their data encryption and tagging is in violation. There remain some questions as to whether or not the license is activated by simply using the :CueCat (they state that it does). Most seem to think that the license isn't agreed to until you break the seal on the software. As I have absolutely no knowledge of how exactly that applies, I'll skip my speculation on that point.
It seems, though, that unless you intend to use the :CueCat with only the DC software, you are in violation of the agreement. For this reason, I am returning my :CueCat to Radio Shack tomorrow and letting them know why I'm doing it. I'm also going to make sure that my Parade-readin' redneck relatives know that the :Cat is a "bad thing". Note: I admit I read vos Savant's column, but that's it... really.
Will this make a dent in their marketing? No way in hell, but it's the principle of the thing, y'know?
In all seriousness, though, while I've never been a member of the "data wants to be free" crowd, it's not hard to see how most forms of intellectual property are going to be ruthlessly abused by the suits and that, in the end, the drawbacks of IP are going to outweigh its benefits. This hardly means IP rights are going to go away or be scaled back to reasonable levels, but they could, and they should.
In this particular case, these turkeys don't have a leg to stand on. Even if they did, who gives a rat's patootie? The market of end users these guys are trying to reach is so much larger than the smattering of hackers who need or want a barcode scanner. I have no use for one. I'm having trouble thinking of what I could possibly use it for beyond gee-whiz value. For most business applications I have at present, I'd use a different scanner along with shrinkwrapped software to interface with my shrinkwrapped POS and inventory control software. (At least until someone writes a real free retail system!)
Finally, I really wish that the suits would read their marketroids' press releases. Spelling and grammar are significant. It doesn't matter much to me if the comments in your source code are written in proper English (in fact, that would make me wonder!), but if your marketing people are semi-literate, that makes me wonder about your management. When I worked for [three-letter broadcaster omitted], I was constantly amazed by the sub-fourth-grade language skills demonstrated in corporate press releases. And believe me, it strongly influenced how I perceived and dealt with their reps. In most cases, I was obliged to assume they were idiots. In the case of Digital Convergence, the content alone would have been enough.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
--
So what?
I hereby state that anyone who reads this post is bound to give me 1 million dollars, or kill themselves.
Do you think that you are bound by this now?
Shrink-wrap licences may have some legal force for software. However, that is because copyright law was specifically added to recently to give them more force.
This hardware itself is NOT a peice of software. It is not covered by the same law. The shrink-wrap licence of this type has no force. It can ONLY apply to the software.
--Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
DC is not in danger if people reverse-engineer their software, even if their software is indirectly their only source of income. Here's why:
DC distributes their software with the scanner Anyone who gets the scanner is not going to bother getting software somewhere else if it already comes with it. Not many people wipe their hard drive and install Linux, *BSD, etc. when they get a new computer; they keep Windows.
The local software doesn't do everything I'm not certain of this, but I assume the way the software works is that it deciphers the bar code, then sends the bar code and manufacturer code to some website where it returns a URL referrer to the web page belonging to the product. The money is being made off of hosting those companies' barcodes on that central server. I assume it works this way, otherwise people would have to get a new software version with each company agreeing to use the barcodes.
One may counter this argument by saying "Well, what if someone reverse-engineers the server and offers a rival barcode service?" This is no threat to DC, since to use another server a different version of software would be needed, which means people would have to install it on their own, and thus I refer you to my first point.
The only danger to DC is that it may look silly in the eyes of other companies for losing control of its scanners, but I doubt that most of the people who picked up the scanner immediately got to work reverse-engineering it on their Linux-powered web server at home.
If any DC marketing people are reading this, it has been proven before that you cannot keep people from trying to reverse-engineer the software. A few examples are DeCSS (even if 2600 lost, it's only a US precedent...) and the Netpliance I-Opener. Netpliance, after the slashdot story about putting Linux on it, reportedly made it impossible to do this. If you are really paranoid here, just do something like that, use DES encryption on the barcode or something.
# debian/rules
may itself be actionable (in other words, flyingbuttmonkeys.com could have a countersuit against this company if there's no IP to have been misappropriated). For example, in Cardtoons v. Major League Baseball Players Association, 208 F.3d 885 (10th Cir. 2000)(holding that private threats of intellectual property litigation are not immune under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine when they do not arise under the Sherman Act, nor under the First Amendment because they do not involve petitions to the government). See also American Broadcasting Co. v. Maljack Productions Inc. (sorry, I don't have the cite), where a court refused to dismiss a claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act where a cease and desist letter overstated the scope of plaintiffs rights.
Sounds like they oughtta hire some Open Source people! ;>
Yes, but they don't have a legal leg to stand on. Nobody is misusing their intellectual property by using their hardware. Intellectual property would be a patent on barcoding, but they don't have one. Intellectual property would be a copyright, but I can use their hardware without breaking the shrink-wrap on their copyrighted software.
They should feel free to ask us not to use their hardware, but when they try to force us not to, I refuse to cooperate with their impolite request.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Really? Are you suggesting that Digital:Convergence first developed and produced the hardware, and only then started thinking about the software? Come on. I quote:
What makes you think that that implies 5 years of work to develop just the software? While I have my doubts about the 5 years, I do believe the entire product is meant here. From the first idea all the way to development of hardware and software, production up to the point it was available to the public.Compare apples to apples
Indeed. Comparing the time between reverse enginering some software and developing a product is comparing apples to oranges.
-- Abigail
Commander,
Whilst I can appreciate your desire to rip to shreds some of the specious arguments presented in this letter, I would humbly suggest in future that you refrain from doing so. The first law of public posting is that someone else always has a smarter angle on the whole thing than you do, so if you act in a restrained manner and don't rip into the offender, someone else will.
Or, to put it simply, next time just post the original letter and invite comments. This way, the Slashdot hordes (ranging from rabid to rapier-witted) can do the barking for you, whilst you can maintain a modicum of disinterested independence.
Please consider.
Regards,
TFBW
Copyright? On this post? I think not.
Especially if they're tools you developed, and not an atom-for-atom copy of the company's tool.
--
I live in virginia. Here, your personal information (address, etc) is considered property that can be used in exchange for services or product. The fact that the radio shack people asked me for my name and address legally constitutes a sale.
CmdrChalupa
(who knows not how to change his sig)
CmdrChalupa, who finally changed his sig (drop -FlogSpammersNow- for my real address)
Their argument is that they don't think anyone should have the right to publish their IP without permission. I don't think they would care if you reverse engineered their :CuteKitty and kept it to yourself. (In fact they would probably never even find out about it.) In this context, your microwave example makes no sense to me.
I personally started to reverse engineer their toy the moment I found out that it would spit out plain barcode text. Luckily I found out someone had already done it and it saved me the trouble. Now I can use the ":Cat" for all sorts of things on all sorts of platforms.
To those who published the code: Thanks!
To DigitalConvergence: What your beef? How does this ruin you business model? It seems to me that your little toy just became orders of magnitude more useful. Not only can I use it with your software (when I'm in Windows), but I can use it for whatever else my little geek brain dreams up. Back off and let the popularity of your device soar.
That is all.
-Derek
... is a better grasp of the English language.
:can't vendors! understand; just how freaking h@rd it is to read aNything and eVerything that's written about their freaking ~products using punctuation as product name?
:cue:cat, Earth First!, and Digital:Convergence painful to read.
Makes reading about
ouch ouch ouch.
Their business model is one I support, and one that I could see growing quite quickly - the one where you give people some physical thing that ties them to the service that pays for it. I don't think that it's a bad business model - but it needs legal protection because it would be very easy to destroy it.
No business has the right to anyone's money. If some company chooses to give away some widget because they think that you can't use it without paying for their service, that's a gamble.
As we all know, not every gamble pays off. There should be no additional legal protection for those who choose a risky business model. Intel wasn't able to stop AMD and Cyrix from using MMX, even though intel claimed that it was something that was necessary to protect their business.
It's like their renting you the device, not giving it to you - the price of the rental is that you pay them for it's use.
No, they're giving it away. If they wanted to rent it, then fine let them rent it. The way things stand they are giving it away. It becomes YOUR scanner, if you wanted to, you could drop it off a cliff or run it over with your car, it is YOURS.
I don't think it's your right to destroy their business.
They don't have any RIGHT to have their business model succeed. They bet on the wrong horse, tough luck for them.
Sure, the device isn't their business, but it's a vital (and vulnerable) part.
A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, so too is a business plan. If they made a bad assumption about how the devices could be used, then that is their fault and their problem. As long as nobody stole and code from them, there is nothing questionable here.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Still no indication from Digital Convergence as to what intellectual property they're talking about. There's only patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret. They don't mention a patent. It's not a trademark issue. It's legitimate to reverse engineer a trade secret. And even with the DMCA, I don't see how copyright law can stretch this far. I doubt that they do either, or their letter would have said something concrete.
Symbol owns majority of bar code scanner patents, so DC either pays royalties to Symbol (most likely) or is in for a surprise.
I know that they will say encryption was broken under the DMCA
The DMCA only covers systems that control access to a copyrighted work, not all encryption systems.
I called in a favor this weekend and asked an attorney to look at the issue. For obvious reasons, they don't want to be identified (but I can go so far as to say that this particular attorney likes imported beer. Good thing I do too!)
Anyway, the opinion is that no illegal activity has taken place. According to posted descriptions, the re-engineering activity which occured took place within permitted boundaries of US law. Furthermore, posting of the re-engineered driver to the Internet and use of the driver by persons who have NOT clicked agreement with their contract, is perfectly legal. In addition, if someone mailed you the device unsolicited or if Radio Shack gave you the device without telling you that it was on loan AND if you did not click to agree with their contract, the widget is yours for permissable use within US copyright and patent law. You can't rip it apart to find out how it works and then start cranking out clones, but that's just about the only thing you can't do with it. Specifically, using a different software driver which avoids reference to their site and/or usage tracking technology, is perfectly legal. If they wanted to bind users to a contract dictating terms of usage, they didn't do it properly and unless you click on the "Agree" button on their contract, no usage contract exists.
Have fun!
PS: The commenting interspersed with their reply letter disturbs me. It looks like heckling, for which I have no respect. Please, next time just present the response and comment on it afterward. Please don't abuse the forum. mjs
From: Bruce Ide
4 8211&mode=thread)
3 GkDScRwqFQCfaZTH
To: ceo@digitalconvergence.com
CC: ddavis@digitalconvergence.com
CC: ontheweb@usatoday.com
CC: malda@slashdot.org
Subject: Cuecat Reverse Engineering Effort
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:02:33 -0600 (MDT)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Gentlemen,
Reading the letter to the community
(http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/09/05/05
regarding the reverse engineering of the Cuecat barcode reader, I
have a few comments which I would like to convey at this point.
First, the right to reverse engineer a product for interoperability
purposes has legal precedent which has been upheld by the courts on
several occasions (Sony vs. Connectix being the latest one that I am
aware of.) Had I had anything to do with the development of the
drivers in question, I would currently be initiating my own legal
proceedings requesting a summary judgment stating that I am in no way
infringing on the Digital Convergence IP. After receiving that (And I
WOULD win, given previous legal precedents.) I would then follow up
with a harassment lawsuit requesting damages sufficient to give any
other company attempting this tactic pause. In this case, I had
nothing to do with the development of the drivers in question but I
hope my suggestion has made its way back to the original developers
and that they take it under consideration.
Second, the IP laws as originally designed were intended to stimulate
innovation and protect small inventors. They are currently being used
by large corporations to prevent innovation and intimidate small
inventors. Had the legal landscape been similar to this a decade ago,
Linux would never have been created because each computer would have
shipped with a license stating that you could only use it in the way
the hardware company intended, with the copy of Windows that came with
it being your only choice. Undoubtedly were you to desire to upgrade
your software, you would have had to have bought a new computer. This
is clearly not what our founding fathers intended when they created
the IP laws.
Third, if we, the community, do not stand up to large corporations
when they attempt to use these tactics to intimidate us into silence,
we will lose what rights we have to use the hardware we bought and
paid for in the manner of our choosing. Computing as a hobby will
cease to be, and the best and the brightest programmers in the field
will go elsewhere, leaving only mediocre writers of mediocre software
in a mediocre field with none of the growth that you may have noticed
over the past decade. That's not good for the community and it's not
good for the companies which serve the community of which Digital
Convergence is one.
Fourth, given the above, I must question both the ethics and the
intelligence of a company which does not realize the above. Truly,
alienating a potential customer base is not a good way to do
business. I take the same stand with any company using these tactics
to spread fear and intimidation in the community: I will never buy
your products. I will never recommend your products in any project I
work on. I will never work for your company. In a managerial position,
I will never hire as an employee anyone who worked in your company
after these tactics came to light. I will encourage all of my friends
to take a similar stance. You have plenty of competitors. I shall
patronize them.
Thank you for your time.
- --
Bruce Ide bruce.ide@echostar.com
http://www.paratheoanametamystikhood.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard
iD8DBQE5tRiYYrife6UJ+gURArLmAJsHFnBCfPUfxEWTmtb
jpKB+EgJubzFMuPmyxmjRM0=
=6Vu2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I think the company feelings about this issue are quite valid. Someone should have contacted the company directly before just going out and doing directly without permission. I am not sure what the legality on this issue is, I am sure it is copyrighted in some manner.
Definately this was approached the wrong way. This is not to say that I do not support the open sourced community, quite frankly, it is one of the best systems for designing software there is. But the right channels have to be used when dealing with other peoples work is concerned.
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
This guy is confused. Trademarks and patents have to be defended. Copyright does not. He's talking as if they were the same thing. He needs to sit down and have a good talk (and listen!) with his lawyer.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The real question is where does the right of the consumer begin and the right of the company end. If company X provide a product for a specific purpose does the consumer has the right to use the product in any way he feels fit? Would I as a company would have the right stop the consumer from using it as he seems fit. These are the question that need to answer quickly.
As I see it is that technologicly, the CueCat could have been made secure (from use by other than DC) by encrypting the barcode using a public key built into the CueCat.
Yes, that would have increased the price somewhat, but I would guess that thing thing costs atleast $20 anyways, waiting a couple of months before they released it, and using RSA would have saved them from having to worry about other systems using their expensive hardware.
It is true that trade secret law requires that the company demonstrate that it tried to protect its secret. If they were found to be negligent in this, then the secret cannot be defended. Clearly here, the fact that the codes are almost plaintext demonstrates this negligence. The stockholders should sue.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Okay, okay, I misspelled 'tenet', so thanks.
However, in trade secrecy law, if a secret is revealed, it can still be a secret as long as it is stopped before being 'widely disseminated.' Thus, if people violating TS law aren't stopped, TS law protections disappear for future violations.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
A lot of companies are still new to all of this and need to be convinced, pissing on someones head is not known for its persuasive power. Perhaps you should leave the diplomatic stuff to others. Anyhow how long was it before you released the slash code ?, and where are the other fine coding achievements and submissions to help projects that entitles you to way that we about the place We all define valuable tools and projects differently, and our needs might be a bit different then yours
Basically the company was not in a helpful mode and panicked when they saw that their software could be dispense with. They are quite possibly on very weak ground defining their XOR as vital IP, but the way to resolve it is not to send the endless screaming hordes waving placards to their front door, methinks its some quiet emails and representations from sane parties. These days we could ask redhat or even IBM to phone them and suggest that they help negotiate the problem away.
Bah, rein back on the unilateral action there, whatever about think before you email a quick response, surely theres a lot to be said for think very very carefully before you dangerously rabble rouse editorialise.
C.
I sometimes write stuff
It was given to me and a lot of other people. As much as they'd like to claim that it's leased, they screwed up when they shipped it out to all those Forbes subscribers. Postal regulations take precedence over any agreements and anything sent without the consent of the recipient is thier property not the senders at that point. The Rat Shack stuff may be a different story, but I don't think so, based on how they're doing the transactions. I've got this little reciept for a catalog/CueCat that I paid $0.00 for. Since it's material goods, they can't "license" it- the contract for the goods in question was set in stone at the time of "purchase". Since it was not said that it was a loan of the CueCat at the time of the transaction, it can't be one (Otherwise they're dabbling in fraud at the interstate level... Not a good thing for them.).
Now, having established that these things are likely to be the people who have them's property, who needs permission? I don't. The law allows me to do whatever I please with the thing.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Why they think that some third party developing a compatible driver is a violation of their IP. Does this mean that Ford, GM and Chrysler could sue Haynes and Chilton for publishing manuals on the repair of the vehicles?
In order to publish such a manual, one has to "reverse engineer" the car in question. Haynes even brags that every manual is "based on a complete teardown and rebuild" of the car that it's for.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Not one of his replies really addressed the issue you were trying to bring up. I don't understand how people could be so blind to the fundamental reality of what you're saying.
I also don't get what intellectual property they're trying to protect. Once a trade secret is out, it's out, and has no more protection. I think this is even true if someone under an NDA leaks it. That's how they work. The only concievable thing I think they could claim for intellectual property is if they had patented the idea of scanning a barcode encoded URL and automatically sending you to the website.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
You're quite right to say that such claims are hogwash when applied to copyright or patent disputes, but AFAIK it's true of trademarks that if you don't defend them, you may lose future cases on the grounds that what was once your trademark has become a common word.
Apart from that niggle I pretty much agree with your analysis.
--
Xenu loves you!
I'd also like to say something to the readers: don't get angry and attack these guys. They're just a group of guys trying to feed their dogs by coming up with ideas to make a buck.
Their dogs are attack dogs, better known in certain circles as lawyers.
Their explanation is pure bullshit, starting with the fact that it is only for trademarks that the principle "defend it or lose it" is valid. Besides, what exactly intellectual property they are trying to defend from hackers? They are wonderfully vague on this point and the reason is that what they'd like to defend is not legally defensible. And spare me these sob-sister stories about five years of sleepless nights. There is nothing technologically interesting in their toy. They came up with a business plan which, as usual, didn't survive contact with reality. Film at 11.
I don't like guys whose knee-jerk reaction is to send threatening but legally meaningless letters.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
All this whining about "intellectual property" convinces me that the folks behind CueCat have a only the foggiest notion of what intellectual property is, and I think that the "crime" that the folks that made a kernel driver for the CueCat really comitted--what really freaked out the CueCat suits out-- was that they pried loose control of the valuable marketing information that CueCat is capturing and sending back to the CueCat servers. I think we should be watching very carefully to see what kind of things start showing up in that data stream...especially since I bet the "official" client software is quite capable of silently updating itself to do whatever the suits want it to.
-=Maggie Leber=-
But wait, I thought no contract could take away rights. E.g., I can't sign a contract that takes away my right to free speech for some amount of money. Likewise, if reverse engineering was a "right", then no contract could prevent me from, say, buying a product and reverse engineering it. I guess the question is whether reverse engineering is a "right", or just an activity which is not illegal.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
If you're not using their software, they're not snooping on you.
And that's why they're pissed about unauthorized software. If you aren't using their software, they've essentially just given you a free barcode scanner out of the goodness of their hearts. Big corporations aren't much interested in the "goodness of their hearts" angle. They're pissed that people are writing software that does an end run around their cute little information gathering device. It all boils down to the fact that they don't think you should be allowed to use their hardware without using their software.
rip it apart and tinker with it at my discretion. I think that's my right as a consumer.
/. to the effect of "consumers
have wallets; citizens have rights." Too many
people use "consumer" where they should be using
something like "citizen". It plays right into the
mentality of people like the MPAA, RIAA, and IP
sharks/lawyers. It's subtle, but it's one of the
little things that got us to the place where this
stupid barcode thing is even an issue.
I saw a sig here on
I'll bet most of us said "no." Now, while we might very well support the writers of that code, The suits at digital convergence shouldn't feel free to lump us all together as offenders. That lends itself to more anti-Linux FUD by the mainstream press who get ahold of this letter. I mean, imagine an article quoting this letter that said "Digital Convergence is upset by the actions of the Linux community..." instead of "Digital convergence is upset by the actions of several programmers..."
It's not that I think we should leave these guys high and dry; I think they deserve our support. But at the same time we must force Digital Convergence to say what they mean and not toss stereotypes around.
Barcodes are designed to be read left-to-right OR right-to-left. You obviously can't read them top-to-bottom!
The reading is based on the timing of white-and-black, and assumed that the bars are passing by the reader at a reasonably consistent speed. Thus, it doesn't make a lot of difference how fast or slow you scan, as long as you're within the limits of the scanning device's tolerance.
I really doubt there's a whole lot of innovation in the scanner itself. Barcode-reading technology is pretty advanced, with a lot of much bigger fish looking for an edge: NCR is far more likely to have the next big advance than some backwaters wannabe startup.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
IP was reffering to Intellectual Property.
Though from what I have read, that is not exactly what happened.
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
From my personal use of the CueCat with version 0.0.4 of the kernel driver (/dev/cuecat is so awesome :), I'm thinking that their "5 years" of development was in making the processor in the CueCat itself. If you take your CueCat and scan something, you'll notice that you can scan forwards, backwards, sideways, upside-down, flipped to the right, to the left, and so forth. All of these methods work really well, and that obviously took a _lot_ of talent, IMHO.
;)
However, the only thing that the Linux community has "hacked" is the communication protocol, _not_ the CueCat's microprocessor! If someone did hack it and publish the lithograph diagrams, for instance, then that would be a different matter entirely in my opinion. The Linux driver and the source code fits just the communication protocol, which any company out there could have easily come up with (who knows, perhaps some other devices already use that same protocol!).
Just my $0.02
The requirement under trade secret law (you're looking for the word "tenet", not "tenant") is that you KEEP IT A SECRET, not that you send out threatening letters or file lawsuits. By definition, nothing that's present in a device you send out to millions of customers is a secret, so there is no claim under trade secret law.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
What are you trying to sell?
If you're product is a hardware product, then your IP is the hardware, you should do everything you can to sell more of your hardware.
If you think you're product is a software product, you're probably fooling yourself. I doubt the hardware is 'insignificant' to your business.
Lastly, if you think you're both, then you have a long-hard road infront of you, especially if you can't provide for all who want it when you want it.
Apple tried to do that with the original MACs, and they're still paying for it (I won't even talk about Quicktime)... IBM tried to do it with their MicroChannel Bus: Even IBM doens't use it in their PC's anymore. Soundblaster is still trying to do it (try getting their sound driver for the 2.2.17 kernel..), and I don't use their card because of it....
If you produce something, do EVERYTHING you can to sell it, and if you can't do something, whatever you do, don't stop someone ELSE from doing it!
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
This isn't about drivers, or Linux, or IP, or any of that. Their business is collecting data on the online habits of individual users and selling that data to the highest bidder. Failure to use their proprietary Windows drivers breaks their business model. Boo hoo.
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
In order to sue under DMCA, the suit will have to be brought by the owners of the copyrighted content. So if I scan the barcode on a can of Spam, then Hormel is the one that is going to have to sue me under DMCA. Digital Convergence doesn't have any arguments under DMCA. That's why MPAA (not DVDCCA) had to bring the DMCA suit against 2600. (This is based on the assumption that MPAA represents everyone who uses CSS. I would like to see that proved false, some day.)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Their business model is one I support, and one that I could see growing quite quickly - the one where you give people some physical thing that ties them to the service that pays for it. I don't think that it's a bad business model - but it needs legal protection because it would be very easy to destroy it.
It's like their renting you the device, not giving it to you - the price of the rental is that you pay them for it's use.
I think it would be cool if my Mom got a "free" device that would let her read Email and do basic Web stuff, even if it had a great big ad across the bottom (FreePC style). I for one don't want to see the business model that would permit that to happen, be destroyed.
IMHO if their license says don't reverse engineer the device, then pretend it didn't exist. I don't think it's your right to destroy their business.
Oh, and trying to say that this device isn't their business (that their business is the website and their services) is drawing attention away from the fact that, say, if someone were to write a handy Open Source app that let you take the ISBNs off your books and create a cool catalog of your home library or CD collection, suddenly they could have a million people wanting their "free" device. Oops.. now they can't give it away. Sure, the device isn't their business, but it's a vital (and vulnerable) part.
As for the Adaptec's and DVD-ROM drives of the world, well, that's a wholly different argument because they CHARGE for the hardware. They made their money up-front.
- Steve
It already has legal protection; they simply chose not to use it.
The legal protection is contract law. Make the customer sign a contract that explicitly states what is required by the customer, states what uses are permitted, and states that using their product in conjunction with competitor's products is prohibited.
Digital Convergance, the companies that sell DVD movies, the makers of the iOpener, and countless other businesses won't do this, of course, because they don't want the customer to be aware of the terms prior to the sale. They know that people will refuse if they know what they are getting into. Well, that's dishonest and deceptive, and I won't fucking tolerate it.
(Another reason they won't put these contracts up front is that there are anti-trust laws against it. But I would favor the repeal of these anti-trust laws if consumers were informed up-front about their (lack of) rights. Buy a DVD, sign an agreement that you will only play it on a DVDCCA-licensed player. Take a free CueCat, sign an agreement that you will send everything that you scan to their server, along with the CueCat's serial number which was also scanned at Radio Shack and linked to your name and address. Buy Microsoft Windows, sign an agreement that you will only run Microsoft apps on it. Make these ridiculous "agreements" explicit and let the market embrace them (*snicker*) or wipe them out. And if there's no contract, then there's no restrictions beyond the "default" restrictions state by, for example, copyright law.)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
...has nothing to do with IP or any other crap like that.
It seems pretty clear to me that this company is all about collecting personal information about you. Now, we're used to companies like Doubleclick et al. using various schemes to figure out where you browse, and generate models of your on-line behaviors automatically. But the CueCat thing is designed so that they can find out about things in the real world, too. They WANT you to scan things in your house (books, products, magazines, TV shows, etc), and when you do, their software does a quick lookup for you, and gives you the shovelware connected to whatever it is.
But it ALSO remembers who scanned what, and they can generate a much more impressive profile of you as a consumer: what do you watch, what magazines are you reading, what books do you have, etc. And I'll bet that THAT's what their business model is all about---more invasive consumer profiling.
And THAT's why they can't tolerate the Linux drivers which don't do the lookup through their servers---because they don't let them form that profile. They've probably calculated their (hugely expensive) giveaway scheme to give a particular rate of data generation through their servers, and if they don't get that, then their business model is shot to hell. Of COURSE they're going to try to prevent people from getting around their software: every person using the Linux driver is the same as a reader thrown away to them. So I'm sure that if a developer tried to work with them, they'd spend a lot of effort urging them to direct all connections through the Digital Convergance servers.
My father-in-law gave me his reader (which some magazine helpfully mailed him), and I was going to use it under Linux, but I've changed my mind. If I want a barcode reader, I'll go buy one that's free of this kind of crap.
Happy Premise #3: Even though I feel like I might ignite, I probably won't.
*Note* I haven't followed this closely, so if someone has an answer, feel free to reply.
What is so special about this barcode reader. I mean other then the fact that it is free? There are many MANY point-of-sale places that sell barcode readers rather inexpensively.
What is the "driver" situation? Most barcodes readers are just a keyboard wedge device that just emulates the keyboard. The decoding of bar codes is done in the reader itself, not the drivers. That is, unless this one is like a "winbarcode reader". In which case, I wouldn't touch it with a 40 foot poll anyways.
Again, if I'm just talking out of my ass, reply and tell me what the big deal is with THIS reader. That is, other then it's free.
A bar code reader with obfuscated output no harder to figure out than a secret decoder ring? THAT's IP these days? Fine, I claim uuencoded rot14 encoded text to be my increadibly earth shatteringly important, gen-U-Ine rocket science type intellectual property.
More seriously, bar code readers are NOT any sort of rocket science these days. There's really nothing worth protecting as far as reading the output goes. Knowing how to read it's output doesn't tell anyone anything about the reader that they couldn't easily guess with 100% accuracy without even looking at the thing. The less information that is available about communicating with hardware, the less valuable it is.
As for the free source helping MS out, the fact that they have programmers capable of making Windows even get through the boot process tells me that they could SURELY have figured the simple obfuscator out with no help from the Open Source/GPL community. It's REALLY that simple. I even said to my wife a few days ago that something like that would be GREAT for a High School or edvanced elementery school math class. It's challenging enough but attainable for students at that level. (I'm not a teacher, It was just an idle morning coffee sort of thought).
By referring to that as valuable IP, Mr. Davis is effectively wandering around at an international grand master's chess competition talking about the mind numbingly complex strategies and logic involved in Tic-Tac-Toe. The funny sound in the background is raucous laughter.
but trying to get the "hackers" and such to WORK WITH US AND NOT EXPOSE US and destroy over 5 years of hard work by a group of "geeks, hackers and techno-whizzes" like each of you!
Small hint: sending a nastygram from a horde of lawyers is NOT a good way to open that dialog. Some people have found that 'Can we sit down and discuss this' is a lot meor effective than 'Listen here palley or we bust your kneecaps'
There IS SOME innovative thinking going on with the CueCat. Having a server that allows the user to scan catalog barcodes and be taken to the product page is possably a good idea. I would suggest working to protect that rather than the simply obfuscated standard hardware. The real objective is to have the consumers out there using the CueCat and Digital Convergance servers to scan catalog items. Make sure that those servers are reliable and their databases are extensive. Perhaps even add additional information that's otherwise hard to find. Make sure that when a retailer wants that feature for their catalog that they sign up with Digital Convergance for that service. So what if a few geeks use the CueCat as a general purpose barcode reader, as long as they use your server when they want to look up an item in a catalog!
A final point, I realise that Radio Shack is not the geek haven it once was, but REALLY! Of all of the retailers to work with SURELY Radio Shack was one of the MOST LIKELY ones to have customers who could and would figure it out and further, consider doing so a moral imperitive as well as a fun way to waste an hour or two on the weekend! If you show off your cool new car at an auto mechanics convention, expect the hood to be raised!
what commander taco is doing is childish and disrespectful to slashdot readers and the guy who wrote the letter. instead of allowing slashdot readers to read the letter and form their own opinions on what is being said, taco is forcing his own opinions down everybodies throats. as a reporter, taco should adopt a degree of professionalism and limit his comments to short remarks. everything beyond that belongs in the comments section -- even for taco. he is no more qualified to refute the letter than an ac like me. if taco wanted to discredit the letter at the time of the post he should have gotten a lawyer to do the commenting. or at least somebody who is involved in the cuecat ordeal like one of the guys who wrote a linux driver for the thing. i'm not saying that i agree with the cuecat guy. i just think it's a shame that slashdot would demonstrate such unprofessionalism. in a way, taco's behavior discredits the entire slashdot community because it indicates a biased and closed mindset.
GM better sue my friend, he is using the trunk of his car to store clothes because he has live out of his car 2-3 days a week.
Dammit they better sue me too. I once used a GM car as a chair at a Drive-In Theater
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
So maybe the precious IP they are defending is not XOR, but their business model.
It's IP only if it's patented. Have they patented it? I see no indication of it. While it may be smart to nip competition in the bud if you can, it is completely disingenuous (ie a LIE) to tell people to stop writing code because it breaks the law. Liars who make empty threats about lawyers are no better in my book than thugs who make empty threats about guns.
Then again, their statement really did invite a response. I mean, they could have at least contacted Grammar Nazi for an edit...
sulli
RTFJ.
I walk into radio shack and say "gimmee"...I'm handed a plastic bag containing a scanner, a CD, and misc paperwork. I throw away everything but the scanner and happily begin scanning my cereal boxes, cds, and books.
What license did I agree to that I am now violating??
I recently bought a small Playschool (TM) plastic toy for my son in which plastic shapes such as squares, triangles, cylinders and stars are inserted through identically shaped holes in a small plastic ball. Since my son is 7 mo. old and cannot yet walk, he was missing the square piece, which was on my dresser. Being a smart lad, and not much given to griping to his local distributor (me) he forwent the proper channels and produced some wooden alphabet blocks which were lying nearby and, with a squeal of triumph to let me know of his accomplishment, promptly inserted all of the blocks into the toy.
I stood there in terror, knowing that his actions had just made me liable under US Law, for he had just contrived his very own solution to a problem at hand!
I now nervously await my cease and desist letter.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
So wait... They're bitching about us hacking a driver for it, when they themselves use Open Source tools like Apache and mod_perl? Hmmm, that's like biting the hand that feeds you, no?
Doug Davis,
2 11) sent by you and just had a couple of comments to make.
:CueCat people have reverse-engineered and built are Digital:Convergence's intellectual property. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
:CueCat device. You yourself mention that they are reverse-engineered implementations in your response, implying that you do not believe that they are copies of Digital:Convergence's own code. This means that they are the IP of their individual authors, not of Digital:Convergence.
I have just read the response sent to slashdot (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/09/05/0548
First of all, you seem to be under the impression that the drivers and decoders for the
The code and drivers that Digital:Convergence wrote are their IP, granted. And if anyone was to copy that code and claim it as their own, that would indeed be copyright infringement.
However, all the drivers and decoders I have seen claim to be reimplementations, reverse-engineered from the output of the
Secondly, (in case you are confronted with a case of copyright infringement in the future) the 'Enforce it or lose it' principle with regard to IP is only applicable to trademarks. Copyright (which covers computer code) does not come under this rule. Copyright owners can choose not to prosecute some infringers, and lose no rights when it comes to prosecuting others. (It is in fact the cornerstone of one of GNU/Linux's foundations - the Free Software Foundation's General Public License (GPL))
Hope that this helps with Digital:Convergence's position on this subject.
Adam Spragg.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
I have a curent and very real need for this. a friend is setting up a bar and wants to give out "Membership cards" with a barcode on them. there are lots of barcode programs out there for database tracking, and a free scanner seemed like a good idea. it's silly to think we could be sued for trying to make this setup work. could I be sued for screwing a lightbulb into a celing fan instead of a "lightbulb manufacturer aproved socket"? Incidentaly, if anyone has some code laying around that would make the barcode database thing work.....
Dirty Pirate Hooker
Try my web page :-)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
/************************************************* *****************************
:Cue:Cat (tm) Reader decoding program. *
* ****************************/
/* Ring the bell. */
/* Ripped from mmencode. Used with permission. */
/* Copyright (c) 1991 Bell Communications Research, Inc. (Bellcore) */
/* Upper and lowercase are swapped from mmencode. */
/* Used as three byte integer. */
/* Pad short runs. */
/* XOR with "ccc". */
*
* Copyright (C) 2000 Hal Duston *
* *
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify *
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by *
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or *
* (at your option) any later version. *
* *
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, *
* but WITHOUT ANT WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of *
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the *
* GNU General Public License at http://www.fsf.org/ for more details. *
* *
*************************************************
#include <unistd.h>
int main(int argc, char *arg[]);
static ssize_t decode(char *outbuf, const char *inbuf);
int main(int argc, char *arg[])
{
char inbuf[512];
char outbuf[512];
ssize_t len;
while((len = read(STDIN_FILENO, inbuf, sizeof(inbuf))) != 0)
{
inbuf[len] = '\0';
len = decode(outbuf, inbuf);
outbuf[len++] = 7;
write(STDOUT_FILENO, outbuf, len);
}
_exit(0);
return 0;
}
static ssize_t decode(char *outbuf, const char *inbuf)
{
static int index_64[128] =
{
-1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1
-1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1
-1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, 62, -1, -1, -1, 63
52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1
-1, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1
-1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1
};
static char pad_64[4] = { 0x10, 0x34, 0x0d, 0x03 };
const char *inptr = inbuf;
char *outptr = outbuf;
int ch = *inptr++;
long n;
int i;
while(ch != '\0')
{
if(index_64[ch] < 0)
{
*outptr++ = ch;
ch = *inptr++;
}
else
{
n = 0;
for(i = 0; i < 4; ++i)
{
if(index_64[ch] < 0)
{
n = n << 6 | pad_64[i];
}
else
{
n = n << 6 | index_64[ch];
ch = *inptr++;
}
}
n ^ = 0x434343;
*outptr++ = (n >> 16) ? (n >> 16) : '\0';
*outptr++ = (n >> 8 & 0xff) ? (n >> 8 & 0xff) : '\0';
*outptr++ = (n & 0xff) ? (n & 0xff) : '\0';
}
}
return outptr - outbuf;
}
I don't know if it's totally clear but what that PR rep had to say is a complete work of fiction. There's literally no truth in it. Let me count the ways:
... or lose it" they're lying.
... or lose it".
-- nothing done with the Cuecat was illegal
-- there's no IP for the Cuecat people to defend - identify it! I dare you! "By posting our IP to the net" my ass!
-- there's no such thing as "Defend it or lose it" under IP law. If 200 people rip off MS Windows and MS prosecutes 2 of them, there's no such defense as "Well, your honor, MS didn't prosecute the other 198 people..." This is a MASSIVE LIE made up by companies who want to shift responsibility. ANYTIME you see a company say "We had to
-- That whole third paragraph about the linux community helping Microsoft is hogwash.
-- there aren't any illegal posting efforts
-- if it took them five years to develop a BARCODE SCANNER which MUNGES the normal output in a trivial manner before outputting it, I am a Great Horned Antelope. I'm not? Well then I guess they're lying again. I talked to a friend of mine at Symbol, and Digital Convergance approached them to make this device earlier this year. (Symbol didn't end up making it.) Their company has been in existence less than one year. Symbol could make a run of these for you in a few months.
And what I really hate is that the lies are so pervasive that they end up shaping the whole debate. People can only see past a certain limited number of lies at a time. So they'll catch a few, but then they'll accept the bigger lies like "We had to
Random thought to any company executives who happen to be reading this: you know, if you truly wanted [your company] to be a radical, different company, try this on for size. Fire any and all PR people. Just fire them. Don't hire any more. Ever. If there's a story where you have to talk to the press, let one of the principals do it - the guy who programmed that feature, or whatever. No matter how big the company gets, DON'T EMPLOY TRAINED LIARS TO DEFEND IT. Because that's what a PR person is - someone trained in the art of creating believable lies day in and day out. People catch on to this, believe it or not, even though it's a very slippery thing to catch on to, and they end up with (at a minimum) a vague distrust of that company, because they know they're being lied to but can't quite figure out exactly where. It's the reason Microsoft has such a bad reputation. If VA or Red Hat or anyone else truly wanted to break the mold, they would abandon the institutionalized lying. This would prevent that distrust from building, as well as keeping the company on the straight and narrow - without a wall of lying to protect them, the company execs get good feedback whenever they're doing something wrong.
I think the first company to do this has the potential of being a very different, much more
people-friendly company than we've seen in the past.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Not the same thing at all. I don't recall being presented with any sort of 'license' for the cuecat.
Besides.. unlike *software*, the transfer of material goods has VERY LONG STANDING basis in law.
If they said 'here's your free cuecat' and didn't give you any contract to sign.. THEY GAVE YOU THE HARDWARE.
Software is a different matter altogether.
If someone did what you said with our GPL code, we would go ape shit because they *illegally* broke the license.
All too often, I cringe when I see the open-source community make 'excuses' as to why they do what they do.
For instance, the DECSS thing. Everyone says 'we did it to make a fre eplayer for linux'. Bullshit. It was done simply because it was possible.
And before someone tears me a new one for saying this, please realizet hat what I'm saying is you shouldn't NEED an excuse to reverse-engineer stuff. YOu don't NEED a noble purpose; it's your RIGHT to rip stuff apart and figure out how it works!
Saying 'oh but I just wanted to make a free player' or 'but htere is no linux version of the cuecat and I wanted to make one' is just FEEBLE! Stand up for the truth.. the fact that you did it because IT IS YOUR RIGHT.
I wasn't discussing at all whether something is legal or not. I was argueing the pointlessness of comparing the time to developing the entire product (claimed to be 5 years) with the reverse engineering of the "open software hackers" (claimed to be a few days or weeks).
Your entire posting is irrelevant in that respect.
-- Abigail
OK, So I've got my new barcode reader, and I've got the drivers for my barcode reader in ...uh...barcode format. All I have to do is ...uh, read the barcodes with ...uh... my barcode reader and....uh...Oh Crap!
Instead, our products were reversed engineered and what has occurred is a public display of what is clearly our intellectual property.
If your "intellectual property" is a trade secret, then "it ain't secret no more". Bummer for you, but under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) adopted by 40 states, reverse engineering is not an "improper means" for appropriation of a trade secret. Perhaps you guys are confused about your rights under the law? What exactly do you believe created a "duty to maintain its secrecy"? If you think that it was the purchase of your product alone, then you are living in a fantasy world.
If your "intellectual property" is a copyright, then you are way out on a limb, since copyright does not protect facts or ideas, but only the particular expression of them, and even then only if the fact/idea does not "merge" with it's expression.
If your "intellectual property" is a patent, then it's already disclosed (that is a requirement for getting a patent), so I doubt you should be worried about "public display". This is really the only form of IP where you might have a case.
Under IP law if we don't PROTECT our IP, we loose any remedies under law to PROTECT our IP.
I challenge any attorney out there to support this with case law. I have consulted with IP attorneys on this very matter and have been told that, except for trademarks, this is totally false. IANAL, so I could be wrong, but I doubt it. If you ARE a lawyer, and I'm wrong, please point to freely-available references justifying your opinion.
Given that the above-quoted statement is false, we have two (and ONLY two) choices.
1. Doug Davis is STUPID.
a. He is NAL, and he either makes statements about legal principles without consulting AL, or he consults STUPID L and believes them.
b. He is AL and should know better.
2. Doug Davis is a LIAR. He knows what he says is wrong, and says it anyway.
Again, if I'm wrong about my premise, please correct me in this forum.
If we have drivers to read the protocol from the scanner, and understand how to go from scanned code to their web ads we can increase the level of noise in the system arbitrarily:
- collect code/url pairs in an open database (as many as we can get our hands on)
- write a user app that allow you to specify how many random code/url pairs to use when browsing an ad
- have that app get those url's
Example: I want to use the :::::::Q:Cat::: to get info on the new Widget. I fire up the software, specify "50", scan the widget and the software starts doing HTTP Gets to 50 random coded URL's, and the one URL I'm really interested in. The random ones go into the bit bucket, the one I'm interested in gets send to a browser (to do it right you'd have to make the User-Agent string look like your browser, etc.). The ::: folks see a stream of 51 requests with no correlation whatsoever and can't do anything useful with the information.
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
They don't get to trample on our rights to explore technical problems and discuss our solutions, in order to feed their dogs. Their threatening legal tactics are no different than those of the MPAA in the DeCSS case. The fact that they're a small company is no excuse - indeed, it means that every person there holds more responsibility for the actions of the company, not less.
Note the vauge references to "intellectual property". What do they mean? Was copyright violated? Was a patent broken? Was a trademark violated? Taking something apart to see how it works, and describing your findings to others, is not a violation of any legitimate law. (The DMCA is illegitmate and unconstitutional, and its architects and supporters need to be cleansed via the flaying and boiling ritual described above.) Oh, and to my knowledge (IANAL) only trademarks need to be defended with vigor to be recognized; patent and copyright holders can be more lenient and still retain their legal rights.
So: fsck 'em if they can't take a hack.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I don't think the real problem is IP. If it was, then it would be a fairly clear-cut problem. As far as I can tell, all cue-cat is is a barcode reader which returns a universal ID number-- which is then sent in software to the company, which then forwards the computer's browser to a web page.
That's it.
So which pieces are genuine IP, and which are Business Model Legal Defense? The former, I think, represents hard work which they have a right to hold onto. The latter represents them using lawyers to try to force people to not take advantage of their business model.
I don't see much of a market for this scanner-- I guess that's their main problem. Trying to put one in everyone's hands might work, but more likely, people will think "great, one more piece of crap to plug into my machine". I-openers are at least great products which have obvious and well-addressed market openings. The guys at CueCat just seem like they are reaching. I haven't seen their product, but if my understanding of their system is right, then it is underwhelming no matter how well implemented it is.
Then the question becomes, what IP are they defending? The ability to read barcodes? To do so by hand-held scanners? Or to link codes to webpages? Except for the latter, all are pretty commonly in use. And the last, well, they can have that technology, as far as I am concerned.
This is a non-obvious, novel use for a scanner. So I do think they have some genuine IP here-- though none in the hardware driving department, which seems to be what they are complaining about. As for links to Amazon, etc, well, my opinion is that it is IP, but pretty pathetic, worthless IP. Good example of how even bad ideas can be IP if they meet the requirements.
There have been a lot of comments here asserting that DC's legal argument is bull, that while you can patent a device, you can't patent a device driver or a device driving technique. As legal advice, this is flat-out wrong. While you may argue that such a patent law is, philosophically, a poor idea, or that a business strategy based on such a law is, financially, a bad idea, the law as it is very clearly protects such a strategy. Which is why any driver hacker who bothered to call his lawyer complied with DC's demands.
A patent protects a method which:
i) is new and non-trivial
ii) does something concievably useful
iii) works
It says that the patent holder that method.
It doesn't matter that you came up with the idea independently, mined the resources and built the device with your own hands, and wrote the code with your own two eyes and ten fingers. You may be just using the laws of physics but if you don't have the patent-holder's permission, you are breaking the laws of manon, and he will not hesitate to put you behind very physical bars for doing so.
---- ----
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
I am significantly underwhelemed by Mr. Davis rant. The poor spelling,poor grammar and general tone of "you darn kids!" almost makes me laugh. Did you proof-read your statement at all or did you just expect your bar-code reader to do the work for you? I saw "Something About Mary" last week and remember the scene when the lunatic in Ben Stiller's car starts going off, "No man, it's 6! 6-minute Abs!" when Ben calmly explains than somebody else could just as easily come up with "5-minute Abs" and he comes unglued. Mr. Davis sounds a lot more like this in his letter than he does a serious businessman. But, as always, That's Just Me. RK
Ok, this is the reason Digital Convergence is upset. DC makes their money selling codes at about $50/each to advertisers in different media. The consumer sees an ad, swipes the code. The driver software sends the code request to a MySQL database that interprets the code into a URL, after intercepting the user's unique ID code.
The reason DC is able to make money is not because they can move you to the site easily with the bar code scanner, it's because they can autmatically track the demographics of users who swipe codes.
DC has set up a completely seperate company called Digital Demographics to handle this. This is where the money really is.
Homegrown drivers that don't require the user to sign up and let their demographic pants down would obviously scare DC.
Also, the DC codes system is proprietary. The CueCats can read normal bar codes, but only CueCats can read DC codes. Figure it out for yourself.
1. Each device has a unique serial number. You can see this number spit out with the perl decoder available on the net. (I will not post link, for fear of having author harassed) This RISK needs no explanation.
2. Their database depends on customer contributions, just like CDDB does. They clearly state that the submissions become the sole property of them. (In case you were thinking about polluting the database in protest, as I did, it appears that the submissions are queued up and reviewed by humans.)
I'm also annoyed that the damned device has no off switch or a cover for the scanner LED. My computer desk now gives off an eerie red glow at night unless I cover up the ugly cat-shaped device.
Still, I can't see they have any hope of defending this. AFAIK, there are no patents on the absurd encoding scheme they use. They gave away the hardware (I will not be bound by a shrink-wrap click/through license on hardware!). And now now they're bitching that someone can potentially built a better mouse trap.
I'm not angry with this company, really. It's more like pity for dreaming up such a poor business model. I hope the employees are looking for other jobs, as these folks won't be around much longer, IMHO.
I didn't agree to any license on their device. That's the issue here. They messed up and didn't put a license on the package, you only saw it if you installed the Windows software. I never installed that software, and I'm sure many others here haven't.
yeah..um...at 5 bucks a pop to create i dont think they are loosing close to what the "hacker community" cost netpliance. Considering I hosted and wrote for the largest i-opener related website, hosted and wrote the windows/dos ports for the qnx decryption program and not one person came after me or anyone involved (in the legal sense). why? cause they never signed a legal contract, like in this they never forced you to agree to any ToS or agreement. IF they tried to sue they would have no leg to stand on. (IANAL, just experience with "h4xx0r community" and "l33t" free toys)
Almost, except for the credit clause in older BSD licenses... Don't they have to give credit, or is this only if they claim they're using the BSD code?
Code licensed under any BSD-style license (even the BSDL 2.0 without the advertising clause) requires the original software's copyright notice (© Regents of UC Berkeley or something like that) to be inserted in the documentation. More BSD copyright information can be found at FreeBSD.org.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I think its time to change the law to say that ALL contracts of ALL types are required to be signed contracts....get rid of this shrink-wrap bull shit.
Sounds great, but that might make it harder for corps to make money, therefore it will not happen. People are, in general, too ignorant about things such as IP, the DMCA, UCITA, etc. Do you hear the presidential candidate talking about such things? Nope. I did some searches at vote-smart.org on the speeches that they've given, and can hardly find any mention of intellectual property issues, except for a couple comments where they say they support strong protection of corps' IP. Since nobody talks about this stuff and the media has a vested interest in avoiding the subject as much as possible, nothing is likely to change.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Under IP law if we don't PROTECT our IP, we loose any remedies under law to PROTECT our IP.
WHY DO PEOPLE THINK THIS!?!?!
If you don't protect your trademarks Then you loose them. You do not loose patents, and you do not loose copyrights! I don't know what the hell kind of IP Digital:convergence thought they had, (or why it took them five years to make a barcode reader...) but it sure as hell wasn't a trademark, you didn't see these hackers using their l33t-4ss colon. did you?
There is no such thing as 'IP-laws', rather IP law referes to the laws governing patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Patents and copyrights are similar, but don't really have anything to do with trademarks.
and you never loose rights to the patent or copyright untill it exspires.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Because, you see, every major automaker, every year, goes out and purchases one of each of the competitor's products, tears it down, analyzes it, and publishes (internally) a report on what was found.
:)
Any good idea (that isn't patented or legally protected) will be taken note of, and may find its way into a future project. Any bad idea or poor tradeoff will be laughed at.
There is a very long history of "reverse engineering" in the nuts and bolts world. The software world should expect no less.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
I've set up a mailing list. Pierre and some of the other developers of the kernel/userspace apps for the CueCat are already on it. If you're interested:
mailto: majordomo@quantumlinux.com
body: subscribe barcode
--
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
25: ten.knilrevlis@wkcuhc
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*