Digital Convergence Likes Hackers (?)

sconeu writes "Wired News has this article wherein they claim that they like hackers, and that the whole thing is overblown. It says that 'Doug Davis, Digital Convergence's CTO, said he applauds the hackers' ingenuity and 'chuckles' at some of the ideas they have dreamed up.' " Meanwhile, driver sites remain offline and software writers continue to be threatened. That's how much they like it. C'mon, guys.

Comments

First WFAA, now Wired...(ethics problem)

[satch89450]

First off, I write for a living, mostly non-fiction for magazines and the odd book now and then. I started as a reviewer in 1984. I started off as an embedded-systems programmer, and still write benchmarks and other programs for reviewing purposes...and to have fun.

The golden rule of journalism: Keep business out of editorial--there should be a high wall between your reporters and your advertising salesmen.

According to the Dallas Observer, CueCat partner Dallas TV station WFAA didn't observe that rule when extolling the virtues of the CueCat during an advertising spree during the editorial portion of three nightly newscasts. The Dallas Morning News, another CueCat partner, reportedly did a story that wasn't as balanced as it should be, either. And now Wired has weighed in editorially with a story that was missing more than it said -- another CueCat partner speaking editorially.

Now I don't see WFAA-TV, and I don't read any Dallas newspaper if I can help it.

I expect better of Wired, which is one reason I have offered to write a rebuttal article for that magazine, one that covers the story from the view of the hackers that Digital Convergence seems to so love now. Just because it would be a rebuttal article doesn't mean that I can dispense with fairness and balance -- but the story will cover all aspects, not just those aspects that puts Digital Convergence in the best light.

If you want to see that story written, let Wired know about it. My credentials: hardware reviewer since 1984 for the likes of InfoWorld, Byte, Federal Computer Week, The Net, and other publications. Perhaps my best qualification can be found on this page that describes how I tried to let Digital Convergence provide input to an article I did for Planet IT.

More importantly, I have no ties to Digital Convergence, Inc. other than an interest in their product. After all, like many other people who have commented, I have heard nothing from them when I requested licensing materials a month ago, when the CEO ran the last letter on Slash-dot.

Re:Got a problem wwith Slashdot's editorial commen

[NecroPuppy]

Those cute chimes by CmdrTaco et all are usually bad enough, but they're nothing compared to this gem from Wired:

"The CueCat is a cheapo bar-code scanner that looks like a marital aid and plugs into a computer's keyboard socket."

You know, I was going to hook one of these readers up to some Lego Mindstorms right up until I saw this...

I just can't do it now... I have this sick image of Lego robots trying to mate with each other...

NecroPuppy
---
Godot called. He said he'd be late.

Re:Still available?

[Eil]

I'll be sure to make a trip this weekend. :)

Re:WIRED CYA

[bluephone]

As if "fashion conscious geek" weren't an oxymoron

Umm, believe it or not, there are some of us that don't walk around in black anklepants, white shirt, taped-up horn rimmed glasses, and hair plastered in Brylcreem. And rare geeks like me even shower daily.

Anyone who says "geeks" don't care about looks is a liar. Technical points aside, a flat screen LCD monotor is just sexy.

Re:That's not how it works...

[mcrandello]

The reason stated in the article is that they sent out "notice of infringement"(whatever the hell that is) letters instead od C&D's because they didn't want to come off all "heavy handed". What a load of tripe. The real reason is that without entering into a contract (e.g. clicking "agree"-thanks UCITA!) there is no obligation on the users part. And without using any of their s/w to create new drivers there is no infringing on anyone's IP.

The best way to let them know is to place a notice on your website that any correspondence asking you to cease activities, and that is *not* a "cease & desist" notice will be considered as harrasment and will be filed for later use, if the need arises. They're bluffing, call them on it and force their hand.

it's mine now, and I'll do what I want

[L-Train8]

"Just because I give you the Cat scanner, it does not immediately give you the right to go into business against me with my own technology," (Digital Convergence CTO Doug) Davis said.

Yes it does. What the hell is the meaning of the word "give". The cuecat you sent me is mine, and I'll do whatever the hell I please with it, including going into business against you. If you didn't want me to be able to do that, you shouldn't have given me the damn thing.

Re:it's mine now, and I'll do what I want

[jms]

I never agreed to any EULA. As a matter of fact, I took explicit measures to NOT be bound to any EULA. I threw the software away. Your cuecat may be on loan, but mine was given to me free. I asked the Radio Shack rep, and he assured me that it was free. U.S. law says that anyone who received an unsolicited cuecat in the mail is the owner of that device. This is crystal clear.

Let's compare this situation to the GPL. Quoting the GPL:

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.

If you do not accept the GPL, then you are bound by ordinary copyright law, which doesn't allow you to distribute copies of the GPLed software without permission from the copyright owner. I could decline to accept the GPL, and as a consequence, I would not be allowed to distribute the software.

In this case, I simply decline to accept the DC EULA. Had I accepted the EULA, then I would be bound by its terms, and I would be agreeing that the cuecat is only on loan. That would be part of the "bargain" between me and DC that would allow me to use their software in conjunction with their hardware.

I choose not to accept that EULA because I don't need or want their software or their restrictive license. I would rather retain full rights to use my cuecat in any way I choose.

My right.

Re:it's mine now, and I'll do what I want

[interiot]

Granted, authors of IP like to place some restrictions on their work, OSS or otherwise. But what DC is doing is "loaning" hardware to people who have an expectation that they own it (because no other freebie is loaned, and because of "fair use") and then not informing them of their obligations. When you get GPL'd code, you know up front that it's GPL'd. ..? .....??
--

Re:it's mine now, and I'll do what I want

[istartedi]

Yes it does. What the hell is the meaning of the word "free". The Linux OS you gave me is mine, and I'll do whatever the hell I please with it, including using it in proprietary applications. If you didn't want me to be able to do that, you shouldn't have given me the source code.

Re:it's mine now, and I'll do what I want

[mOdQuArK!]

Actually, the people who are receiving these things (at least through the mail) don't just have an expectation that they own them - they actually DO own them, according to law.

It doesn't really matter what DC puts in their license agreement - unless the law is changed, those CueCats are the legal property of the people who received them.

Re:it's mine now, and I'll do what I want

[mpe]

But what DC is doing is "loaning" hardware to people who have an expectation that they own it (because no other freebie is loaned, and because of "fair use") and then not informing them of their obligations.

Rather they are claiming to have loaned something they have either given away (the unsolicited ones) or sold (those obtained from RS). The generic term for such behaviour is "fraud".

Re:it's mine now, and I'll do what I want

[jms]

You can ignore the DC license because it only covers the software that you don't have to install.

Simply throw the CD away, and you are not bound by any license.

Very simple.

Re:it's mine now, and I'll do what I want

[jms]

The license is for the software. You don't install the software, you don't accept the license, you aren't bound by the license. Next!

Re:it's mine now, and I'll do what I want

[mindstrm]

Because, doorknob, the Cuecat is not *licensed* it is GIVEN away, and it is HARDWARE.

Nobody is making any claims about the software at all.

Re:it's mine now, and I'll do what I want

[Danse]

I can stick it on a CD-ROM and give it to friends without reading it or even opening the tarball.

Which is perfectly legal if you've agreed to the GPL. Otherwise, it's a violation of copyright law, not the GPL. That's why the GPL should hold up as long as copyright law holds up.

Actually, I'm not entirely clear on whether I have to agree to the GPL to make a copy of RedHat 7 for a friend, or if I only have to agree to it to distribute a modified version. Either way, the above still applies. It just might be less strict than I thought.

Re:it's mine now, and I'll do what I want

[daknapp]

Later on, Davis says:

"People can't expect to take one of our devices and run it through their own engine," he said. "There are boundaries.... It must still do what it was built for,but they can extend its functionality."

He really doesn't get it. The CueCat is &ltCartman&gt mine &lt/Cartman&gt, not his. They gave it to me. I can run its output through whatever I want.

It's the attitude that DC has that they somehow still own the CueCat that really irks me.

Re:it's mine now, and I'll do what I want

[pen]

Actually, you're welcome to sell the GPLed software. You just have to supply the source code if you distribute it (sold or otherwise).

--

Re:it's mine now, and I'll do what I want

[WNight]

Try running that through a more accurate translation...

"The program I compiled from GPL'ed source is mine, not his. They gave me the source to use for that purpose. I can sell the output to whoever I want."

That's more accurate.

Your translation would have been appropriate if people had been reverse engineering the CueCat and selling the schematics to other companies who were building CueCats.

But to just use that CueCat that you legally own, to scan whatever you want, and have those scans recorded or processed in whatever way you want, is the same as using GIMP to make an image and selling the image, or using Linux to run a web server and selling web space.

Now, if people were downloading CueCat software from a webpage after clicking 'I Agree' to a click-through on the page, then modifying and distributing that software, that would be a violation akin to redistributing something that was GPLed without the source code.

btw, I tried not to be pedantic in answering your question because I knew you meant "How would you feel if they turned this around on you" and just picked an example, but... you are allowed to sell GPLed software, or source code, without having to pay the author any royalties. That's what RedHat does. You're just forced to distribute it in certain ways, if you choose to distribute it. (If you use it yourself, the GPL is moot, because you're not copying it...)

Re:Who cares?

[sheldon]

How are my consumer rights being eroded? I don't have a CueCat and don't plan on obtaining one... I really see no value in what they are offering as a service and fully suspect the idea will die of it's own accord. Besides, what kind of interoperability do you need with this device to foster competition? All it does is scan barcodes, that is easily accomplished with any number of other competing bar code scanners. You're wasting your time on this issue, it's not important.

Re:Diplomacy

[Bilestoad]

Journalism is the art of reworking three or four stories ad infinitum while ignoring the endless stream of new submissions.

This century, Microsoft will be a featured /. topic.
This month, we feature CueCat
This week we'll cover X-box.

(and we promise not to miss even the most trivial of GPL violations. Hypocrites? No! _Our_ licenses are inviolable. CueCat wanted to be free.)

Re:Who cares?

[sheldon]

If you need a bar code scanner, the inconvenience of buying one for $100-200 is that great? What happens if you need a printer, do you spend $99 or do you wait until someone gives one away for free?

Or are you just so enthralled with being able to look up books you already own on Amazon.com by swiping in the bar code off them?

Ohhhhh.... Ahhhhh... I'm so excited.

You're absolutely right, the Digital Convergence business plan is seriously flawed and offers nothing that anybody needs or wants.

I still don't see the point of all of this. I don't have a CueCat, don't want a CueCat, don't need a CueCat and do not intend to obtain a CueCat.

The only inconvenience to my life the CueCat represents is reading a bunch of temper tantrums thrown by children on slashdot.org.

intellectual property

[necrognome]

note to friends:
when digital convergence finally wises up and builds a business model based on intelligent uses of the CueCat: (you know, the ones that you came up with), sue them for stealing your "intellectual property."

for fun and excitement visit
www.fear.com

I sent the following to Mr. Davis

[rlk]

While I don't even own a 'Cat, I've finally gotten curious enough about this mishegoss to fire off a note about it.

From: Robert L Krawitz <rlk@alum.mit.edu>
To: ddavis@digitalconvergence.com
Subject: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,39139-2,0 0.html
--text follows this line--
Mr. Davis, you are quoted as stating

"Just because I give you the Cat scanner, it does not immediately give
you the right to go into business against me with my own technology,"
Davis said. "We have an intended use for it."

I, along with many others, am curious as to precisely what legal
theory gives you the right to forbid people from making any use they
please of this device. Your intentions notwithstanding, when you mail
someone an item unsolicited it's theirs to keep and use as they
please, and when Radio Shack "sells" people these devices it is
represented as a sale, not a lease or any other kind of transaction.

You haven't (to the best of my knowledge) claimed any patent on the
device (much less one that would forbid someone from actually *using*
it in any way), and copyright on the software is also irrelevant
because the people using it in ways you have not intended are not
making any use of your provided software. Indeed, the most recent
work involves bypassing the firmware altogether, if somehow that could
be considered an issue. Trademark violations are not an issue if
people do not use your trademark, either. To the best of my (lay)
knowledge, those are the only kinds of IP extant. The device itself
is physical property.

I believe that a lot of people would like clarification on this
matter. I would myself, as it might actually be worth my time to stop
off at Radio Shack to pick one up to use to scan barcodes for assorted
purposes.

Sincerely,

Robert Krawitz

Re:Got a problem wwith Slashdot's editorial commen

[Black Parrot]

> "The CueCat is a cheapo bar-code scanner that looks like a marital aid and plugs into a computer's keyboard socket."

What happens when the keyboard comes home unexpectedly?

--

On a different note...

[skoda]

While I concur with the majority opinion that Mr. Davis doesn't seem to understand what "give" means (someone email him http://dictionary.com), I thought there were some other amusing bits, as well:

"The Uscan project...has already made it possible to scan a book and automatically shop for the best price among 40 online booksellers."
If you have the book to scan, why would you need to price it?

"Thanks to its built-in encryption, the CueCat could become a secure computer passcard reader. Instead of logging on with a username and password, a bar code is scanned before access is granted to a machine."
This is worth repeating. Everyone take a moment to chuckle.

"Indeed, Davis said the company has always planned to add extra functions, such as shopping or package tracking, once a significant number of CueCats have been distributed. ... 'There's a whole slew of things we're working on now,' he said. "
We were planning on doing that stuff too, so you better not do it first. That's not fair! (stomps feet, goes to corner, and pouts)

"[DC plans to hand out] 50 million by the end of 2001."
"The CueCats cost about $10 apiece, Davis said, and the company will spend a significant portion of its $190 million in private financing giving the devices away. "
$10 * 50e6 = $500 million dollars. Yes, I guess that would use a significant portion of their $190 million financing. Is this what they mean by "New Economy"?
-----
D. Fischer

Getting this to work would just be a *beast*

[Ross C. Brackett]

Indeed, this system would only work if your digital identity was somehow inexorably tied to your person. So here's my proposal. We simply need to force everyone to have their personal CueCat ID tatooed to their body in a visible place, such as in their right hands or their foreheads.

I know what you're thinking - people will simply forge each other's barcodes and get stuff for free. I've thought of this. We just need to pass a law that prevents all people both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond to buy or sell save that they have the mark. Once the importance of the mark has been established, those who create forgeries will simply be punished by death.

I'm sure that there will some who will object to the mark, but once everyone realizes how much easier life will be, I'll think they'll go for it. I'm surprised no one else has thought of this.

Diplomacy

[Tackhead]

> Digital Convergence's CTO, said he applauds the hackers' ingenuity and "chuckles" at some of the ideas they have dreamed up.' "

Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" until you can find a stick.

Re:Diplomacy

[Danse]

(and we promise not to miss even the most trivial of GPL violations. Hypocrites? No! _Our_ licenses are inviolable. CueCat wanted to be free.)

I think this issue has been argued to death already, and we'll never know for certain whether we're right or not until it goes to court (which it may never do). DC sent CueCats out by mail all over the place, unsolicited apparently. According to the law, the people who received them own them now and can do as they please with them as long as they aren't breaking some other law. Since most people chucked the software out unopened, they didn't agree to any EULA. Therefore they aren't breaking any laws. That's why everyone is pissed at DC for attempting to strongarm software authors with C&D letters. We understand that being right doesn't always mean that you'll come out on top. The way our legal system works, you can be destroyed by someone with more money, even if you manage to win the case (which you'd be hard-pressed to do if you can't afford an attorney to represent you for the full length of the case). DC can afford lots of lawyers. I'm pretty sure the various software authors that are being harrassed can't. Given that the field is already pretty unbalanced, can you blame them for not wanting to risk the loss of everything they have?

Re:Diplomacy

[1010011010]

Diplomacy is also the art of telling your enemies to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.

Diplomacy is very useful.

___________________________

Re:Diplomacy

[nathanh]

and we promise not to miss even the most trivial of GPL violations. Hypocrites? No! _Our_ licenses are inviolable. CueCat wanted to be free.

What violation?

Copyright violation? No, because nobody even bothered to copy the lousy Windows software that came with the scanner.

Patent violation? No, because there are no patents here. Or at least if there are then DC hasn't bothered to mention them yet.

Lease violation? No, because there was never any lease involved. The things were sent out for free via mail. They are legally gifts.

IP violation? Perhaps, but this isn't clear cut and certainly you weren't thinking this way (you compared against a coypright, the GPL).

There is no hypocrisy here. That you think there is does little more than demonstrate your woeful ignorance of what's going on.

Re:Diplomacy

[Danse]

Where would you be if they'd decided the British had guns, and they might make things unpleasant if independence was declared?

Yeah... let's compare apples and beagles here. First of all, the whole CueCat issue is relatively insignificant and has little if any effect on most people's lives. Yes, there is principle involved, but nobody's life is at stake at the moment, nor are our homes being invaded without our permission, nor are we being ruled without any say in who does the ruling (well.. that may be debateable, but you get the point). You can't go off declaring a revolution every time someone pisses you off with some stupid stunt. You pick your battles based on what's important to you, and whether or not you believe your actions will make a difference. The quote you reference is often used in the gun-control debate, where I think it is quite a bit more appropriate seeing as how lives are at stake (i.e. those who are saved by having a gun and those are killed by guns). It seems a bit out of place in this discussion though.

Re:Diplomacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Commentary against slashdot seems to get moderated down a lot. Sometimes moderated down as "offtopic", as if there's a better place to put such comments. One begins to wonder if the admin here moderate the posts too (you don't know who moderated your posts). If it's not the slashdot admin, then people like moderating things down just because it gives them a bad feeling inside, not because they find some fault with the logic.

Re:Diplomacy

[WNight]

Yawn, another reverse psychology karma whore, appear insightful by saying that nobody else really gets it.

Are you unable to see the difference between solicited and unsolicited? Between a voluntary agreement and an EULA? Between copyright violation and reverse engineering?

No CueCat software was distributed. That means it's not a copyright violation. The CC license (which isn't enforcable anyways) was never even read by most people because they threw away the CD. How do you get copyright violation from that?

It'd be nice if moderators didn't give points to any snivelling idiot who bitches about an anti-MS bias or GPL communism, etc.

(A geek site will have an anti-MS bias, not only is MS owned by a jerk but it actively attempts to stifle creativity and crushes people and companies with an overactive legal department - what about that isn't deserving of scorn? If you hadn't noticed, people bash all companies that use those tactics.)

Re:Diplomacy

[interiot]

It's "threat of legal force" that shut them down. Ignoring a C&D letter doesn't mean you go to jail. Also, some people don't want to spend lots of time or money fighting something they aren't particularly passionate about.
--

I love hackers too....

[xtermz]

i love hackers too .... so much ill launch law suits on them, threaten their freedom of speech, and shut down any negative comments they say about me. Common, if anybody buys this for one second they need some serious schooling. Oh hey...this just in.... The RIAA loves Napster Users . Oh and dont forget, Um Hillary Clinton Loves Jewish people and Domestic Abuse victims love their abusers oh wait a minute....they do. um ok

"sex on tv is bad, you might fall off..."

Technical difficulties with lawyers

[marcop]

Doug Davis went on to say that, "the initial difficulties between DC and the hacker community was due to DC's lawyers being set on the default setting of 'evil'. The problem was not discovered until they had sent several C&D letters out."

Davis noted that, "due to slight oversight many companies forget about default settings in products and only notice the problem once it is exploited."

- sounds reasonable. Even /. is not immune to it.

Sez who?

[pointym5]

"Just because I give you the Cat scanner, it does not immediately give you the right to go into business against me with my own technology," Davis said. "We have an intended use for it."

Gee, Doug, if you're so sure that there's no such "right", why not get your fancy New York lawyers to actually sue somebody? Why not let a court decide whether handing 10 million people a piece of hardware and telling them that it's a free gift doesn't give them the right to do whatever they damn well please with the things? Why not see if you can get a court to overturn the myriad rulings supporting the right to reverse engineer products for purposes of interoperation? Hell, with all the partners listed on that letterhead, those Kenyon boys ought be able to deal with any defense those filthy hackers could dream up!

If you're really protecting the valuable intellectual property of your company, then what's all this pussyfooting around? Clearly your "gentle" lawyer letters aren't working, as plenty of mirror sites are available with all the software anybody could want. If I were one of your board members, I'd be pissed. The "any publicity is good publicity" line is gonna start wearing thin pretty soon here. I want action, dammit!

Chicken.

Disable the encryption completely...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.flyingbuttmonkeys.com/useofthingsyouown isnowillegal/cue-decrypt/

The :CueCat can function as a regular barcode reader-- no serial number, no "type identifier", no descrambling needed. Just a plain keyboard wedge barcode scanner. Pretty cool.

You'll need a soldering iron and a little patience. But it should work (I accidentally stepped on mine, so I'm off to Radio Shack to get a new one before I can give it a go, sadly-- do this at your own risk).

Of course, it also includes instructions on how to disable the serial number (if you'd rather go through the whole decoding process anyway, I guess). But that was even covered on Slashdot-- an anonymous poster placed a series of four or five steps to cut the trace to the PROM containing the serial number. I wonder why Slashdot hasn't been sued...

Re:It's a biological problem...

[jszep]

Funny, I thought their asses and brains were located quite close to one another. Maybe having their heads crammed up in there as well has something to do with it...

The question remains: what IP?

[interiot]

"Just because I give you the Cat scanner, it does not immediately give you the right to go into business against me with my own technology,"

Yes it does, unless you've patented your technology. Otherwise, there's things called "free market" and "competition" which assume that there exists interchangable products so they can be incrementally optimized by companies trying to gain market share.

And anyway, no one is going into business, nor are the efforts competing with DC's products very much. Most linux hackers want to scan stuff they already have, DC's use is for things that people want to buy.
--

Re:The question remains: what IP?

[fireproof]

> You're still ignoring the fact that DC had a
> license agreement that everyone here was aware
> of before they picked up their CueCat.

Not quite true. I picked up my scanner just after Radio Shack started giving them away, about a week before I heard any rumblings about IP and what not. I was, when I picked up my scanner, quite unaware of any licensing agreement. There was no note on the package noting that I was agreeing to a license of any sort before I opened the package. There was no note on the scanner referring to an agreement. It was only when I installed the software, several days later, to see what it did that was so "revolutionary" that I became aware of the agreement.

So, trivial as it may be, not "everyone here" was aware of the agreement before they picked up the device.

----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."

Re:The question remains: what IP?

[hald]

You're still ignoring the fact that DC had a license agreement that everyone here was aware of before they picked up their CueCat

Yes, but what you are forgetting is that I and did/do not agree to the contract. The contract may very well specifiy what I can or cannot do if I don't agree to it, but I did not agree to those terms. If I didn't agree to the contract, I am not bound to it. When I an not bound to a contract, then I am bound by Federal and state and local law. That law says that I can write a driver, take it apart, or do whatever else I wish, as long as I comply with any intellectual property rights they may still have.

Hal Duston
hald@sound.net

Good, now I can be semi-ontopic

[OlympicSponsor]

This weekend I went to my local Radio Shack and asked for their "free barcode scanner". Took it home, hooked it up. Downloaded a cuecat "driver" (not really a driver, just reads data from keyboard port where cuecat is plugged in). Didn't work. Also my mouse stopped responding until I went to a non-X virtual terminal and back. After a while, I realized it wouldn't work under X. I also noticed that the cat's "mouth light" stays on continuously.

Does the "real" driver fix any of this? Will it let me use the cat under X and will it let me shut off the light? If not, this thing is probably going in the trash. I'm not switching terminals (and re-logging in) just to scan an item--especially since I can't then launch any X apps from the data I scan.
--

Re:Good, now I can be semi-ontopic

[Col. Klink (retired)]

First, you really shouldn't hot-swap anything on your PS/2 ports (mouse/keyboard). Shut down first.

Second, it sounds like you plugged your cat into the mouse port instead of the keyboard. Once plugged in properly, it should work under X or anywhere else. You don't really need *any* drivers. You should be able to go to an xterm and scan something and see some "encrypted" string spew forth. There are web pages (http://www.jounce.net/~maarken/decode.html) that can decode the cat such that you don't need any driver/decoder on your end at all.

Third, no, you can never ever turn off that red light.

Re:Good, now I can be semi-ontopic

[OlympicSponsor]

1) OK, I won't hotswap.
2) No, I have it plugged into the keyboard port.
3) I CAN go to an xterm and see some "encrypted" string when I scan. But it is a different string than the one I see when I do it from a console term. The two decoders I tried both choked under X ("not a valid barcode") and worked from the console. Unfortunately I'm at work so I can't give examples.


--

Re:Good, now I can be semi-ontopic

[1010011010]

Slow computers' X servers cannot keep up with the data rate of the cuecat, and munge the data. My 486 laptop with 24MB of RAM running Gnome, for instance, can't use the CueCat in userspace. This would be the advantage of using a kernel driver. The disadvantage is that you have to patch the kernel and recompile it, something most people will not do.

___________________________

Re:Good, now I can be semi-ontopic

[1010011010]

There's no way to shut the lights off, short of installing a switch. Pierre's kernel driver lets you hook up any number of cuecats (as many as you have amperage for), to the mouse, serial and usb ports all at once.

Because the userspace decoders all actually depend on the keyboard handler, they cannot play nice with a cuecat on the mouse port.

Of course, you can also just disable the 'encryption' and use the thing like a regular keyboard wedge.

___________________________

Re:Good, now I can be semi-ontopic

[Col. Klink (retired)]

> But it is a different string than the one I see when I do it from a console term.

The cat first sends an "Alt-F10". Under a console, this will likely do nothing unless you run a lot of gettys. Under X, the xterm might be trying to do something with it. Try hitting Alt-F10 with your keyboard and see if you see the same nonsense that's getting in your way. You can create a ~/.inputrc to trap those characters (see readline(3) man page for details; the characters generated by Alt and F10 can be distro specific).

Your web browser should ignore Alt-F10, so you should be able to scan into any of the Cat-aware web decoders w/out trouble.

Re:Good, now I can be semi-ontopic

[DeadSea]

keyboard layouts in x can mess it up. I have a dvorak layout that nicely scrambles the scrambled signal. None of the cue cat program that I have found for linux check xmodmap and correct for your keyboard layout.

Re:Why is everybody so hostile?

[ichimunki]

As long as the main purpose of this article was to bring about yet another flame war on the topic of intellectual property, I may as well jump in...

Open source, Schmopen Source. The mere concept is a buzzword invented for the sole purpose of sounding buzzwordy and preventing techies from having to use words like "Free" in their discussions with management, since "Free" sounds too much like "freeware", which we all know is lame "shareware", which is a euphemism for "quick hack for one job", which means that all this "Free Software" is basically no good for "Real Computing", especially since you get what you pay for and we didn't pay a damn thing for "Free Software". That said, Free Software is the best software. Not because of peer review, not because I'm a C hacker and can fix bugs with my superpowers. But because it is Free. That's a good patriotic American thing, Freedom is, and I'm all for it.

There are already plenty of Open Source type licenses. I can't imagine that we really need more. Finally, you can't open source license a piece of hardware. You either sell it, lease it, or give it away. Cuecat looks like the latter to me. You can either patent it or not patent it. Cuecat looks like the latter to me. No one has even suggested that there be replica GNU:Cats and thus compete with DC in the hardware arena, which would be a lot more of something to complain about on DC's part.

Re:Anyone catch the mostly opensource comment?

[scrytch]

> 2. Needs to retain basic functionality, but could be extended (eh, this guy doesn't get it, does he?)

This is the same proviso of the Artistic license, actually.

> 3. Reverse engineering is 'infringement'

Pretty goofy, why would you reverse engineer SOURCE CODE? Unless it was some obfuscated nonsense like nvidia pulled.

Re:Mirrior sites for the code apps and pages

[tomwhore]

That should be

http://666pack.org/cuecat/Mirrors.asp

Enjoy and spread

Re:Huh?

[B'Trey]

"Just because I give you the Cat scanner, it does not immediately give you the right to go into business against me with my own technology," Davis said. "We have an intended use for it."

What makes you think we need to be given the right to do something? Rights can't be given - they can only be infringed upon. And when you give me (your words) something, I damned well CAN do anything I want to do with it. I really don't care what your intentions were. I doubt that Hershey's syrup had the uses to which I put their product in mind when they manufactured it either.

"It was astonishing to us," he said. "We've created a hobbyist cult which we didn't anticipate."

Failure to anticipate is something that sinks a lot of start-up businesses. Yours will just be one in a long line if similar failures.

Indeed, Davis said the company has always planned to add extra functions, such as shopping or package tracking, once a significant number of CueCats have been distributed. "There's a whole slew of things we're working on now," he said.

Keep working away. And by the time you get them written and distributed, someone else will be busy writing version three or four of their software which does the same thing with no connection to your databases.

The CueCats cost about $10 apiece, Davis said, and the company will spend a significant portion of its $190 million in private financing giving the devices away.

Ever think of cutting your loses while you can?

Read my Valentine Digital Convergence!!

[eclectro]

Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
I want some open source drivers
And hack the hardware too
Won't you let the Cue Cat be mine??

From the article;

The CueCats cost about $10 apiece, Davis said, and the company will spend a significant portion of its $190 million in private financing giving the devices away.

Don't you get the feeling that it's backward? It would make more sense if you put the cuecat in a blister pack for $29.95 and sell it at Office Depot and Radio Shack, and include a cdrom with some open source drivers and open source inventory applications. The purchase price would include the developer license you're charging for now anyway. Maybe include a point of sale app and barcode printing program.

Then they could also sell a subscription web based service that would make it easy to inventory/sort my CD collection. Then I would also pay to link the actual MP3's (or preferably OGG Vorbis) files to those names. Then, you could allow other subscribers to browse my online collection and create a "playlist"

Since I don't listen to my CD's all the time, I would have them available for "check out" for a couple of hours. When I was listening to them I would scan them with the cuecat and they would not be available for further "check out" for a couple of hours.

If the otheer subscriber wanted to "buy" the music for continuous availibilty and be able to ad it to his "subscriber list", he could do a paypal type transaction to whoever owned the music (it wouldn't matter who it was or who the licensing organization was). But first maybe the subscriber would be "whisked away" to the band's music page that could offer additional music or package type deals. I also would be presented with some check boxes that said "Other people who bought this music also bought music from these other artists"

When I was done buying the music, I would be able to downlad some barcodes that I could stick on the CDR's that I could burn . Also, I might would like to buy some barcodes that I could "snail mail" to some other friends so I could "gift" them some music. Or maybe email them as an attachment with a nice ecard. They would be allowed to 'exchange' the barcodes for other music if they wanted to. Heck, maybe they could go to a gift shop if they wanted to.

So, how 'bout it Digital Convergence?? How about letting the "end user" "digitally converge" rather than just big companies that may or may not want to advertise with you. I'd be willing to bet that a steady income stream is more valuable than one that appears "in chunks" any way. And if the end user doesn't see these little 'cue cats' as useful beyond making them marketeer fodder or spam targets, they are not going to stay plugged in very long, and they will end up in the 50 cent bin down at thrift shop.

Don't burn through your 190 mil either. If you want to include any copyrighted music in your database, you will need to buy some lawyers. So it would be a good idea to support that MP3.com legislation also.

If you do "burn through" the 190 mil giving these things away and it still isn't working out like it should, maybe you should keep us open source developers in mind????

If you notice down at the bottom it says "Comments are owned by the Poster." So I claim all patent rights to the ideas in this post (not including those that have been patented already). Since this is formally publishing these ideas, I have one year to file for patents. So if you are a patent lawyer, I need some help in getting these patents filed in exchange for a cut. Contact me at kphil@hotmail.com.

That's not how it works...

[plover]

"Just because I give you the Cat scanner, it does not immediately give you the right to go into business against me with my own technology," Davis said. "We have an intended use for it."

But that's not how the law works. Nor should the law be made to work the way Mr. Davis wants it.

How do we inform Mr. Davis of this fact? What possible means could we use to drive this point home with him? People have tried hacking, but they get cease-and-infringe letters. Obviously (to me anyway), sending hate mail is not a useful answer. And people have sent him many, many letters threatening his company under postal statutes; made loud noises about outing their idiocy to their shareholders; and other such thumb-their-nose letters.

Does reasoned mail work? Has anyone actually sent him a letter that reads, "Sorry, Mr. Davis, but the law doesn't work your way?" I'd be curious to find out if he's replied to anything but postings of drivers on the web.

John

The Church of the SubGenius -- because somebody had to put all that slack in there...

This is a great qoute:

[don_carnage]

"Just because I give you the Cat scanner, it does not immediately give you the right to go into business against me with my own technology," Davis said. "We have an intended use for it."

So, for $20, you can get a license that will let you "reverse-engineer" the cuecat, although there are some restrictions (not listed in the article.)

DC said it cost them only about $10/cat -- so they figure they can make $20/cat in licensing. Out of millions of cats distributed, tho, they've only sold 22 licenses. Big suprise?

--

WIRED CYA

[gimgol]

Of all the freaking nerve!

WIRED needs to fess up that they screwed up on this one and apologize to their readership. Not run self serving PR drivel like this article. Time was when they would have looked into something like this before selling us all down the river.

I remember when WIRED really was about "new thinking for a new medium".

Still available?

[Eil]

Are these barcode scanners still available at radio shack? (with the catalogs) I've been meaning to pick one up but thus far haven't had the time.

Re:Built-in Encryption!

[Sabalon]

When I first read this I thought they meant the ID embedded into each Cat. That would be a little better...plug your cat in, scan ANYTHING and it knows what cat to login as. Weak, but still better than what they are proposing.

Okay...so I have a barcode to scan. Wow-they encrypted it so I don't know what the numbers are. So I take the barcode, pass it under another scanner, find out what the bar code numbers are and print up my own with any number of custom programs.

Assuming that it was even worth the trouble and there wasn't a photocopier.

"Yeah...we're cool at Digital Convergance. We're elite....give us warez."

Creative?

[b1t r0t]

It says that 'Doug Davis, Digital Convergence's CTO, said he applauds the hackers' ingenuity and "chuckles" at some of the ideas they have dreamed up.'"

You mean like sticking it up your ass? here and here.

Anyone catch the mostly opensource comment?

[the-banker]

He claims they offer a "mostly open source license" but then goes on to point out:

1. Costs $20 (open?)
2. Needs to retain basic functionality, but could be extended (eh, this guy doesn't get it, does he?)
3. Reverse engineering is 'infringement'
4. Can't compete with DC.

Okay, he's obviously top management as a CTO, so I will cut him some slack based ont eh inevitable brain damage that always seems to follow when one accepts an Executive position, but come on! To even use a reference of open source is ludicrous.

Ah well, ony those who wish to be enlightened can be...

Marc

How do I get licensed?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

On September 6th, I had emailed ceo@digitalconvergence.com and ddavis@digitalconvergence.com requesting information on how to obtain a license and so far no one has gotten back to me. Are the 22 present licensees people that know Davis personally or something? If he wants other to "follow suit" then why doesn't he respond to emails?!

Re:How do I get licensed?!?!

[1010011010]

On September 6th, I had emailed ceo@digitalconvergence.com and ddavis@digitalconvergence.com requesting information on how to obtain a license and so far no one has gotten back to me. Are the 22 present licensees people that know Davis personally or something? If he wants other to "follow suit" then why doesn't he respond to emails?!

He does. Just ask nicely and he'll probably send you a copy of the license to look over. Remember, be nice. No one likes assholes.

___________________________

Re:Moderators!

[mpe]

Personally I think arbitrary licenses are bogus, wether it be on hardware or software. For instance: "You can't use this product with any other product than XXX and YYY-suite from company ZZZ."

Part of the reason Microsoft ended up in court, but whatever the existing law either it (or its enforcement) isn't up to scratch

Unsolicited mail should perhaps not be allowed to carry licenses.

IIRC this is already the case in many places (including the USA)...

Re:Right to Tinker

[mpe]

Does DC have a right to dictate the use of a product that was given away for free?

At present they have no rights to dicate anything like that, regardless of how much money they sell the product for. They would only have any such rights if they leased such a product.
No doubt in places like the US someone is trying to get a law passed which would allow such activity.

Re: Built-in Encryption!

[The Cunctator]

Calm, calm, people! A credit card with a barcode would be just as secure as a credit card with the numbers printed on it. The idea is that you have to keep the barcode just as private as you currently do your credit card (and if your credit card had the barcode...). But the CueCat would make the process of inputting your credit card information into a computer drastically easier, without it being less secure.

Of course, if their encryption is crappy, and the information gets sent to CueCat and they can decode it, then it's not really so good at all.

It's certainly true that CueCat doesn't make barcodes any more secure. But you could use your CueCat to read in, for example, a public key in one fell swoop. It's really all about the fact that bar code readers are a good way to get from real world to digital world, and now someone's ponied up the dollars to make one that can connect to the Internet (and then distribute tons of them). The automatic encryption is just a cherry (and maybe even not much of one).

Yeah, the encryption really isn't that exciting, and the article probably did imply incorrect things, but it's not as bad as some of the above responses are making it out to be.

Sheesh...

[Danse]

It's really all about the fact that bar code readers are a good way to get from real world to digital world, and now someone's ponied up the dollars to make one that can connect to the Internet (and then distribute tons of them).

The CueCat does NOT "connect to the Internet." It's just a plain old cheap-ass bar-code reader that uses a "C++ for Dummies" encryption routine. The software, which is hardly unique, simply allows you to read barcodes and transmits the encrypted (*snicker*) results to DC's website where it is decoded (*chuckle*) and used to lookup a product. That's it. It's really not much different than entering an ISBN number at Amazon to lookup a book except that the reader reads in the number instead of you typing it in. Whoopee....

Ok... that was pretty smug and sarcastic, so I know I'll get flamed all to hell and back if I messed up anything there. That's how I understand the system to work though. Feel free to correct me... with or without your flamethrowers...

Who cares?

[sheldon]

There are many companies that offer bar code scanners that plug into PS/2 keyboard ports and require no extra drivers.

I don't see how wasting your time with this device helps. About the only thing being accomplished is to give Linux users a bad name... once again following the zealotry route that Amiga and OS/2 users did.

Re:Who cares?

[interiot]

Do you want your consumer's rights being eroded by companies "loaning" things to you? Do you think that if they figured it out, that they wouldn't try to "loan" everything to you and sell nothing? Do you think it's okay for companies to restrict the right to reverse engineer a product, allowing them to prevent interopability, and thus hindering competition?
--

Right to Tinker

[Mr M]

Does DC have a right to dictate the use of a product that was given away for free? Did the product come with a disclaimer that stated how it was to be used? I don't believe that by giving someone a product without prior consent that you can legally dictate how they use it. Does DC have the right to sue if I decide to trash, break, or burn the product?

They're sore because there lame marketing idea has found a better purpose and all that money has gone to waste.

A "Mostly Open Source" concept...

[yankeehack]

Actually, there's a really insightful Cue:Cat article at Foxnews today.

Doug Davis, the president of the Technology Group at DC, is interviewed and he refers to the developer's license as "mostly open source" because of the restrictions about any scans going through DC servers.

In other words, you can pay $20 for a developer's license to be creative with the Cue:Cat, but DC wants to be able to profit from your efforts by making your software use their servers.

And I thought the allure of open source was the ability to create software for the good of the community...

Contrary

[daviskw]

You guys drive me nuts. Take a product that is given away for free. Modify it against the wishes of the company that is trying to build a business model off of that product. Two years from now they'll be out of business and the Slashdot community will put them there.

Maybe if shashdot hackers worked with these people instead of against them they wouldn't be so reactionary.

Re:Contrary

[jms]

Maybe if slashdot hackers worked with these people instead of against them they wouldn't be so reactionary.

I have a general rule where I don't "work with" people who introduce themselves with a threat.

Re:Contrary

[Blindman]

Assuming that you are serious, I don't quite see the problem. Perhaps, they will be out of business in two years, and the Slashdot community will be partially responsible (in regards to advertising the existence of the cuecat and its hacks). However, I don't see how hackers should behave any differently. Why should they work with Digital Convergence?

I don't see the moral obligation to work with them instead of against them. Of course they are going to be reactionary, because they screwed up. I feel it is sort of like getting to work and realizing that you left the iron on or something. They made a stupid assumption and may pay the price for being wrong. Being wrong is a possiblity that every business has to accept.

IANAL, but I don't belive that their business model has any legal protections. I think the biggest protection for their business is that most people think that it is a stupid idea. I doubt anyone is going to set-up a rival server unless it is just a personal project. However, if someone wanted to set-up a business that used their hardware, I don't see how they can do anything about it. Did Kellogg's have to negotiate with the toaster industry to develop Pop-tarts?

I belive that Slashdot community keeps bringing up Digital Convergence, because this company has the audacity to give something away, then dictate to you how you can use it. I have no intention of sticking the thing up my butt (or anyone else's), but I have that right. I could gut the thing and modify it into a really crappy kazoo if I wanted to.

In addition, DC has seen fit to send a team of lawyers to protect their rights without specifically stating what those rights are. I think that even companies with bad business models should be able to defend their rights, but should still have to explain themselves. Digital convergence is trying to use their right to free speech, to stiffle the speech of others.

I am sorry if my feelings on the matter drive you nuts, but I feel that the first punch was thrown when DC tried to defend the rights they don't have, not when hackers treated a free gift like it was free.

Fake banner Ads!

[1010011010]

We can make fake banner ads for it! The robotic marital aid! The colon-cancer detector! Magic wand for curing diseases of sheep!

___________________________

Re:We like hackers ...

[Dirtside]

Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where they get abducted by the aliens, who have a dusty book, which keeps getting little bits more space dust blown off of it:

"How to Cook Humans"
"How to Cook For Humans"
"How to Cook Forty Humans"
"How to Cook For Forty Humans"

Re:Built-in Encryption!

[SEWilco]

"I thought they meant the ID embedded into each Cat."

Oh, so you were thinking of its being used as a security token. "... is that your :Cue:Cat in your pocket?"

Re: Built-in Encryption!

[fireproof]

OK, OK, I guess I need to go through a remedial sarcasm course or something . . .

Basically, I was trying to imply that the CueCat device won't make a scheme requiring a barcode to be scanned to grant access to a specified device any more inherently secure than it already was prior to its introduction. The fact that the barcode is encrypted is trivial, since the encryption happens after the scanning.

----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."

Can't declaw!

[OlympicSponsor]

I followed your "disable the encryption" link but the screenshots and the actual insides of my cuecat don't match. They must've changed it...
--

Heh

[interiot]

Rather than sending cease-and-desist notices, the company sent less serious "notification of infringement" letters.

Except they didn't notify as to what IP was being infringed upon, funny that.

"People can't expect to take one of our devices and run it through their own engine," he said. "There are boundaries.... It must still do what it was built for, but they can extend its functionality."

Ahh, we're supposed to only use the device in the way they want us to? Okay, then they should only use our private usage information in the way we want them to. (okay, I'm just being inflamatory, but this is fun)

In an attempt to encourage developers, Digital Convergence put together what Davis called a "mostly open-source" license just a few days after the first Linux driver appeared. According to Davis, the $20 license is fairly liberal...

Yeah, and I bet that if they were pressed, they'd give developers $20 just to get them to sign one of these so they could sue them when developers don't do what DC wants. Without such an agreement, it doesn't look like they have a leg to stand on.
--

Re: Built-in Encryption!

[fireproof]

Yeah, but it makes me feel so much better that somebody is using a barcode reader that encrypts the barcode after reading it, and before transmitting it to the computer. That's so much safer than those older barcode readers that don't do encryption! Man, if you had one of those archaic older jobs around, somebody could just scan the barcode and figure out exactly what was encoded in it.

Hey, wait a minute . . .

Seriously, this idea is about as good as giving a note card with "Hi, my name is _________" scribbled on it, and then requiring that everybody needing access to a high-security facility flash one of those.

----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."

CmdrTaco: Advice or Money, please

[Pinball Wizard]

OK, so far every article about DC has been served with an insightful CT comment("childishly simple protocol", "DC just doesn't seem to understand that they can't control hardware that's given away for free", etc.)

If its that cut and dried, how about giving these sites that are being threatened by DC some assistance? Tell flyingbuttmonkeys that you are so sure that DC has no case that you are willing to back that claim with legal help if need be. On one hand, you're repeatedly dismissing DC's claims, however that doesn't seem to be preventing them from shutting down the various websites that are making the CueCat useful. Back them up!

I watch the sea.
I saw it on TV.

We like hackers ...

[LNO]

We like them boiled, fried, baked, microwaved, stewed, sauteed, drawn and quartered, hanged, guillotined, gassed, electrocuted, and with a nice white wine.

"Are Earthlings white or dark meat?" "Cincinnati, racial epithets are a violation of FCC regulations."

Note who's talking here

[SuiteSisterMary]

Digital Convergence's CTO, said he applauds the hackers' ingenuity and "chuckles" at some of the ideas they have dreamed up.'

The CTO can applaud the hackers all he wants to; it's the legal department who decides who to sue.

Built-in Encryption!

[CaseyB]

Thanks to its built-in encryption, the CueCat could become a secure computer passcard reader. Instead of logging on with a username and password, a bar code is scanned before access is granted to a machine.

Yep, that encryption certainly has proven to be very secure. I feel safer already.

Re:Built-in Encryption!

[TheTomcat]

No kidding.

And a bonus is that next time I lose my passkey, screw doing the paperwork! I have a stack of them, freshly Xeroxed, sitting in my drawer.

Thank you Cu::e::::::Ca:::t

Re: Contrary?

[jms]

Even if Digital Convergence had built in some form of relatively strong encryption that was much more difficult to crack, and nobody had written third-party drivers that bypass their servers, I'd be willing to wager that they would have been out of business or close to in 12 months or less anyway.

If no one had been able to figure out the cuecat interface protocol, most of us would have thrown them in the trash by now.

If it had "leaked" out that the cuecat transmitted a serial number, I personally would have stomped mine into pieces before I threw it away.

The like h4XX0r2 because...

[ackthpt]

It's a great way to exercise their lawyers...

Maybe someone should patent it?


--
Chief Frog Inspector

When I submitted...

[sconeu]

When I submitted this story, I did put a little tongue-in-cheek comment about, "we haven't had a CueCat story in three days", or something to that effect. CmdrTaco edited that one out.

Hypocrites

[DJ Decay]

By Digital Convergence saying that they 'like hackers' they're just to going to alienate the people involved in the reverse-engineering projects even more! Anyone who's been reading /. recently will know about the threats that they've made to those publishing alternative drivers etc, so I don't think they're fooling anyone. If only one of those hackers that they love so much could hack the Digital Convergence website, then see how well they get on!

Re:Got a problem wwith Slashdot's editorial commen

[Tackhead]

> looks like a marital aid and plugs into a computer's keyboard socket."

Hey, I think we all thought this when we first saw the CC. e.g. My comment on flyingbuttcats& lt;/A>.

As for marital aids plugging in to keyboard sockets, fufme's web site appears to be no more. A pity, that.

Got a problem wwith Slashdot's editorial comments?

[DoorFrame]

Those cute chimes by CmdrTaco et all are usually bad enough, but they're nothing compared to this gem from Wired:

"The CueCat is a cheapo bar-code scanner that looks like a marital aid and plugs into a computer's keyboard socket."

Great Job.

[naught]

Well, the PR release is kinda funny to read, but
the unholy ideas and whatnot that those breaking
the CueCat have come up with more or less embody
the spirit of innovation.

1) Find something (moderately) useful.

2) Find another way to use it.

3) Release this information to the general public.

Now, #3 is the step most people leave out. Everyone wants their patent and trademark and copyright, and exclusive use. It rocks that innovation is still continuing under the shadow of lawsuits and corporate thread.

Let's face it -- the old adage is true: Good programmers copy, great programmers steal. It just shows to go ya that this is as true with hardware concepts as it is software.

Divisions of Labor

[E1ven]

To me, this would seem to be an issue of PR guys versus the Lawyers and Marketing.

To the PR guys, of course they like hackers. Hackers are clever and good, and slamming us in the press. If they don't get the hackers off their backs, they suffer.

To the Lawyers, the hackers are bad. They are 'violating their IP' or some such.

The management cares about making money. They must weigh if the actions that the PR guys support will cost them more than the bad press from the Lawyers, or vice versa.
--

This message brought to you by Colin Davis

Interesting comment

[luckykaa]

"Just because I give you the Cat scanner, it does not immediately give you the right to go into business against me with my own technology," Davis said.

Um...Mr. Davis... everyone already had the right to go into business against you. The fact that you gave them the means to do it doesn't mean you gain any rights or your compeitors lose any.

Re:Interesting comment

[TrentC]

"Just because I give you the Cat scanner, it does not immediately give you the right to go into business against me with my own technology," Davis said.

Um...Mr. Davis... everyone already had the right to go into business against you. The fact that you gave them the means to do it doesn't mean you gain any rights or your compeitors lose any.

My question is, did DC somehow invent the bar-code scanner? No, they added a few custom tweaks and encased in a *ahem* "marital-aid"-shaped form. I could take a plain-jane bar code reader and probably do 90% of what people are doing with the :Cue:Cat. They're just having fun with DC's because they're free.

If this is so innovative and worthy of protection, where's the patent? I mean, c'mon! The Patent Office will allow you to patent swinging a dead fish overhead to attract ravens if you can work a web browser or streaming media into it somewhere.

If there's a patent, then there could be some legal issues involved. If they're just hoping to cover the glaring holes in their business model with "no, no, no, we're loaning you the reader" they deserve to go down in flames.

Jay (=

Re: Contrary?

[fireproof]

> If no one had been able to figure out the cuecat interface protocol, most of us would have thrown
> them in the trash by now.

Absolutely. These things aren't conveinent at all. It's just as easy for me to find the web site of some product manufacturer (say, Coca-Cola) as it is for me to take the dang thing and scan the barcode and let their software do it for me (Actually, it's easier. Scanning a barcode that consists of unprinted portions on a aluminum can with condensation on the outside of it with these things is an excercise in futility . . .).

The only reason I'm keeping mine is that one of these days, I'll probably take mine and use it to catalog all my CDs and books.

Maybe . . .

----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."

Re:Got a problem wwith Slashdot's editorial commen

[Xn]

my girlfriend thought the cuecat sitting on top of my monitor was cute, but not *that* cute

Ooh, a license!

[Sloppy]

According to Davis, the $20 license is fairly liberal and allows developers to create, modify and share their source code as long as they retain the core functions of the CueCat.

All I see is stick. Where is the carrot? Why would anyone want such a license, if it doesn't grant them any additional rights they don't already have?

---

Re: Contrary?

[fireproof]

Even if Digital Convergence had built in some form of relatively strong encryption that was much more difficult to crack, and nobody had written third-party drivers that bypass their servers, I'd be willing to wager that they would have been out of business or close to in 12 months or less anyway.

Why? Their business model is brain dead. Any business model built on the concept of giving away a "loss leader" is at best a risky gamble. Investing money in developing a product designed to be used with some other service, which is then utilized to acquire a profit is, in short, usually a pretty dumb idea.

For example, let's consider the I-opener (sp?) that's been discussed here before. Say the company producing these spends $250,000 planning the device, $750,000 gearing up for manufacturing, and then spends $500 per unit to produce them, and then sells them for $200 a piece, expecting the end user to use their service at $25 a month. (All numbers are made up by me here . . .)

Now, if they go through with the production, initially produce 1,000 boxen, and nobody buys one, they've lost $1.5 million and have nothing to show for it but a bunch of crippled boxen. In this case, they could sell 'em off to somebody else who might use them, in an effort to recover their expenses. If they sell all 1,000 boxen, and nobody uses the service for more than a month (they decide they want a PC or a Mac and AOL, they decide that net access is useless to them, etc), then they've spent $1.5 million and taken in $225,000. They're still $1,275,000 in the hole, and they have no boxen to sell off to regain expenses. At best, all 1,000 users will need to utilize their service for one year before the company ever breaks even. From that point on, they pull $25 a month from every user that is profit for them, but in the real world, they still have to worry about manufacturing new machines for new customers, warranty service, paying their staff, maintaining capital, etc. Sure, it's possible to make a profit with a model like this, but it's also possible to make a fortune in Las Vegas from the slot machines -- but it's not likely. It's risky business.

Digital Covergence's model is even worse than the above, because they invest money to develop and manufacture their barcode readers, develop their software, press their CDs, pay their staff, pay for marketing (all those infomercials), maintain captital, etc. Then, once folk get these barcode readers, even if they all use them, they still don't turn a profit. They still have to market and sell their demographic data.

Iin order for them to really acquire any sort of really useful demographic data, the folks with the barcode scanners have to really think that they are the the "biggest computer innovation since the mouse" and find them conveinent to use. Problem is, they ain't. They don't work well (sometimes it takes me 3-4 times to get a barcode to scan), they're annoying, it's a pain in the butt to answer all the questions you have to answer to get to install their software (Yes, I installed it, just to see how it works. No, I really don't care that they have all sorts of demographic data on me. It's not like I really have much privacy on the net, anyway. If I really wanted privacy, I'd lock myself in a closet with a box of Cheerios and keep the light off). If 90% of the folk who get these scanners hook them up, use them 3 or 4 times and then stick them in a drawer to collect dust (and I believe that's what will happen), then they're not going to get the sort of demographic data they're trying to market, and they're going to go belly up.

So, if they are outta business in two years, the Slashdot community won't be the one that puts them there, nor will it be the Linux community, or any other group of folk on the face of the earth or elsewhere. They might speed DC on their merry way to e-biz oblivion, where they will join the ranks of hundreds of other companies with equally flawed business models, but make no mistake about it, Digital Convergence's course was more or less set before the first barcode scanners made their way off of the assembly line.

----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."

What they're really thinking

[Vassily Overveight]

Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! We Wham! Really Wham! Chuckle Wham! When Wham! You Wham! Mischevious Wham! Hackers Wham! Screw Wham! With Wham! Our Wham! Product. Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham! Wham!

Wired... Intrest conflict?

[Desdinova77]

MMM inst wired one of the companies that are distributing the cue::cat? It seems kinda funny that they are the ones giving DG the chance to try to suck up to the community it has alianated.. Of course this just a passing thought in my mind

Being hacked has its advantages

[FortKnox]

If you are hacked, and find out how you are hacked, then you can prevent it. So, in theory, the more you are hacked, the more secure you'll eventually be.
I used this theory when starting a MUD a few years back. I opened it solely to hackers, had them break it a million different ways, and fixed it so they couldn't do it... after about a month, the mud was, practically, un-hackable.
Of course, this is a simplified theory (since there are hacks that have no known, practical way to fix, and you don't always know how they hacked you), and it only works in certain circumstances.


-- Don't you hate it when people comment on other people's .sigs??