I was actually thinking of these elements of the first claim:
revising said retrieved first list on said client computer system using said management tool; and
updating said first list in said list database to reflect the revision to said retrieved first list.
The same entity is not likely to revise a list on a client computer and update it on the server computer, hence the joint infringement problem.
However, I do agree about the ridiculous breadth of the other independent claims you mention.
IAALS (I am a law student), so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. That said, the summary understates the breadth of this patent. It covers not merely wishlists, but any database storing lists. The description deals with wishlists and e-commerce, but the claims cover lists in a broad fashion.
On the upside for the infringement defendants in this case, there is a joint infringement problem with the claims in the client/server architecture. Infringing this patent would effectively require two entities to take action - one on the client, and one on the server. This "joint" requirement precludes the possibility of any actual infringement, and is indicative of a poorly drafted claim. Combined with the likelihood that the patent will be invalidated as anticipated or obvious in view of all the prior art out there, it's highly unlikely an infringement judgment will ever go through. However, the defendants are likely to settle to avoid the cost of litigation - classic patent troll strategy.
I'm no service tech, but you can replace the hard drive in a Macbook by removing the battery and 3 screws. It's about a 5 minute procedure, as has been noted on further up on the thread.
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear - obviously some software exists, but the indication from the panel (mostly attorneys and vendors) was that the software simply isn't fast enough to make it cost-effective to launch into eDiscovery disputes at will.
Silicon Flatirons at CU Law hosted a roundtable last week on E-Discovery. A whitepaper is forthcoming soon, but there were several recurring themes.
1) eDiscovery disputes are largely regional. There are a lot of pitched battles happening on the east coast (esp. NY and NJ) and in California; in the middle of the country (Texas, Colorado, Chicago), not so much.
2) Mutually assured destruction - lots of companies in litigation stay away from bringing up eDiscovery issues because they know it will be extremely bad for both parties involved.
3) Cost - it's not necessarily in the retention, as people have mentioned here; it's relatively cheap to produce data. The problem is searching it. It's extremely resource intensive to search 100 million documents for 50 relevant e-mails. There's a software gap here that none of the major players are filling adequately - hint hint! For all you startup developers searching for a niche to fill, here you go! This is software that big firms and eDiscovery vendors and service providers will pay big bucks for. Get on it before Google gets in on the action.
4) Competence - most lawyers are simply not well versed in either eDiscovery or computer technology to sufficiently explore this area of the law. Look for this to change drastically in the next 10-15 years as it starts becoming malpractice or sanctionable behavior to NOT be well-versed.
There are more interesting issues in this area - check silicon-flatirons.org after the holidays to read the whitepaper.
Disclaimer - IAALSBNAL (I am a law student but not a lawyer) and this is not legal advice, YMMV, etc., etc.
The latest version of the Firefox extension NoScript also filters URLs that are passed to external handlers. Once installed, at least the demo exploits only open empty windows, while for example normal mailto:-URLs still work.
Looks like http://noscript.net/ will cover you if you're looking for a temporary fix.
Um... the prices listed on the website are $300 for the phone, and $450 for the phone with a development kit (looks like the phone just comes in a fancy case... and something else)...
Those are the prices for the https://direct.openmoko.com/Developer Preview model, or the GTA01; the mass-market phones (GTA02) will sell for the prices I mention. AFAIK, the differences between the $300 and $450 phone are as follows:
* Debug Flex Cable
* Debug Board v2 (JTAG and serial console)
* Ruggedized Toolbox with shoulder strap
* Guitar Pick (for opening case)
* Torx T6 screwdriver
I personally think the guitar pick makes for a great value!
Direct from openmoko.com, the price will be $450 for the Neo Base and $600 for Neo Advanced.
Hard to tell from the press release which mass market (GTA02) model (if either) is really close to feature parity with the iPhone, but if you compare the two top end models, the price is the same.
This device could very well stand as a competitor to the more expensive Apple iPhone, but at a fraction of the price and with no vendor lock-in.
No one has yet understood that we have tons of user-friendly OSes and that the OS is not the problem?
Your logic is self-defeating. If there are operating systems purporting to be user-friendly and yet there exists a 'problem' with the user-friendliness of said operating systems, then the operating system have the problem, not the user.
It's this sort of attitude among developers that leads to software that is, well, difficult to use.
Wrong. You'll pay $499, line up 12 hours in advance, sign an 8 year contract with Satan and give your first born over to me - and you'll like it!
Love,
Steve Jobs
Boy, nothing says technology detox like a 10-page ad-laden web article complete with digital pictures. It's like an alcohol rehab center with an open wet bar.
If a Linux Quickbooks client ever surfaces, prepare to wait for version parity. We just tried to switch our accountant over to the Mac version of QB 2007 from Windows 2006 and within a couple of days he had a page-long list of missing features and deal-breaking bugs. Thank the lord for Parallels.
I honestly wonder if they will eventually "get" that releasing MS Office code to the open source community is their only option
I honestly wonder if they will eventually "get" that releasing MS Office code to the open source community is their only option if they really want to stop making almost 3 billion dollars a year in sales.
This is a pretty tortured analogy, but 'putting out the fire' in this situation would involve disconnecting the machine from the network (via a managed switch 'turn off the port' command and/or MAC filtering) and calling the police. It wouldn't involve hacking into the machine, which would be a job for law enforcement forensics experts after the fact.
>An open source alternative to Exchange is the single most important project the open source community could develop to allow IT managers to migrate away from Microsoft.
This comment was so insightful it motivated me to create a Slashdot account just to say so.
Slashdot Mirror
The same entity is not likely to revise a list on a client computer and update it on the server computer, hence the joint infringement problem. However, I do agree about the ridiculous breadth of the other independent claims you mention.
IAALS (I am a law student), so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. That said, the summary understates the breadth of this patent. It covers not merely wishlists, but any database storing lists. The description deals with wishlists and e-commerce, but the claims cover lists in a broad fashion.
On the upside for the infringement defendants in this case, there is a joint infringement problem with the claims in the client/server architecture. Infringing this patent would effectively require two entities to take action - one on the client, and one on the server. This "joint" requirement precludes the possibility of any actual infringement, and is indicative of a poorly drafted claim. Combined with the likelihood that the patent will be invalidated as anticipated or obvious in view of all the prior art out there, it's highly unlikely an infringement judgment will ever go through. However, the defendants are likely to settle to avoid the cost of litigation - classic patent troll strategy.
I'm no service tech, but you can replace the hard drive in a Macbook by removing the battery and 3 screws. It's about a 5 minute procedure, as has been noted on further up on the thread.
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear - obviously some software exists, but the indication from the panel (mostly attorneys and vendors) was that the software simply isn't fast enough to make it cost-effective to launch into eDiscovery disputes at will.
Silicon Flatirons at CU Law hosted a roundtable last week on E-Discovery. A whitepaper is forthcoming soon, but there were several recurring themes. 1) eDiscovery disputes are largely regional. There are a lot of pitched battles happening on the east coast (esp. NY and NJ) and in California; in the middle of the country (Texas, Colorado, Chicago), not so much. 2) Mutually assured destruction - lots of companies in litigation stay away from bringing up eDiscovery issues because they know it will be extremely bad for both parties involved. 3) Cost - it's not necessarily in the retention, as people have mentioned here; it's relatively cheap to produce data. The problem is searching it. It's extremely resource intensive to search 100 million documents for 50 relevant e-mails. There's a software gap here that none of the major players are filling adequately - hint hint! For all you startup developers searching for a niche to fill, here you go! This is software that big firms and eDiscovery vendors and service providers will pay big bucks for. Get on it before Google gets in on the action. 4) Competence - most lawyers are simply not well versed in either eDiscovery or computer technology to sufficiently explore this area of the law. Look for this to change drastically in the next 10-15 years as it starts becoming malpractice or sanctionable behavior to NOT be well-versed. There are more interesting issues in this area - check silicon-flatirons.org after the holidays to read the whitepaper. Disclaimer - IAALSBNAL (I am a law student but not a lawyer) and this is not legal advice, YMMV, etc., etc.
Yep - FTA:
Looks like http://noscript.net/ will cover you if you're looking for a temporary fix.
Hard to tell from the press release which mass market (GTA02) model (if either) is really close to feature parity with the iPhone, but if you compare the two top end models, the price is the same.
If by fraction you mean 1/1, I guess so.
Your logic is self-defeating. If there are operating systems purporting to be user-friendly and yet there exists a 'problem' with the user-friendliness of said operating systems, then the operating system have the problem, not the user.
It's this sort of attitude among developers that leads to software that is, well, difficult to use.
Wireless. Less plastic than a Palm. Lame.
Boy, nothing says technology detox like a 10-page ad-laden web article complete with digital pictures. It's like an alcohol rehab center with an open wet bar.
If a Linux Quickbooks client ever surfaces, prepare to wait for version parity. We just tried to switch our accountant over to the Mac version of QB 2007 from Windows 2006 and within a couple of days he had a page-long list of missing features and deal-breaking bugs. Thank the lord for Parallels.
I honestly wonder if they will eventually "get" that releasing MS Office code to the open source community is their only option if they really want to stop making almost 3 billion dollars a year in sales.
There, fixed that for ya.
This is a pretty tortured analogy, but 'putting out the fire' in this situation would involve disconnecting the machine from the network (via a managed switch 'turn off the port' command and/or MAC filtering) and calling the police. It wouldn't involve hacking into the machine, which would be a job for law enforcement forensics experts after the fact.
>An open source alternative to Exchange is the single most important project the open source community could develop to allow IT managers to migrate away from Microsoft. This comment was so insightful it motivated me to create a Slashdot account just to say so.