A free market in intellectual property, without government interference, is pointless, as it does not lead to optimum allocation of resources. IP lacks the attributes that are necessary for a free market to work.
Akamai for the static content. Most of the site is dynamic. Look at the their stats--serving their dynamic content on 2 web servers and 3 database servers is way better than most comparable sites manage.
As someone else pointed out, the examiner cited your site. That means the examine brought it up to IBM as possible prior art. At the point, IBM would have tried to convince the examiner that they are going beyond what you did. Their patent will only cover what they did beyond what you did.
First thing to do is read the description. That sets the background, and the claims are interpreted to be consistent with the description. In particular, the description may impose limitations on the claims. The description is one place where IBM may have limited their scope to work around your prior art.
The other place to look is the file wrapper. That's the set of all correspondence between IBM and the patent office concerning this patent. In a patent like this, where they are trying to patent improvements over the prior art, it often takes several iterations. The examine rejects the patent, and cites some prior art. The applicant either revises the patent to work around that, or writes a letter to the examiner trying to explain how they differ from the prior art.
I don't know if there is any free, online way to get a copy of the file wrapper.
No, that's not the reason. Consider that PlentyOfFish was able to do a 30 million hit a day all dynamic website using "2 load balanced web servers with 2 Quad Core Intel Xeon X5355 @ 2.66Ghz), 8 Gigs of RAM (using about 800 MBs), 2 hard drives, runs Windows x64 Server 2003" for the web servers. There's a detailed writeup of PlentyOfFish's architecture and hardware here.
On the other hand, if the company just has a token presence for tax purposes, then they aren't really using any of Ireland's resources, so any tax they pay is a net win for Ireland.
"nought" is an acceptable variant spelling of "naught". To tie this to this thread, I found that out by putting the mouse over "nought" and pressing cmd-ctrl-D on my Mac.
If you weren't a Slashdot celebrity, that ridiculous submission would have been rejected as whining over a complete non-issue. Grab the OOo source, and build your own copy that doesn't display the Oracle logo. Problem solved. (Or just look away when the splash screen appears).
Have you read the patent claims, interpreted in light of the description, to be sure your alleged prior art really is prior art?
If there really was widespread prior art, I find it odd that prior to Red Hat, both IBM and Oracle licensed the patent (Oracle as part of a settlement after being sued, IBM without needing to be sued). It seems unlikely that companies with the legal resources of IBM and Oracle would fold against a patent that could easily be defeated.
If only Microsoft would make a legally binding promise not to sue the standardized parts of Mono for patents. If only they would release many of the other parts under an open source license with a strong patent grant, like the Apache 2 license. If only they would take actions that would set up a very strong estoppel defense against suits over the rest...
I've seen elevators where if you press the "open door" button to abort the natural door closing to help a straggler, then the "close door" button does immediately start the door closing. This is easy to test, by using "open door", and timing how long it waits until it tries to close on its own. Do that a few times to verify that it is consistent, and then you can test "close door" and show it had an effect.
Washington State is one of the few states in the US without a personal income tax (the sales taxes here are very high to make up for the revenue deficiency)
The funny thing is that those "very high" sales taxes are about the same or lower than the sales taxes in California, which also has a high personal income tax. I believe only in King County (where Seattle is located) do the combined state and local rates get high enough to match the state and local combined rates of most major California cities.
I didn't vote on 1098. On the one hand, the lowering of property taxes would have directly benefited me, and the lowering of business taxes would certainly help my employer (and in this economy we could use it). On the other hand, it might be easy once we have an income tax for the lower limit to creep down, until we end up like California with a high sales tax AND an annoying income tax. The hands balanced out, so I abstained.
The most amusing take I saw on 1098 was that of the Boycott Novell folks. They blasted Ballmer for opposing the initiative. Rich guy not wanting to pay his fair share as his state flounders, yadda yadda. They also blasted Gates (both of them) for supporting it. Rich guys who have all their money hidden in tax free charities trying to avoid paying their fair share by making their fellow rich people pay.
All of which might make a cynic question what was really important to Microsoft — public education, or a $2B state income tax-free payday for its CEO?
If the measure had passed, the tax would not have started until 2012, so that was a pretty stupid question. Ballmer's stock sale was income tax free regardless of what happened with 1098.
The summary should have mentioned that the tax proposal was authored by Bill Gates Sr., and was supported by Bill Gates Jr., which is some pretty good evidence that Gates Jr. really has managed to separate himself from Microsoft.
As to why Ballmer is selling now, there's a pretty good chance it was for tax planning purposes. Many think there's a high chance the capital gains rate is going up soon, and so taking long term capital gains this year is indicated.
A hundred or so dollars? That would be less than what it would cost to buy all the songs she had from Amazon or iTunes. To be reasonable, a settlement has to be at least hight enough to make it so that obeying the law is better financially than disobeying and settling.
Let's see. She's definitely guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (beyond any doubt whatsoever, in fact). She lied under oath. She tried to destroy evidence. She tried to shift blame to her kids. When offered a settlement that worked out to a few dollars per song she had illegally downloaded and shared, she refused to take it (she's refused several settlement offers, most of which were quite reasonable).
Why should we have any sympathy whatsoever for her?
She is guilty. Of this there is no doubt whatsoever. She lied repeatedly under oath about it. She tried to frame other people for it. She tried to destroy evidence. She has repeatedly refused to settle, even when offered reasonable settlement terms.
Available on Safari Library
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 1
FYI for those with Safari Library subscriptions: this book is available there.
GPLv3 is incompatible because it requires the right that receivers of GPLv3'ed code can not only freely modify it but also run it
That's a common misconception, but if you actually check the anti-Tivo clause in GPLv3, it only applies to GPLv3 software that is distributed as part of the transaction whereby the user acquires the device. It does not apply to add-on software acquired AFTER the user has acquired the device.
Slashdot Mirror
A free market in intellectual property, without government interference, is pointless, as it does not lead to optimum allocation of resources. IP lacks the attributes that are necessary for a free market to work.
Akamai for the static content. Most of the site is dynamic. Look at the their stats--serving their dynamic content on 2 web servers and 3 database servers is way better than most comparable sites manage.
As someone else pointed out, the examiner cited your site. That means the examine brought it up to IBM as possible prior art. At the point, IBM would have tried to convince the examiner that they are going beyond what you did. Their patent will only cover what they did beyond what you did.
First thing to do is read the description. That sets the background, and the claims are interpreted to be consistent with the description. In particular, the description may impose limitations on the claims. The description is one place where IBM may have limited their scope to work around your prior art.
The other place to look is the file wrapper. That's the set of all correspondence between IBM and the patent office concerning this patent. In a patent like this, where they are trying to patent improvements over the prior art, it often takes several iterations. The examine rejects the patent, and cites some prior art. The applicant either revises the patent to work around that, or writes a letter to the examiner trying to explain how they differ from the prior art.
I don't know if there is any free, online way to get a copy of the file wrapper.
No, that's not the reason. Consider that PlentyOfFish was able to do a 30 million hit a day all dynamic website using "2 load balanced web servers with 2 Quad Core Intel Xeon X5355 @ 2.66Ghz), 8 Gigs of RAM (using about 800 MBs), 2 hard drives, runs Windows x64 Server 2003" for the web servers. There's a detailed writeup of PlentyOfFish's architecture and hardware here.
But the companies are in Ireland because it's part of EU: they HAVE to have headquarters on the EU-area to do business there.
Huh? Where I work we sell in the EU, and we do not have any offices or even any employees there.
On the other hand, if the company just has a token presence for tax purposes, then they aren't really using any of Ireland's resources, so any tax they pay is a net win for Ireland.
Cite?
"nought" is an acceptable variant spelling of "naught". To tie this to this thread, I found that out by putting the mouse over "nought" and pressing cmd-ctrl-D on my Mac.
If you weren't a Slashdot celebrity, that ridiculous submission would have been rejected as whining over a complete non-issue. Grab the OOo source, and build your own copy that doesn't display the Oracle logo. Problem solved. (Or just look away when the splash screen appears).
Have you read the patent claims, interpreted in light of the description, to be sure your alleged prior art really is prior art?
If there really was widespread prior art, I find it odd that prior to Red Hat, both IBM and Oracle licensed the patent (Oracle as part of a settlement after being sued, IBM without needing to be sued). It seems unlikely that companies with the legal resources of IBM and Oracle would fold against a patent that could easily be defeated.
The policy of lying to Apache about Java was started by Sun, not Oracle.
If only Microsoft would make a legally binding promise not to sue the standardized parts of Mono for patents. If only they would release many of the other parts under an open source license with a strong patent grant, like the Apache 2 license. If only they would take actions that would set up a very strong estoppel defense against suits over the rest...
Oh wait, they did all this. Go troll elsewhere.
I've seen elevators where if you press the "open door" button to abort the natural door closing to help a straggler, then the "close door" button does immediately start the door closing. This is easy to test, by using "open door", and timing how long it waits until it tries to close on its own. Do that a few times to verify that it is consistent, and then you can test "close door" and show it had an effect.
Washington State is one of the few states in the US without a personal income tax (the sales taxes here are very high to make up for the revenue deficiency)
The funny thing is that those "very high" sales taxes are about the same or lower than the sales taxes in California, which also has a high personal income tax. I believe only in King County (where Seattle is located) do the combined state and local rates get high enough to match the state and local combined rates of most major California cities.
I didn't vote on 1098. On the one hand, the lowering of property taxes would have directly benefited me, and the lowering of business taxes would certainly help my employer (and in this economy we could use it). On the other hand, it might be easy once we have an income tax for the lower limit to creep down, until we end up like California with a high sales tax AND an annoying income tax. The hands balanced out, so I abstained.
The most amusing take I saw on 1098 was that of the Boycott Novell folks. They blasted Ballmer for opposing the initiative. Rich guy not wanting to pay his fair share as his state flounders, yadda yadda. They also blasted Gates (both of them) for supporting it. Rich guys who have all their money hidden in tax free charities trying to avoid paying their fair share by making their fellow rich people pay.
All of which might make a cynic question what was really important to Microsoft — public education, or a $2B state income tax-free payday for its CEO?
If the measure had passed, the tax would not have started until 2012, so that was a pretty stupid question. Ballmer's stock sale was income tax free regardless of what happened with 1098.
The summary should have mentioned that the tax proposal was authored by Bill Gates Sr., and was supported by Bill Gates Jr., which is some pretty good evidence that Gates Jr. really has managed to separate himself from Microsoft.
As to why Ballmer is selling now, there's a pretty good chance it was for tax planning purposes. Many think there's a high chance the capital gains rate is going up soon, and so taking long term capital gains this year is indicated.
She ripped off something like 2000 songs. Only 24 were actually sued over.
I didn't say she was found guilty. I said she is guilty.
A hundred or so dollars? That would be less than what it would cost to buy all the songs she had from Amazon or iTunes. To be reasonable, a settlement has to be at least hight enough to make it so that obeying the law is better financially than disobeying and settling.
Let's see. She's definitely guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (beyond any doubt whatsoever, in fact). She lied under oath. She tried to destroy evidence. She tried to shift blame to her kids. When offered a settlement that worked out to a few dollars per song she had illegally downloaded and shared, she refused to take it (she's refused several settlement offers, most of which were quite reasonable).
Why should we have any sympathy whatsoever for her?
She is guilty. Of this there is no doubt whatsoever. She lied repeatedly under oath about it. She tried to frame other people for it. She tried to destroy evidence. She has repeatedly refused to settle, even when offered reasonable settlement terms.
FYI for those with Safari Library subscriptions: this book is available there.
Seriously, I would expect these to be traffic killers.
I don't think the sites will have a problem with that. The traffic killed will be traffic that doesn't generate revenue for the site anyway.
GPLv3 is incompatible because it requires the right that receivers of GPLv3'ed code can not only freely modify it but also run it
That's a common misconception, but if you actually check the anti-Tivo clause in GPLv3, it only applies to GPLv3 software that is distributed as part of the transaction whereby the user acquires the device. It does not apply to add-on software acquired AFTER the user has acquired the device.