You say that on the Internet, posted with either sturdy walls around you or enough security to use your luxury-item computer out in the open. I don't think you actually know what oppression is.
If I, as a private citizen, hire a plumber to replace my bathtub, that plumber provides an estimate, tells me the hourly rate and the value of the parts, and does the work...
...Then my wife says that the sink and toilet need to be replaced. I pass that on to the contractor, and he gives me a new estimate that's bigger than the old one, and starts the work. Then by the time he's done with the sink, my wife and I have decided that we really want the shower to be on the other side of the room, so we get a new estimate and he starts the work. Once the shower's in place and he's halfway through the toilet, my kids find out that we spent the money on the bathroom rather than the new TV we had talked about, so they complain about the project going over budget and want to cancel the whole thing. We go ahead and have the plumber finish the toilet, in accordance with his latest estimate.
The F-35 can't do VTOL. It has STOVL, so it can take off on a short runway as needed, then it's not much more engineering to be able to land vertically when gravity's pulling in the helpful direction.
They're (relatively) cheap, easy to maintain, and they have a high mission capable rate contrasted with their expensive big brothers.
Except for the "cheap" part, that's the F-35. The F-35s are built to do the job of several different aircraft now, replacing various fighters and bombers currently in service. About the only fighting role it's not built for is dogfighting, which is served by the F-22. The idea is that the single plane will fulfill many needs, so the ground crew and maintenance costs can be reduced. Rather than have a dozen different sets of parts and a dozen different crews to install them, there's just one set of parts and one maintenance crew.
Whether that works out to be cheaper in the long run remains to be seen, but that balance is why the politicians are still in favor of the F-35, even after its budget problems. They see that the F-35 (accounting for its improved capabilities) could still cost less than the combined cost of the programs it's replacing.
The separation of delivery information from the ordering process, for the purpose of immediate order placement, was not obvious in 1997 when the patent was filed. In the 16 years since then, it has become obvious, as web-based workflows have matured.
Let us hope the lawyers read patents more thoroughly than you read my post.
The innovative part of the described patent isn't the comparison. It's the modifications to quick-sort that let it work accurately on the multiple criteria the comparison operation is providing. A quick-sort for 3-D models that uses a single criterion would be outside the patent claims, regardless of the comparison used. Similarly, a merge sort for 3-D using multiple criteria wouldn't fit the patent claims, so it'd be safe, as well.
Yes, you would be in violation of the patent if you duplicate everything in the claims, but only if you duplicate what's in the claims. If you're using their magic sauce in some other context, such as a 3-D model catalog rather than a sorting algorithm, you're in the clear. If you can make their algorithm work without one particular claimed step (or doing that step differently), you're still fine. The patent itself does contain everything you have a risk of violating.
That someone's trade secrets are obvious is a different matter, outside the scope of the USPTO, and within the scope of ridicule and laughter.
Ideally, it depends on how much effort or insight is required for those tweaks, but there's no quantitative metric by which to judge insight or effort.
It may be a high-ranking opinion, but it's still just an opinion. Until the courts weigh in with their opinions, this is little more than a show to make the case that the administration sympathizes with the public. Another, even higher-ranking opinion will still land on the President's desk saying that the program is legal, but the public won't rally around that one, of course. Then the President can cite conflicting opinions, and defer any action to the Supreme Court, which can't act without a lawsuit (of which several are in progress already).
As usual, Sarten-X concludes Slashdot story is flamebait for the hivemind, "should not have been posted"
Physical patents do not require a working implementation, and haven't in quite some time. Rather, they only require enough detail that someone skilled in the art could create a working implementation of what's claimed using only common knowledge and the patent itself.
For software, that means that if you're claiming a particular sorting algorithm, you have to include enough details about how that algorithm works that another programmer could duplicate the sort... but if you're not patenting the comparison operation, you don't have to include that, even if your algorithm requires some particular comparison to work. That's a trade secret.
Also note that the title and abstract really don't matter. Most of the "vague" patents reported on Slashdot and other anti-patent sites have vague titles, but the claimse themselves are usually pretty detailed about the specific situation where the method applies.
Continuing the analogy, a method for sorting 3D models might have a title of "Comparative sorting method", and an abstract that describes the need for sorting, both of which are sure to annoy Slashdotters. The patent claims could then detail a particular way of framing the problem, where we sort models based on their ratio.of filled-to-empty space, with a weighted preference for the appearance of space from particular projections. The algorithm itself might appear at first glance to be, say, a quick-sort, but with a few little tweaks to accommodate the multiple sorting criteria. As above, the actual method for computing filled space may be a secret that's left out of the patent, even though the patented mechanism is really useless without it. The end result is a patent that looks like "quick sort... now in 3-D!" but really describes a useful, novel, and non-obvious solution for a very specific problem.
Yes. Build a YouTube-like site that doesn't have any TOS language giving you a license.to redistribute, and charge for advertising. By redistributing the content that you don't have a license for, you're infringing content, even if the rest of your business is legitimate.
I haven't looked into the case in much detail, but from what I can piece together, the documents were not labeled as classified, but they had classified information in them. That means each whole document should be classified. Given Drake's position, yes, he should have known that the label (or lack thereof) doesn't actually effect the classification level.
True, but that doesn't matter much. In a court, "noble cause" isn't really a defense (some exceptions apply).
By the time a trial court sees a case, the law is effectively fixed. At that point, the only questions are whether the defendant intentionally committed a crime. For whistleblowers, the fact of the matter usually is that yes, they intentionally broke the law. Snowden and Manning knowingly released classified materials with a reasonable expectation that foreign agencies would get access to them. Plain and simple, they're guilty of felonies.
The noble intent really first comes into play during sentencing, but minimum sentences included in the laws are indeed assuming that no goal could be so good as to forgive the whole crime. There is also, of course, government pressure to use the case to discourage future leaks, and the justice system itself could be undermined by weak sentences, if it becomes common practice to claim whistleblowing as a reason every time someone spills secrets.
Upon appeal, as well, the intent matters. The convicted can argue that the law itself (including any minimum sentences) isn't just, using his own case as proof: the people don't feel that justice was served in his case, even though the legal process was carried out properly, so the law should be clarified to address the different circumstances. Of course, that's a long legal battle, and the same government and judicial pressures still apply. I don't see it happening anytime soon.
I arrived really late to the show, around 2005, I think. Prior to that, I read the articles occasionally, but didn't really comment regularly enough to bother getting an account. As my biased memory recalls, it was possible back then to have a reputable conversation as an AC, because the trolling and hivemind hadn't reached the horrible heights they have today. For as rarely as I cared about the discussions, that was good enough.
You say that like every gateway has built-in SSH, and a nice button on the administrative interface to enable it. Last time I checked, cheap DSL modems don't usually do that. Then, of course, if this is a tech support scenario, that gateway setting has to be configured by walking someone through the configuration process over the phone, often with no manual available.
What "a bit of a stretch" is assuming that the highly-manual process that works for one situation is acceptable for other situations.
I've been an IT admin for a decade, blah blah blah, and I agree.
I don't think there is an easy answer, either. Each decision of what to use should have a cost/benefit analysis, which includes the risk of service loss or interruption. You can avoid vulnerability by adding effort, or lower costs by taking on risk. Even for a business, some risk is fine. The cost of a service loss, amortized over the lifetime of the service, may still come out lower than the cost of using a more reliable service*.
In your case (and mine), what are the risks of losing Google Calendar? Well, we'd have to switch to some other free calendar out there. I'd have to re-enter my few recurring appointments, but that's not so bad. To me, the cost of a failure is low enough that any mitigation attempt would cost more than just waiting until failure.
GMail is another story. I have a significant number of emails that I don't want to lose, and the cost of moving wall of my old messages to another server would be quite high if GMail ended its service tomorrow. To lower that cost, I forward important messages to a personal in-house server that's configured to only accept mail from GMail. That mitigation effort cost far less than a service loss, and now such a loss is less damaging itself.
* Off-topic, that reminds me of the incentive to use COTS hardware in high-end systems. It's cheaper to replace a cheap part than to get a rock-solid custom piece
Funny thing is, as an admin, I've steered a few clients toward paid subscriptions to LogMeIn, specifically because their free service was so good. By using it personally, I was aware of their features and updates, without needing to spend even more time researching. That's not going to happen any more. Now when I need a remote-control system for Windows beyond basic RDP, they'll get the same examination as their competitors. By getting rid of the "leeches", they also lost a competitive advantage.
actually learn how to do for yourself
I've already learned how to shovel my driveway, but I still chose to buy a snowblower.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because the client's not initiating the order.
That's not a citation.
You say that on the Internet, posted with either sturdy walls around you or enough security to use your luxury-item computer out in the open. I don't think you actually know what oppression is.
If I, as a private citizen, hire a plumber to replace my bathtub, that plumber provides an estimate, tells me the hourly rate and the value of the parts, and does the work...
...Then my wife says that the sink and toilet need to be replaced. I pass that on to the contractor, and he gives me a new estimate that's bigger than the old one, and starts the work. Then by the time he's done with the sink, my wife and I have decided that we really want the shower to be on the other side of the room, so we get a new estimate and he starts the work. Once the shower's in place and he's halfway through the toilet, my kids find out that we spent the money on the bathroom rather than the new TV we had talked about, so they complain about the project going over budget and want to cancel the whole thing. We go ahead and have the plumber finish the toilet, in accordance with his latest estimate.
Let's do a car metaphor next.
Obviously, you don't. Please show me any documented example of such a system prior to 1997.
The F-35 can't do VTOL. It has STOVL, so it can take off on a short runway as needed, then it's not much more engineering to be able to land vertically when gravity's pulling in the helpful direction.
They're (relatively) cheap, easy to maintain, and they have a high mission capable rate contrasted with their expensive big brothers.
Except for the "cheap" part, that's the F-35. The F-35s are built to do the job of several different aircraft now, replacing various fighters and bombers currently in service. About the only fighting role it's not built for is dogfighting, which is served by the F-22. The idea is that the single plane will fulfill many needs, so the ground crew and maintenance costs can be reduced. Rather than have a dozen different sets of parts and a dozen different crews to install them, there's just one set of parts and one maintenance crew.
Whether that works out to be cheaper in the long run remains to be seen, but that balance is why the politicians are still in favor of the F-35, even after its budget problems. They see that the F-35 (accounting for its improved capabilities) could still cost less than the combined cost of the programs it's replacing.
The separation of delivery information from the ordering process, for the purpose of immediate order placement, was not obvious in 1997 when the patent was filed. In the 16 years since then, it has become obvious, as web-based workflows have matured.
Let us hope the lawyers read patents more thoroughly than you read my post.
The innovative part of the described patent isn't the comparison. It's the modifications to quick-sort that let it work accurately on the multiple criteria the comparison operation is providing. A quick-sort for 3-D models that uses a single criterion would be outside the patent claims, regardless of the comparison used. Similarly, a merge sort for 3-D using multiple criteria wouldn't fit the patent claims, so it'd be safe, as well.
Obvious in hindsight is not what's being considered.
Yes, you would be in violation of the patent if you duplicate everything in the claims, but only if you duplicate what's in the claims. If you're using their magic sauce in some other context, such as a 3-D model catalog rather than a sorting algorithm, you're in the clear. If you can make their algorithm work without one particular claimed step (or doing that step differently), you're still fine. The patent itself does contain everything you have a risk of violating.
That someone's trade secrets are obvious is a different matter, outside the scope of the USPTO, and within the scope of ridicule and laughter.
Not necessarily, no.
Ideally, it depends on how much effort or insight is required for those tweaks, but there's no quantitative metric by which to judge insight or effort.
This, so very much.
It may be a high-ranking opinion, but it's still just an opinion. Until the courts weigh in with their opinions, this is little more than a show to make the case that the administration sympathizes with the public. Another, even higher-ranking opinion will still land on the President's desk saying that the program is legal, but the public won't rally around that one, of course. Then the President can cite conflicting opinions, and defer any action to the Supreme Court, which can't act without a lawsuit (of which several are in progress already).
As usual, Sarten-X concludes Slashdot story is flamebait for the hivemind, "should not have been posted"
14... 15... 16... 17... 18... 20... 21... 22... 24... 25... 2- aw crap, I lost count.
1... 2... 3...
Physical patents do not require a working implementation, and haven't in quite some time. Rather, they only require enough detail that someone skilled in the art could create a working implementation of what's claimed using only common knowledge and the patent itself.
For software, that means that if you're claiming a particular sorting algorithm, you have to include enough details about how that algorithm works that another programmer could duplicate the sort... but if you're not patenting the comparison operation, you don't have to include that, even if your algorithm requires some particular comparison to work. That's a trade secret.
Also note that the title and abstract really don't matter. Most of the "vague" patents reported on Slashdot and other anti-patent sites have vague titles, but the claimse themselves are usually pretty detailed about the specific situation where the method applies.
Continuing the analogy, a method for sorting 3D models might have a title of "Comparative sorting method", and an abstract that describes the need for sorting, both of which are sure to annoy Slashdotters. The patent claims could then detail a particular way of framing the problem, where we sort models based on their ratio.of filled-to-empty space, with a weighted preference for the appearance of space from particular projections. The algorithm itself might appear at first glance to be, say, a quick-sort, but with a few little tweaks to accommodate the multiple sorting criteria. As above, the actual method for computing filled space may be a secret that's left out of the patent, even though the patented mechanism is really useless without it. The end result is a patent that looks like "quick sort... now in 3-D!" but really describes a useful, novel, and non-obvious solution for a very specific problem.
Yes. Build a YouTube-like site that doesn't have any TOS language giving you a license.to redistribute, and charge for advertising. By redistributing the content that you don't have a license for, you're infringing content, even if the rest of your business is legitimate.
Yes, jury nullification can undermine the judicial process for one case, but it doesn't improve the law for anyone else.
I haven't looked into the case in much detail, but from what I can piece together, the documents were not labeled as classified, but they had classified information in them. That means each whole document should be classified. Given Drake's position, yes, he should have known that the label (or lack thereof) doesn't actually effect the classification level.
True, but that doesn't matter much. In a court, "noble cause" isn't really a defense (some exceptions apply).
By the time a trial court sees a case, the law is effectively fixed. At that point, the only questions are whether the defendant intentionally committed a crime. For whistleblowers, the fact of the matter usually is that yes, they intentionally broke the law. Snowden and Manning knowingly released classified materials with a reasonable expectation that foreign agencies would get access to them. Plain and simple, they're guilty of felonies.
The noble intent really first comes into play during sentencing, but minimum sentences included in the laws are indeed assuming that no goal could be so good as to forgive the whole crime. There is also, of course, government pressure to use the case to discourage future leaks, and the justice system itself could be undermined by weak sentences, if it becomes common practice to claim whistleblowing as a reason every time someone spills secrets.
Upon appeal, as well, the intent matters. The convicted can argue that the law itself (including any minimum sentences) isn't just, using his own case as proof: the people don't feel that justice was served in his case, even though the legal process was carried out properly, so the law should be clarified to address the different circumstances. Of course, that's a long legal battle, and the same government and judicial pressures still apply. I don't see it happening anytime soon.
I arrived really late to the show, around 2005, I think. Prior to that, I read the articles occasionally, but didn't really comment regularly enough to bother getting an account. As my biased memory recalls, it was possible back then to have a reputable conversation as an AC, because the trolling and hivemind hadn't reached the horrible heights they have today. For as rarely as I cared about the discussions, that was good enough.
It's easier to just change the headline. I propose:
Roblimo caught "editing" Slashdot story while intoxicated
You say that like every gateway has built-in SSH, and a nice button on the administrative interface to enable it. Last time I checked, cheap DSL modems don't usually do that. Then, of course, if this is a tech support scenario, that gateway setting has to be configured by walking someone through the configuration process over the phone, often with no manual available.
What "a bit of a stretch" is assuming that the highly-manual process that works for one situation is acceptable for other situations.
The code is not a dump truck. The code is a series of tubes...
I've been an IT admin for a decade, blah blah blah, and I agree.
I don't think there is an easy answer, either. Each decision of what to use should have a cost/benefit analysis, which includes the risk of service loss or interruption. You can avoid vulnerability by adding effort, or lower costs by taking on risk. Even for a business, some risk is fine. The cost of a service loss, amortized over the lifetime of the service, may still come out lower than the cost of using a more reliable service*.
In your case (and mine), what are the risks of losing Google Calendar? Well, we'd have to switch to some other free calendar out there. I'd have to re-enter my few recurring appointments, but that's not so bad. To me, the cost of a failure is low enough that any mitigation attempt would cost more than just waiting until failure.
GMail is another story. I have a significant number of emails that I don't want to lose, and the cost of moving wall of my old messages to another server would be quite high if GMail ended its service tomorrow. To lower that cost, I forward important messages to a personal in-house server that's configured to only accept mail from GMail. That mitigation effort cost far less than a service loss, and now such a loss is less damaging itself.
* Off-topic, that reminds me of the incentive to use COTS hardware in high-end systems. It's cheaper to replace a cheap part than to get a rock-solid custom piece
Funny thing is, as an admin, I've steered a few clients toward paid subscriptions to LogMeIn, specifically because their free service was so good. By using it personally, I was aware of their features and updates, without needing to spend even more time researching. That's not going to happen any more. Now when I need a remote-control system for Windows beyond basic RDP, they'll get the same examination as their competitors. By getting rid of the "leeches", they also lost a competitive advantage.
actually learn how to do for yourself
I've already learned how to shovel my driveway, but I still chose to buy a snowblower.