This has the obvious problem of "how do you show intent?" - there is an entire criminal justice system based about trying to infer intent from actions. Using this in the field of patents will just be a nightmare. Not as much as you seem to think. Tied to a patent would be a prospective delivery date. If the date isn't met, the applicant shouldn't have to show that something *couldn't* be done (and therefore, prevented them from meeting the deadline), but what they *have* done in order to meet their deadline. In a sense, I believe a patent can be (or perhaps should be) viewed as a contract with the American public, which basically says something to the effect, "Because I'd like the special protections offered by a patent, I have this new technology I'm working on, here is a description of what it will accomplish, and here's the date by which I hope to have it available on the market." If they can't bring it to market, or they can't bring it to market within a reasonable time frame, why not give someone else the chance? Unlike our current system, this will make patent applicants more accountable.
About a year ago, there were several stories about how the Department of Motor Vehicles in four states were selling citizens' personal information, including the drivers' license photos, to a private company in New Hampshire (Image Data). The focus of this company was a system that would allow merchants to visually identify consumers, via the photos, and as such (it was alleged) would reduce fraud.
I watched a newscast shortly after the initial story broke, where an official from one of the four states was *very* ticked off at this company for misleading him with respect to their source of funds. Apparently, it was discovered that the company had received about $1.5 million from the U.S. Secret Service. Read about it at http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/2160 7.html
So, while the notion that the NSA is in bed with Bill might seem a little far-fetched, this incident with Image Data makes the NSA/Microsoft issue seem a little more plausible.
Before you apologize for your actions within the borders of your own country, it might help you to know that recently (the last decade or so), the definition of "justice" in the U.S. has become increasingly obsure. I was reading another post that had a link to a site called www.overlawyered.com. Here, there were several articles that chronicled BLATANT abuse of the legal system using civil forfeiture laws. These laws allow federal and state government agencies to seize your property ONLY if there's "probable cause" to believe that it was used in the commission of a crime. Adding insult to injury is the fact that in most cases, the agency conducting the seizure can keep and use the property as they see fit. No one has to be found guilty, or even accused.
FINALLY!!!!! You are absolutely correct. There's nothing that will speak louder and more effectively than MONEY...or in this case, the absence thereof. Consumers, as a whole, COULD bring the RIAA to its knees - to the point that it's BEGGING people to buy their stuff. As has been pointed out, though, they'd rather steal. Makes me wonder if the current slate of music buyers and the RIAA deserve each other.
I don't have a cell phone, I don't foresee getting one, and when I see stuff like this, I laugh about all the people who think they just can't get by without one. If only they knew...
Re:I think we're past worrying about wasted bandwi
on
Virtual Newscaster
·
· Score: 1
Spam or no spam, a 56K connection is still a 56K connection. There are a lot more delivery methods available today with higher bandwidth, but I think it will still be a while before higher-speed access becomes the norm.
I find this article somewhat absurd. It *assumes* that everyone *has* to be member of the pop culture that so loves screwing, spreading disease, creating babies, etc., and that if they aren't, there's something wrong with them. There's more to life than sex! I'd like to think that many geeks just have a different (perhaps more honorable) set of priorities.
Re:Just say no to anti-trust
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
The problem with this logic is that what people "want" is based on any given moment in time. Things change. What people "wanted" when they first joined the ranks of AOL subscribers may have little to with what they're getting today.
I respectfully disagree with your assessment. I don't use *CREDIT* cards because they have their own set of problems. I've actually had fraudulent charges show up on my account, and once I called the bank and informed them, it was about a day or two before the account balance was back to normal. Banks might say they don't *have* to cover losses on a check card, but in the interest of keeping their customers happy, they usually will. The best thing about a check card is that it's pay-as-you-go. You don't have the money, you don't buy it.
The Brits don't mind having their every move monitored by public surveylance cameras, so why should they mind this? They're well on their way to becoming a mindless, *totally-controlled* mass of humanity. It's Hitler without the holocaust. What's next? Will they have infra-red cameras mounted outside of every residence to monitor the activities inside, making sure no one is doing anything "inappropriate"?
I also like the way the article mentions that itwill "cut total road deaths by UP TO 2/3" [emphasis mine]. Well, what if it doesn't? Do you think for a second that the law requiring these devices will be repealed? Not a chance. The British government is getting very good at justifying their actions, (in the U.S., we're faced with the "we need this to protect the children" mantra), and (at least in Britain) the people are getting very good at responding like a mindless herd of sheep.
Let's look at another example...the U.S. spent a couple hundred million to construct a "Y2K preparedness facility," or somesuch. Now that most of the Y2K concern has abated, they're talking about using it for dealing with other "technical emergencies". While it would surely be a waste of taxpayer money to decommission the facility after such a short time in service, it's no different that the ENDLESS waste that occurs in Washington, where funds are allocated to build Navy ships that aren't requested, parking garages that aren't used, and roads that don't go anywhere. The upside is that once it's out of service, the fed can't use it for anything that wasn't intended to begin with. With projects like Echelon lurking in the mist, it's wasted in the most productive way possible.
Here's the other side of it...what if, every time you sit down to program something for someone - whether it be as a contractor or employee, you have to worry about whether or not you're violating someone's patent? For the creative software engineer, this would seem a very easy thing to do. All software patents will do is drive up the cost of doing business...if you're not paying someone royalties, you'll be paying for patent searches to make sure you're not inadvertently infringing on someone else's idea - not because it's particularly brilliant, but ONLY because it's patented. To put it bluntly, this sucks.
But it's not the WHAT, it's the HOW that's at issue. Bill Gates wants to make money for his shareholders, his company, and his family. Fine. But we've seen that he and his company have been anything BUT fair when it comes to dealing with competition.
Part of the reason for this movement is that many companies of the internet persuasion really don't have all that much with respect to true innovation, so instead of becoming BETTER, and just being good at what they do, they go after every little thing they can. Amazon, anyone?
Here's another way to look at it - I, as one of many incarnations of John Q. Public, have a LOT of respect for Wired for exercising some discretion, but not enough for Amazon to give them my business. These gold-digging morons can patent away - but *I* won't be rewarding them for it.
Suppose, given one car, you could press a few buttons and have an exact duplicate of the first, at no real cost to yourself. Would you still feel this way? If this was how the physical world worked, Chevrolet wouldn't be selling cars: They'd be selling warranties on cars.
This is completely beside the point. Software is the *reason* that companies like Red Hat have such enormous value. Without the software, there's no Red Hat. The *problem* is that those who created Red Hat's very foundation, aren't the ones making the money.
Another thing to consider: Red Hat can't require volunteer developers to dress in a particular way, be present in a particular office at particular times, deal with people they dislike, or work on a piece of code that does not interest them.
If a developer becomes contractually involved with a Red Hat-funded project, they can be required to endure any of these.
I LAUGHED when I saw this. Here we have a company with a market cap of more than $18 BILLION, with revenues of only $5 MILLION, and a $3.6 million loss for the year. I can't help but think that at some point, there are going to be an AWFUL lot of people losing an AWFUL lot of money once the stock price starts to reflect the real value of the company. Is the market just STOOPID or what?
Let's look at the bigger picture - Amazon has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to be a good and ethical corporate citizen. It is *this* that will generate the most long-term good will and positive public perception. When they start nickel and diming the USPTO claiming that they've come up with something "innovative," and *then* go after someone else using the technique because of its overt and obvious nature, in my opinion, it doesn't look good. Amazon's legal counsel can sue all they want, but after all is said and done, and the consumer public now sees Amazon as more of a greedy corporation than a customer-friendly bookseller, do the shareholders really win?
I was kind of thinking about this. Because of Amazon's size/popularity, I was also attempting to compare Amazon to Microsoft. Though they both might be well-known and influential, there's one KEY difference - it's very difficult to simply stop using one operating system in favor of another. Because computers, AND the manner in which they are used are so ingrained into a company's protocol, a such a change would not be a minor undertaking.
On the other hand, Amazon doesn't have it anywhere near as well - it might be in the limelight now, but it's so easy to type "barnesandnoble.com" or "booksamillion.com" instead of "amazon.com". That in itself could represent a real threat, and as such, it would be in Amazon's best interest to be a good citizen. Amazon may have brand recognition, but because it's so easy to switch (and the products among booksellers are identical), I'm not sure it means as much as it once did. We'll see how much Amazon's patent is really worth once people figure out that clicking one or two more times to order something isn't that big a deal.
Give Amazon enough time, and they'll probably try to patent this as well. I've never purchased anything from them, and because I disagree with this patent, I won't start.
Bezos claims that other sites should "innovate" and not "copy". What Amazon has done, however, is no different from all of the domain name speculators that have purchased (or reserved) untold thousands of domain names, and are attempting to re-sell them at rediculous prices. This isn't a question of innovation, it's *only* a question of "who got there first," and there's *nothing* innovative about it. I think Bezos would do well to learn the difference between innovation and opportunism.
This time NSI was able to blow it off because the unfortunate victim was a "little guy." Wait 'till something like this happens to someone with deep pockets and on-staff legal counsel.
It is free speech, not free beer. That's the whole idea. There is nothing wrong with making money from software, the only thing that is bad is trying to make money in a bad way (i.e. proprietary software).
Proprietary software isn't bad, it's just a different business model, and even has some advantages over open source.
A lot of people miss the point and call it communism
And they're right. There's no private property (intellectual or otherwise), and the code is, in effect, owned in common, available to all as needed (this came from WWWebster's).
And you know what? This is isn't any different than the completely false impression that politicians attempt to portray when making comments like, "I'm only in for three terms." Yeah, right. Once they get a taste of the 170K/year salary and all the butt-kissers and other perks that go along with it, they'll do or say ANYTHING to stay in office.
Money and influence don't mean much to someone who has neither. But turn the tables, and they're singing an entirely different song.
This sounds to me like a cop-out. The rule is: if you don't pay for it, you don't use it. Why is software any different from a car, for example? BOTH provide benefit, and despite the actual *physical* resources required to manufacture the car, the benefit derived from using software can be very substantial. I believe that the free market really does work...people just have to *allow* it to work. Taking without paying, for whatever reason, undermines the entire system.
To add to this, we don't know exactly what the NSA does in terms of the RESULTS of what it is actually able to accomplish. Having no accountability, what exactly do we GET for the millions of dollars that are spent funding this organization each year? If the NSA is as important as *IT* seems to think it is, why wasn't it able to prevent the bombing of the Murrah building by Timothy McVeigh? Or the bombing of the World Trade Center? Or the top-secret information on nuclear weapons that made its way into the hands of the Chinese government?
Even if the NSA makes the claim that it "didn't have the proper surveillance resources" or some other nonsense, it doesn't MATTER. If someone is truly intent on committing an act of aggression, they don't NEED the internet, OR a phone, OR a computer. Can you say, "Doiyyyyy!"
How do you monitor something that is considered so secret that even judges and courts can't really review it?
Easy...it's been suggested before. You don't fund it. If the NSA pisses off enough people in high places, Congress can eat their lunch (of course, this requires elected officials whose spines don't collapse at the first sign of a campaign contribution or political favor).
Slashdot Mirror
This has the obvious problem of "how do you show intent?" - there is an entire criminal justice system based about trying to infer intent from actions. Using this in the field of patents will just be a nightmare. Not as much as you seem to think. Tied to a patent would be a prospective delivery date. If the date isn't met, the applicant shouldn't have to show that something *couldn't* be done (and therefore, prevented them from meeting the deadline), but what they *have* done in order to meet their deadline. In a sense, I believe a patent can be (or perhaps should be) viewed as a contract with the American public, which basically says something to the effect, "Because I'd like the special protections offered by a patent, I have this new technology I'm working on, here is a description of what it will accomplish, and here's the date by which I hope to have it available on the market." If they can't bring it to market, or they can't bring it to market within a reasonable time frame, why not give someone else the chance? Unlike our current system, this will make patent applicants more accountable.
It was rooted out of frustration not only with MP3.com, Lycos, and Scour.net, but also to create music community.
It's basically a large, online community of thieves.
About a year ago, there were several stories about how the Department of Motor Vehicles in four states were selling citizens' personal information, including the drivers' license photos, to a private company in New Hampshire (Image Data). The focus of this company was a system that would allow merchants to visually identify consumers, via the photos, and as such (it was alleged) would reduce fraud.
0 7.html
I watched a newscast shortly after the initial story broke, where an official from one of the four states was *very* ticked off at this company for misleading him with respect to their source of funds. Apparently, it was discovered that the company had received about $1.5 million from the U.S. Secret Service. Read about it at http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/216
So, while the notion that the NSA is in bed with Bill might seem a little far-fetched, this incident with Image Data makes the NSA/Microsoft issue seem a little more plausible.
Before you apologize for your actions within the borders of your own country, it might help you to know that recently (the last decade or so), the definition of "justice" in the U.S. has become increasingly obsure. I was reading another post that had a link to a site called www.overlawyered.com. Here, there were several articles that chronicled BLATANT abuse of the legal system using civil forfeiture laws. These laws allow federal and state government agencies to seize your property ONLY if there's "probable cause" to believe that it was used in the commission of a crime. Adding insult to injury is the fact that in most cases, the agency conducting the seizure can keep and use the property as they see fit. No one has to be found guilty, or even accused.
FINALLY!!!!! You are absolutely correct. There's nothing that will speak louder and more effectively than MONEY...or in this case, the absence thereof. Consumers, as a whole, COULD bring the RIAA to its knees - to the point that it's BEGGING people to buy their stuff. As has been pointed out, though, they'd rather steal. Makes me wonder if the current slate of music buyers and the RIAA deserve each other.
I don't have a cell phone, I don't foresee getting one, and when I see stuff like this, I laugh about all the people who think they just can't get by without one. If only they knew...
Spam or no spam, a 56K connection is still a 56K connection. There are a lot more delivery methods available today with higher bandwidth, but I think it will still be a while before higher-speed access becomes the norm.
I find this article somewhat absurd. It *assumes* that everyone *has* to be member of the pop culture that so loves screwing, spreading disease, creating babies, etc., and that if they aren't, there's something wrong with them. There's more to life than sex! I'd like to think that many geeks just have a different (perhaps more honorable) set of priorities.
The problem with this logic is that what people "want" is based on any given moment in time. Things change. What people "wanted" when they first joined the ranks of AOL subscribers may have little to with what they're getting today.
I respectfully disagree with your assessment. I don't use *CREDIT* cards because they have their own set of problems. I've actually had fraudulent charges show up on my account, and once I called the bank and informed them, it was about a day or two before the account balance was back to normal. Banks might say they don't *have* to cover losses on a check card, but in the interest of keeping their customers happy, they usually will. The best thing about a check card is that it's pay-as-you-go. You don't have the money, you don't buy it.
I also like the way the article mentions that itwill "cut total road deaths by UP TO 2/3" [emphasis mine]. Well, what if it doesn't? Do you think for a second that the law requiring these devices will be repealed? Not a chance. The British government is getting very good at justifying their actions, (in the U.S., we're faced with the "we need this to protect the children" mantra), and (at least in Britain) the people are getting very good at responding like a mindless herd of sheep.
Let's look at another example...the U.S. spent a couple hundred million to construct a "Y2K preparedness facility," or somesuch. Now that most of the Y2K concern has abated, they're talking about using it for dealing with other "technical emergencies". While it would surely be a waste of taxpayer money to decommission the facility after such a short time in service, it's no different that the ENDLESS waste that occurs in Washington, where funds are allocated to build Navy ships that aren't requested, parking garages that aren't used, and roads that don't go anywhere. The upside is that once it's out of service, the fed can't use it for anything that wasn't intended to begin with. With projects like Echelon lurking in the mist, it's wasted in the most productive way possible.
Here's the other side of it...what if, every time you sit down to program something for someone - whether it be as a contractor or employee, you have to worry about whether or not you're violating someone's patent? For the creative software engineer, this would seem a very easy thing to do. All software patents will do is drive up the cost of doing business...if you're not paying someone royalties, you'll be paying for patent searches to make sure you're not inadvertently infringing on someone else's idea - not because it's particularly brilliant, but ONLY because it's patented. To put it bluntly, this sucks.
Part of the reason for this movement is that many companies of the internet persuasion really don't have all that much with respect to true innovation, so instead of becoming BETTER, and just being good at what they do, they go after every little thing they can. Amazon, anyone?
Here's another way to look at it - I, as one of many incarnations of John Q. Public, have a LOT of respect for Wired for exercising some discretion, but not enough for Amazon to give them my business. These gold-digging morons can patent away - but *I* won't be rewarding them for it.
This is completely beside the point. Software is the *reason* that companies like Red Hat have such enormous value. Without the software, there's no Red Hat. The *problem* is that those who created Red Hat's very foundation, aren't the ones making the money.
Another thing to consider: Red Hat can't require volunteer developers to dress in a particular way, be present in a particular office at particular times, deal with people they dislike, or work on a piece of code that does not interest them.
If a developer becomes contractually involved with a Red Hat-funded project, they can be required to endure any of these.
I LAUGHED when I saw this. Here we have a company with a market cap of more than $18 BILLION, with revenues of only $5 MILLION, and a $3.6 million loss for the year. I can't help but think that at some point, there are going to be an AWFUL lot of people losing an AWFUL lot of money once the stock price starts to reflect the real value of the company. Is the market just STOOPID or what?
Let's look at the bigger picture - Amazon has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to be a good and ethical corporate citizen. It is *this* that will generate the most long-term good will and positive public perception. When they start nickel and diming the USPTO claiming that they've come up with something "innovative," and *then* go after someone else using the technique because of its overt and obvious nature, in my opinion, it doesn't look good. Amazon's legal counsel can sue all they want, but after all is said and done, and the consumer public now sees Amazon as more of a greedy corporation than a customer-friendly bookseller, do the shareholders really win?
On the other hand, Amazon doesn't have it anywhere near as well - it might be in the limelight now, but it's so easy to type "barnesandnoble.com" or "booksamillion.com" instead of "amazon.com". That in itself could represent a real threat, and as such, it would be in Amazon's best interest to be a good citizen. Amazon may have brand recognition, but because it's so easy to switch (and the products among booksellers are identical), I'm not sure it means as much as it once did. We'll see how much Amazon's patent is really worth once people figure out that clicking one or two more times to order something isn't that big a deal.
Bezos claims that other sites should "innovate" and not "copy". What Amazon has done, however, is no different from all of the domain name speculators that have purchased (or reserved) untold thousands of domain names, and are attempting to re-sell them at rediculous prices. This isn't a question of innovation, it's *only* a question of "who got there first," and there's *nothing* innovative about it. I think Bezos would do well to learn the difference between innovation and opportunism.
This time NSI was able to blow it off because the unfortunate victim was a "little guy." Wait 'till something like this happens to someone with deep pockets and on-staff legal counsel.
Proprietary software isn't bad, it's just a different business model, and even has some advantages over open source.
A lot of people miss the point and call it communism
And they're right. There's no private property (intellectual or otherwise), and the code is, in effect, owned in common, available to all as needed (this came from WWWebster's).
Money and influence don't mean much to someone who has neither. But turn the tables, and they're singing an entirely different song.
This sounds to me like a cop-out. The rule is: if you don't pay for it, you don't use it. Why is software any different from a car, for example? BOTH provide benefit, and despite the actual *physical* resources required to manufacture the car, the benefit derived from using software can be very substantial. I believe that the free market really does work...people just have to *allow* it to work. Taking without paying, for whatever reason, undermines the entire system.
To add to this, we don't know exactly what the NSA does in terms of the RESULTS of what it is actually able to accomplish. Having no accountability, what exactly do we GET for the millions of dollars that are spent funding this organization each year? If the NSA is as important as *IT* seems to think it is, why wasn't it able to prevent the bombing of the Murrah building by Timothy McVeigh? Or the bombing of the World Trade Center? Or the top-secret information on nuclear weapons that made its way into the hands of the Chinese government?
Even if the NSA makes the claim that it "didn't have the proper surveillance resources" or some other nonsense, it doesn't MATTER. If someone is truly intent on committing an act of aggression, they don't NEED the internet, OR a phone, OR a computer. Can you say, "Doiyyyyy!"
How do you monitor something that is considered so secret that even judges and courts can't really review it?
Easy...it's been suggested before. You don't fund it. If the NSA pisses off enough people in high places, Congress can eat their lunch (of course, this requires elected officials whose spines don't collapse at the first sign of a campaign contribution or political favor).