You're right, discussing the limitations of a proposed treatment is useless, lets just discuss only the most rosy picture we can imagine of how this will work out (and then pretend we're surprised when it doesn't happen as we'd hoped).
"I wasn't putting words in your mouth I was asking a question"
Fair enough, though it did read to me as a leading question. My reading may have been colored by the fact that others were very aggressively attributing their interpretations to me, but even so I would suggest that a question of the form "So you want to...?" is not often read as an honest question.
"It just seemed like a fairly obvious point and the only reason to bring it up would be that you weren't in favor of it."
You might find the point obvious; others obviously don't. For example, the paragraph you quoted above was from a reply to someone who denied the validity of the point. I'm not sure disease adaptation and resistance is as universally understood as you might think it is.
As to why bring it up, I can think of several pretty good reasons. I certainly don't think the only reason to discuss the negatives or limitations of a course of action is to oppose that course of action. In this case:
You might note that my original comment was phrased as a question; this was not rhetorical. What I was looking for (and got, amidst all the noise) was at least one detailed reply that laid out the degree to which my postulate was correct and what other factors might mitigate it.
Patents are funny that way. If I patent an invention and use it in Product X, and you come along and create Product Y which infringes my patent, then I can sue you (as you expect), and also I can sue anyone who uses, sells, or offers for sale Product Y. That's one of the reasons indemnity is a big deal when corporations look at OSS solutions, and it was the basis of many of SCO's legal threats back in the day.
So you get the store down the street to sell Product Y, I can sue the store down the street. Bob buys Product Y from the store and puts it to use, in theory I can probably sue Bob. Sue enters into an OEM arrangement with you and embeds Product Y in Product Z, I can sue Sue, and Sue's distributors and users as well. All because I have a patent on something I did in Product X.
I have no position on the validity of the specific patents, and I do agree with what you've written here... but I would point out that the age of the patents is a double-edged sword. You mention one case whre prior art would have to be from 1990, so I assume you mean that one was filed in 1991; when was it issued? Isn't the patent term 17 years?
Perhaps, except by selectively quoting only that statement you've removed the entire logical structure of my actual comment.
"The implication of that statement is that this treatment isn't doing anything besides ensuring that the surviving population of the virus is immune to the treatment" in the long term. "However, it's also saving a lot of lives in the meantime" (i.e. in the short term).
What I actually said (not your selective quoting from it) is exactly what I meant; I'm sorry if you find the phrasing poor, but I do not.
If you inferred a conclusion from my premises, that's on you. The flawed logic that says "if the long term impact is limited we shouldn't do it" is yours, not mine.
I really can't comprehend the level of intellectual immaturity that wuold lead you to think you ought to be able to "make me see" that my words mean what you want them to mean. For future reference, the only correct response available to you was to admit you misunderstood me and move on.
The validity of the patent can of course be challenged, though my understanding is that "using WAFL with NAS" isn't what's being claimed as patented; some thing that WAFL does is being claimed as patented, and NetApp further claims that ZFS does those same things.
Also, you seem to think it's legal to sell a product that includes an infringing component; I'm confused why you would think this. Here's an excerpt from 35 USC 271, which defines patent infringement:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent
(emphasis added)
3rd parties can absolutley get swept in, which is one of the reasons the penalties are less if the infringement isn't deemed "willful".
Incorrect. Putting words in anothers' mouth is extremely rude behavior, so unless you can point to some place where I said this treatment shouldn't be pursued I await your appology.
What's sad is how impressively you're missing the point.
I did not say this treatment shoudln't be used. I defy you to point out where I did.
You were not personally attacked for pointing out a logical fallacy. You were personally attacked for putting words in my mouth in an attempt to create a logical fallacy. The longer you keep trying to put words in my mouth, the longer I will continue personally attacking you, because you are being an asshat.
I hope I typed this one slowly enough for you to follow along.
It seems this isn't a hard scheme to defeat, if you're in a suitable negotiating position.
What you want is a contract that says "You must pay me X% of gross; and if you sell rights in this work to someone else, the sales contract must require them to pay me X% of their gross excluding the amount they paid you". Obviously it takes a bit more than that, to make sure that the obligation to pay me is always attached to the rights no matter how often or in what ways they change hands.
The problem is, just as you have to be a big enough fish to get a cut of gross instead of a cut of net, you'd presumably have to have quite a bit of clout to negotiate such a contract.
"By your logic we'd not use antibiotics at all for anything"
Really? Where in my logic did that conclusion come in? I defy you to point out where I said this treatment shouldn't be used. In your world is pointing out the limitations of a solution the same as saying not to use the solution? What a sad little world you must live in.
Again, that's the short term. 90% of the infections you would encounter today would be immunized against (assuming even distribution of strains, and assuming that every infection source only hosts a single strain; if those assumptions don't hold then you could be immunizing against anywhere from 0% to 100% of actual infections).
Now, what happens to a strain of infection that can't find a host? It stops replicating and dies out. Eventually all of the HIV virus that's still alive is from the 10% you weren't able to treat, and at that point you're immunizing against 0% of new infections. In exchange you may have a much smaller infected population... until the disease starts spreading again.
...at least in the short term. But while my understanding is limited, one question seems glaring to me:
If you cook up a medicine that treats 90% of HIV strains, in the long run are you doing anything more than ensuring that the remaining 10% become the entire body of the disease?
This was my first thought, but the more I think about it, it's a little more fuzzy than that. This seems like one of the many areas where the law is showing its age because it hasn't clarified, in the context of software, what is the difference between a description and an implementation?
Patents don't only cover sale or use; they also cover manufacture (at least, this is so in the US; not sure about Europe). What constitutes "making" an instance of the invention, when the invention is software? Executing the code is "using" the invention, but I'd argue it's been made already before you execute it. Is compiling the key step? Well, what about interpreted languages? (Ok, Java isn't an interpreted language; but I have to think one set of rules would apply to all languages. And actually, would anything stop someone writing a java interpreter if they were so inclined?) It's not clear to me that writing code in an actual programming language isn't a reserved right (if the patent is valid in the first place).
For a physical invention, it's very clear. Diagrams, pictures, text... virtually anything on paper is not an implementation. For an algorithm, it's a little less clear. Certainly flow charts or UML or anything of that sort is just a description. But Java code? Not so clear to me that it isn't an instance of the invention itself. Pseudo-code should probably be considered a description, but hypothetically what if someone figures out how to write a compiler for the particular pseudo-code you're using?
None of this addresses whether the patents are valid, which unfortunately is about the last argument an individual wants to hang his hat on when a company threatens patent enforcement. Given the company's attitude that explaining how the code works in a blog post could aid infringement, I suspect that the patents don't contain a full and complete description and, if that's so, should be held invalid. (And I'm trying to avoid getting into the question of what, if anything, constitutes a valid software patent in the first place.)
The good news is, the company is obviously trying to do this on the cheap. They sent an email instead of engaging their legal department (granted they said they could send a formal request, but they're trying not to do so). Even after several requests they've failed to provide the proper patent numbers, and appear to be deliberately vague about what rights they have - presumably to intimidate and get a quick end to the situation. In other words, they don't want to take this to court; they just want to get what they want. Not saying they won't go to court if they feel it's the best way to get their result, but I suspect they'll hesitate to file if the grounds are questionable.
So I think he's doing the right thing. Don't publish code because the risk is too high even if the patent is ultimately not valid; but refuse to remove the blog post because the company probably knows they're asking for more than they can get.
Well, no, not really. This isn't even remotely the same technology path.
This involves using fairly conventional optics to make the best use of a person's existing visual capabilities, resulting in better (but still not "perfect") vision for those with certain types of eye damage. The innovation is overcoming the challenges to implant said optics in the eye.
Geordi's visor would use its own sensors to pull in a much wider spectrum of information than just visible light, bypassing his eyes (i.e. not trying to make use of his existing visual capabilities) to give him superhuman vision. The device would not be implanted in the eye and so would not use the innovations from the telescope.
And if you want to travel to those countries and receive those treatments, nothing stops you. Assuming, of course, you can afford the trip. And also assuming you can afford the treatment without help from your insurance (which is sure to refuse coverage for such a thing). But then, you have no way to validate the efficacy or safety of the treatment you're going to receive, and basically no recourse if it backfires (up to and including killing you).
Some people are happy with those costs and risks. Others, including a lot of Americans (who happen to be among those most able to afford cutting-edge medical treatments) are not. So a company that doesn't pursue FDA approval is cutting itself off from a significant market segment. Still, as I said, nothing stops some companies (especially those that know for some reason that their treatment would never pass muster with the FDA) from doing exactly as you've suggested.
"Or it could just be that the lump of matter has more protons than was previously assumed"
I guess you could make that argument. However, "previously assumed" is a very misleading phrase in that context. Such an excess of protons would actually be an even more shocking result than the others I suggested.
It's all a moot point, though; as noted elsewhere, the mass of a proton isn't actually in question here.
"The parsimonious reality is that someone went to their Wikipedia page and grabbed their Mission Statement which in the context of the story in Wired which specifically used the word "mission" to point to the meaning of the hash made it easy to guess"
That may be parsimonious, but it isn't the approach people actually used. Go read the comments of the first few who posted a result. You probably will then find yourself asking, "what is this MD5 reverse-lookup and how does it work?"
Your desire to limit the definition of "decode" is your problem alone. We started with a messaget whose meaning was hidden, and we ended with the meaning of the message.
Surely you're not suggesting that keeping accurate time with an atomic clock doesn't require manual intervention every time a leap second is introduced?
I do not understand why you apply words like "cannot" to something that has in fact been done. It rather sounds like you're insisting on a general solution to a specific problem. That's fine in an academic setting, but in reality theory has to yield to practice. Specific solutions are often more valuable in practice.
Was the ability to decode this message a result of special circumstanceS? Yes - but what is reality otehr than a large mass of special circumstances?
A hash can be used as a cipher if the receiving party has sufficient knowledge about the potential message. That doesn't make MD5 a general-purpose cipher, but it does mean that the original claim (that this message could be decoded) was correct, as has been demonstrated repeatedly.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, discussing the limitations of a proposed treatment is useless, lets just discuss only the most rosy picture we can imagine of how this will work out (and then pretend we're surprised when it doesn't happen as we'd hoped).
"I wasn't putting words in your mouth I was asking a question"
Fair enough, though it did read to me as a leading question. My reading may have been colored by the fact that others were very aggressively attributing their interpretations to me, but even so I would suggest that a question of the form "So you want to...?" is not often read as an honest question.
"It just seemed like a fairly obvious point and the only reason to bring it up would be that you weren't in favor of it."
You might find the point obvious; others obviously don't. For example, the paragraph you quoted above was from a reply to someone who denied the validity of the point. I'm not sure disease adaptation and resistance is as universally understood as you might think it is.
As to why bring it up, I can think of several pretty good reasons. I certainly don't think the only reason to discuss the negatives or limitations of a course of action is to oppose that course of action. In this case:
You might note that my original comment was phrased as a question; this was not rhetorical. What I was looking for (and got, amidst all the noise) was at least one detailed reply that laid out the degree to which my postulate was correct and what other factors might mitigate it.
Patents are funny that way. If I patent an invention and use it in Product X, and you come along and create Product Y which infringes my patent, then I can sue you (as you expect), and also I can sue anyone who uses, sells, or offers for sale Product Y. That's one of the reasons indemnity is a big deal when corporations look at OSS solutions, and it was the basis of many of SCO's legal threats back in the day.
So you get the store down the street to sell Product Y, I can sue the store down the street. Bob buys Product Y from the store and puts it to use, in theory I can probably sue Bob. Sue enters into an OEM arrangement with you and embeds Product Y in Product Z, I can sue Sue, and Sue's distributors and users as well. All because I have a patent on something I did in Product X.
I have no position on the validity of the specific patents, and I do agree with what you've written here... but I would point out that the age of the patents is a double-edged sword. You mention one case whre prior art would have to be from 1990, so I assume you mean that one was filed in 1991; when was it issued? Isn't the patent term 17 years?
Perhaps, except by selectively quoting only that statement you've removed the entire logical structure of my actual comment.
"The implication of that statement is that this treatment isn't doing anything besides ensuring that the surviving population of the virus is immune to the treatment" in the long term. "However, it's also saving a lot of lives in the meantime" (i.e. in the short term).
What I actually said (not your selective quoting from it) is exactly what I meant; I'm sorry if you find the phrasing poor, but I do not.
If you inferred a conclusion from my premises, that's on you. The flawed logic that says "if the long term impact is limited we shouldn't do it" is yours, not mine.
I really can't comprehend the level of intellectual immaturity that wuold lead you to think you ought to be able to "make me see" that my words mean what you want them to mean. For future reference, the only correct response available to you was to admit you misunderstood me and move on.
The validity of the patent can of course be challenged, though my understanding is that "using WAFL with NAS" isn't what's being claimed as patented; some thing that WAFL does is being claimed as patented, and NetApp further claims that ZFS does those same things.
Also, you seem to think it's legal to sell a product that includes an infringing component; I'm confused why you would think this. Here's an excerpt from 35 USC 271, which defines patent infringement:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent
(emphasis added)
3rd parties can absolutley get swept in, which is one of the reasons the penalties are less if the infringement isn't deemed "willful".
Incorrect. Putting words in anothers' mouth is extremely rude behavior, so unless you can point to some place where I said this treatment shouldn't be pursued I await your appology.
What's sad is how impressively you're missing the point.
I did not say this treatment shoudln't be used. I defy you to point out where I did.
You were not personally attacked for pointing out a logical fallacy. You were personally attacked for putting words in my mouth in an attempt to create a logical fallacy. The longer you keep trying to put words in my mouth, the longer I will continue personally attacking you, because you are being an asshat.
I hope I typed this one slowly enough for you to follow along.
It seems this isn't a hard scheme to defeat, if you're in a suitable negotiating position.
What you want is a contract that says "You must pay me X% of gross; and if you sell rights in this work to someone else, the sales contract must require them to pay me X% of their gross excluding the amount they paid you". Obviously it takes a bit more than that, to make sure that the obligation to pay me is always attached to the rights no matter how often or in what ways they change hands.
The problem is, just as you have to be a big enough fish to get a cut of gross instead of a cut of net, you'd presumably have to have quite a bit of clout to negotiate such a contract.
I think you're playing fast and loose with that 90% figure.
"90% of known straims" does not mean the same thing as "all strains present in 90% of infected persons".
More to the point, in the long view you're only "in the midst of eradicating" the problem if you have a way to address the remaining strains.
"By your logic we'd not use antibiotics at all for anything"
Really? Where in my logic did that conclusion come in? I defy you to point out where I said this treatment shouldn't be used. In your world is pointing out the limitations of a solution the same as saying not to use the solution? What a sad little world you must live in.
Again, that's the short term. 90% of the infections you would encounter today would be immunized against (assuming even distribution of strains, and assuming that every infection source only hosts a single strain; if those assumptions don't hold then you could be immunizing against anywhere from 0% to 100% of actual infections).
Now, what happens to a strain of infection that can't find a host? It stops replicating and dies out. Eventually all of the HIV virus that's still alive is from the 10% you weren't able to treat, and at that point you're immunizing against 0% of new infections. In exchange you may have a much smaller infected population... until the disease starts spreading again.
...at least in the short term. But while my understanding is limited, one question seems glaring to me:
If you cook up a medicine that treats 90% of HIV strains, in the long run are you doing anything more than ensuring that the remaining 10% become the entire body of the disease?
This was my first thought, but the more I think about it, it's a little more fuzzy than that. This seems like one of the many areas where the law is showing its age because it hasn't clarified, in the context of software, what is the difference between a description and an implementation?
Patents don't only cover sale or use; they also cover manufacture (at least, this is so in the US; not sure about Europe). What constitutes "making" an instance of the invention, when the invention is software? Executing the code is "using" the invention, but I'd argue it's been made already before you execute it. Is compiling the key step? Well, what about interpreted languages? (Ok, Java isn't an interpreted language; but I have to think one set of rules would apply to all languages. And actually, would anything stop someone writing a java interpreter if they were so inclined?) It's not clear to me that writing code in an actual programming language isn't a reserved right (if the patent is valid in the first place).
For a physical invention, it's very clear. Diagrams, pictures, text... virtually anything on paper is not an implementation. For an algorithm, it's a little less clear. Certainly flow charts or UML or anything of that sort is just a description. But Java code? Not so clear to me that it isn't an instance of the invention itself. Pseudo-code should probably be considered a description, but hypothetically what if someone figures out how to write a compiler for the particular pseudo-code you're using?
None of this addresses whether the patents are valid, which unfortunately is about the last argument an individual wants to hang his hat on when a company threatens patent enforcement. Given the company's attitude that explaining how the code works in a blog post could aid infringement, I suspect that the patents don't contain a full and complete description and, if that's so, should be held invalid. (And I'm trying to avoid getting into the question of what, if anything, constitutes a valid software patent in the first place.)
The good news is, the company is obviously trying to do this on the cheap. They sent an email instead of engaging their legal department (granted they said they could send a formal request, but they're trying not to do so). Even after several requests they've failed to provide the proper patent numbers, and appear to be deliberately vague about what rights they have - presumably to intimidate and get a quick end to the situation. In other words, they don't want to take this to court; they just want to get what they want. Not saying they won't go to court if they feel it's the best way to get their result, but I suspect they'll hesitate to file if the grounds are questionable.
So I think he's doing the right thing. Don't publish code because the risk is too high even if the patent is ultimately not valid; but refuse to remove the blog post because the company probably knows they're asking for more than they can get.
"radius != mass"
Thanks, captain obvious. Read the rest of the thread, we already cleared that up.
You are very astute, sir or madam.
Boats are fundamentally unlike particles.
When a boat is underwater, we know that it gets wet. When a particle is underwater... nobody knows.
If your lamp is emitting protons, I recommend staying away from it.
Well, no, not really. This isn't even remotely the same technology path.
This involves using fairly conventional optics to make the best use of a person's existing visual capabilities, resulting in better (but still not "perfect") vision for those with certain types of eye damage. The innovation is overcoming the challenges to implant said optics in the eye.
Geordi's visor would use its own sensors to pull in a much wider spectrum of information than just visible light, bypassing his eyes (i.e. not trying to make use of his existing visual capabilities) to give him superhuman vision. The device would not be implanted in the eye and so would not use the innovations from the telescope.
The technological overlap is just about zero.
Why, nothing stops them. It happens all the time.
And if you want to travel to those countries and receive those treatments, nothing stops you. Assuming, of course, you can afford the trip. And also assuming you can afford the treatment without help from your insurance (which is sure to refuse coverage for such a thing). But then, you have no way to validate the efficacy or safety of the treatment you're going to receive, and basically no recourse if it backfires (up to and including killing you).
Some people are happy with those costs and risks. Others, including a lot of Americans (who happen to be among those most able to afford cutting-edge medical treatments) are not. So a company that doesn't pursue FDA approval is cutting itself off from a significant market segment. Still, as I said, nothing stops some companies (especially those that know for some reason that their treatment would never pass muster with the FDA) from doing exactly as you've suggested.
"Or it could just be that the lump of matter has more protons than was previously assumed"
I guess you could make that argument. However, "previously assumed" is a very misleading phrase in that context. Such an excess of protons would actually be an even more shocking result than the others I suggested.
It's all a moot point, though; as noted elsewhere, the mass of a proton isn't actually in question here.
"The parsimonious reality is that someone went to their Wikipedia page and grabbed their Mission Statement which in the context of the story in Wired which specifically used the word "mission" to point to the meaning of the hash made it easy to guess"
That may be parsimonious, but it isn't the approach people actually used. Go read the comments of the first few who posted a result. You probably will then find yourself asking, "what is this MD5 reverse-lookup and how does it work?"
Your desire to limit the definition of "decode" is your problem alone. We started with a messaget whose meaning was hidden, and we ended with the meaning of the message.
Surely you're not suggesting that keeping accurate time with an atomic clock doesn't require manual intervention every time a leap second is introduced?
I do not understand why you apply words like "cannot" to something that has in fact been done. It rather sounds like you're insisting on a general solution to a specific problem. That's fine in an academic setting, but in reality theory has to yield to practice. Specific solutions are often more valuable in practice.
Was the ability to decode this message a result of special circumstanceS? Yes - but what is reality otehr than a large mass of special circumstances?
A hash can be used as a cipher if the receiving party has sufficient knowledge about the potential message. That doesn't make MD5 a general-purpose cipher, but it does mean that the original claim (that this message could be decoded) was correct, as has been demonstrated repeatedly.