What would be the point of putting an intentional back door or kill switch in a medical device?
Once you have reached your level of paranoia you should know that just because you are looking at SOME source code does not mean it exactly matches the binary in your device. There could always be something in the tool chain that inserts backdoors and kill switches independent of the source code. So unless you are planning on building your own tool chain from scratch, inspecting, compiling, and actually installing the result on your device you still don't know that it is 'safe'. And once you do all that, you can kiss your warranty and any manufacturer liability goodbye.
The lack of security is not a flaw, it is a design choice. The company (and regulators) know very well that the device is insecure. What could possibly be gained by exposing that situation to the world?
Secondly, you can't magically add security and not affect one of the other things. Encryption is compute-intensive, which means more heat, less battery life, and more complexity. Now, maybe if new longer life batteries come along you could add security and not sacrifice battery life. Or you could say 'which do my customers prefer more - longer battery life, or protection against some remotely thin possibility of hacking'?
This is exactly why the code should not be 'open'. You just wind up with hysterics like yours, and very little in the way of actually useful information. Did it occur to you that security may be way down on the list of concerns when making such a device? Actual real-world things are somewhat more important. Like battery life. Trying to maintain communications under all circumstances. Heat generated. Reliability.
Yes, theoretically someone could kill your friends by hacking their insulin pumps. Or, they could just shoot them, or run them down with a car, or poison their food, or steal their insulin, or use any of the other thousands of ways you could kill someone.
What good is that going to do? Who is qualified to look at it? It seems to me you would not only have to understand programming, but also the actual hardware it is controlling, the conditions it is supposed to be treating, biology, etc. If you can do all that chances are you work for a medical devices company. If someone does inspect the code, and says it is OK, does that absolve the manufacturer from all liability?
Their software makes you 'uncomfortable'? Well, don't use it - that should ease your discomfort. OK, you may be dead, but hey, at least those greedy bastards aren't getting any of YOUR money.
I admit no such thing. First, I do not believe that a private conversation (which these letters were) between two parties in any way shape or form can constitute an 'attack' on a third party, absent some actual action against the third party.
Secondly, your treatment of the word infringement strikes me as the same way some people treat the word cancer - if it not said out loud then it doesn't exist. IBM saying that Hercules infringes their patents is not what makes it infringe, and IBM not saying it infringes their patents does not make it non-infringing. The only two things that matter are: does it actually infringe (IBM thinks so and I am not aware of any claims to the contrary), and has IBM done anything about it (no).
You can rail against 'software' (which these aren't) patents all you want, but in this case patents did exactly what they were supposed to - encourage progress and keep out freeloaders. IBM invested literally billions of dollars in research and development into a computer architecture that both protects customers existing programs and allows customers to perform their jobs quicker, more securely, and more efficiently. TurboHercules has invested exactly $0, but seeks to profit off of and devalue IBMs investment.
The post that I responded to included a quote saying "... just a few days before we filed... may have violated 173 patents...". That is letter #4. Letter #2 was written months before they filed, and contains no reference at all to '173 patents', just a statement that 'we think it is an infringing platform'. The claim made by the poster that IBM made 'grandiose threatening claims about a number of patents without in any way providing what patents have actually been infringed' is completely false, no matter how you try to spin it.
IBM did license their software for use on other hardware (Amdahl etc). I don't think they were forced to (I believe the only case that IBM lost with the DOJ was in 1956, long before 'software' entered the picture). However, whether they were forced to or not Amdahl (and other manufacturers) did not get the free ride that Hercules/TurboHercules seems to think they are entitled to. Those other companies actually PAID IBM for patent licenses, and in many cases made cross-licensing deals so that IBM could use their IP. Contrast that with TH, who are offering IBM nothing at all.
In what language does the word 'bundle' include two different things that are sold separately, at potentially the same or different times? By your definition, every video game sold by Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo is 'bundled' with the respective consoles. Every app Apple sells for OS X is 'bundled' with OS X, etc.
I am quite sure that if you have 'superior' ways of doing things either IBM or it's customers would love to hear from you. Since you obviously have no interest in patents, why not enlighten us all?
It is amazing how you can cite something that completely disproves the point you are trying to make and try to use it as 'proof'. Yes, Microsoft sued TomTom and HTC. Yet how many Linux users were sued? How many Linux developers were sued? So it IS possible to sue a commercial company who happens to be using open source, and at the same time leave the open source project, it's developers, and it's non-commercial users untouched. Yet here we have Jay once again complaining how it is IMPOSSIBLE for IBM to go after TH and leave him alone.
Exactly what would IBM have to gain by suing TurboHercules, Hercules or it's developers? Their 'product' is useless without IBMs blessing, and IBM isn't giving it. Now, if they succeed in FORCING IBM to license z/OS, then it is a whole new ballgame.
Sorry, but you are entirely incorrect. In the letter where the 173 patents are mentioned is a list of each and every patent, including the patent number and title of the patent. This letter is directly linked to in the Groklaw article.
You are correct - IBM is not preventing anyone from running what they want on their hardware. For some reason unfathomable to me, MS seems to think they do have the right to force IBM to license their software for use on other hardware.
Bundling is putting two things together in one package. You do not need z/OS to run a mainframe - you can use Linux, z/VM, OpenSolaris, or z/VSE. You do need a zSeries machine to run z/OS, but the license can be transferred to a different machine. The two products (hardware and software) are sold separately. If a legitimate competitor (ie. one that licenses IBM IP) arose, IBM may very well license z/OS to be run on that hardware. No such competitor currently exists.
IBM stopped bundling hardware and software in 1969. z/OS is a separate product from the hardware. You do not get a copy of z/OS when you buy a zSeries machine. You can run any OS on it you wish. That includes z/OS, Linux, z/VM, z/VSE, and OpenSolaris. However, if you want to run z/OS, then you DO need a zSeries machine, as that is the only way it is licensed. TH would like IBM to license z/OS to run on their emulator. But, there is a problem - IBM believes the TH emulator infringes on over 100 of it's hardware and architecture patents, and therefore will not license z/OS to run on it.
This is not about 'bundling' of hardware and software (IBM stopped doing that more than 40 years ago). This is about an operating system (z/OS), which is a product IBM sells. z/OS runs only on z/Architecture machines. Currently, there is one manufacturer of z/Architecture machines - IBM. Therefore, if you want to run z/OS, you must have an IBM mainframe. Microsoft (through TurboHercules) is complaining that IBM is abusing it's position by not licensing z/OS to be run on TurboHercules' emulator. However, they only want IBM to change it's behavior, they don't want to play by the same rules. In particular, they see nothing wrong with the fact that TH infringes IBM patents, and IBM therefore does not recognize them as a legitimate competitor.
Ah, the old 'it's an old people' problem. Well, let's roll the clock back 40 years or so, to a time when these 'old people' were in high-school and college, and see what big changes in the world THEIR generation was going to produce (because all these problems were caused by 'old people'):
No more war (make love not war) - oops No more corporations (down with the establishment) - oops No more 'illegal' drugs - oops No more monogamous relationships/marriage (free love) - oops No more religion - oops
So what happened? Well, they grew up and matured, and realized that the world is not quite so simple as it was in their imaginations.
Now, let's fast-forward 40 years, to a time when YOU are in charge of hiring someone. You have one job opening, and a couple dozen qualified applicants. Do you think you can honestly say that you will not use 'character' to help narrow the choices, and that you will not whatever tools you have available to help determine what the character of an applicant is?
I don't think there are many employers whose primary requirement is 'no embarrassing photos or comments online'. However, in a job market like we are in now (way more applicants than jobs), every little differentiator helps. An employer that faces multiple equally-qualified (education, experience, etc) applicants for one job opening must use SOME criteria for choosing one. Employers have always asked for things like character references to help them make the decisions, doing an online search is just one more tool they have.
What scientists? OK, the guy is a professor - of spanish. His entire 'study' seems to be 'some cars are now hybrid, and pedestrian deaths went down recently, therefore hybrid cars are not a problem for pedestrians'.
The 'information' is free and can not be copyrighted. The information in this case would be the fact that there was an accident, number of cars, etc. However, if you write a creative description of that information, it can be copyrighted.
You could not copyright the following description: There was an auto accident at the corner of A and B streets today. One of the cars was speeding and ran a red light. Minor injuries were reported.
However, the following may be able to be copyrighted: A spectacular auto accident occurred at the corner of A and B streets today. One vehicle was careening down the street and inadvisedly ran the red light. The other vehicle had already entered the intersection, and they collided in a cacophony of breaking glass and crumpling steel. Fortunately for all involved, only minor injuries were reported.
Anyone could strip out all of your 'creative' content and still reprint the facts, adding their own creative content if they wish. But that is not what is occurring. Instead, people are just copying YOUR sentences.
I never once mentioned 'publisher' or said who was doing the marketing. I was merely responding to the statement that said if you write a good book you don't need marketing, and your statement that if publishers are doing marketing they are doing a crappy job. Whether it is you personally doing the marketing, or a family member, or someone you hire, or a publisher, you still need to do the marketing. Even for eBooks, you need to get someone to offer it (even if it is putting up your own web site). That is marketing. Now, if your statement was 'I don't need a publisher to market for me, I can do it myself' then I would agree. But that is not what you said.
There is plenty of competition in those markets. The question is: who is competing for what? Are publishers competing for authors, or are authors competing to be published? If you are a best-selling author, then publishers will compete for you. They may try to one-up each others percentages, or offer stronger promotion, or any number of things to win that author. However, if you are an author competing to be published, then it is YOU who must offer better terms. If other authors are willing to settle for 20%, you are not going to get higher than that. If you really want to be published, you need to be willing to DROP your take, not complain that they won't give you more.
It seems that you think marketing consists only of consumer-level advertising. The B&N Unbound Blog is marketing. Their Friday giveaway is marketing.
You could write the best book in the world, but until someone other than yourself knows about it you are not going to sell a single copy. As soon as you tell someone, you have begun marketing it. Next, it does no good at all to have thousands (millions?) of people clamoring for your book if they can't buy it anywhere. So before you have consumers wanting your book, you better convince the retailers that this is going to be a best-seller so that they can stock up on it. That is marketing (and is in fact the real heavy-duty marketing as far as books are concerned).
Slashdot Mirror
What would be the point of putting an intentional back door or kill switch in a medical device?
Once you have reached your level of paranoia you should know that just because you are looking at SOME source code does not mean it exactly matches the binary in your device. There could always be something in the tool chain that inserts backdoors and kill switches independent of the source code. So unless you are planning on building your own tool chain from scratch, inspecting, compiling, and actually installing the result on your device you still don't know that it is 'safe'. And once you do all that, you can kiss your warranty and any manufacturer liability goodbye.
The lack of security is not a flaw, it is a design choice. The company (and regulators) know very well that the device is insecure. What could possibly be gained by exposing that situation to the world?
Secondly, you can't magically add security and not affect one of the other things. Encryption is compute-intensive, which means more heat, less battery life, and more complexity. Now, maybe if new longer life batteries come along you could add security and not sacrifice battery life. Or you could say 'which do my customers prefer more - longer battery life, or protection against some remotely thin possibility of hacking'?
This is exactly why the code should not be 'open'. You just wind up with hysterics like yours, and very little in the way of actually useful information. Did it occur to you that security may be way down on the list of concerns when making such a device? Actual real-world things are somewhat more important. Like battery life. Trying to maintain communications under all circumstances. Heat generated. Reliability.
Yes, theoretically someone could kill your friends by hacking their insulin pumps. Or, they could just shoot them, or run them down with a car, or poison their food, or steal their insulin, or use any of the other thousands of ways you could kill someone.
What good is that going to do? Who is qualified to look at it? It seems to me you would not only have to understand programming, but also the actual hardware it is controlling, the conditions it is supposed to be treating, biology, etc. If you can do all that chances are you work for a medical devices company. If someone does inspect the code, and says it is OK, does that absolve the manufacturer from all liability?
Their software makes you 'uncomfortable'? Well, don't use it - that should ease your discomfort. OK, you may be dead, but hey, at least those greedy bastards aren't getting any of YOUR money.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/07/22/2346253/SFLC-Wants-To-Avoid-Death-by-Code?art_pos=46
I admit no such thing. First, I do not believe that a private conversation (which these letters were) between two parties in any way shape or form can constitute an 'attack' on a third party, absent some actual action against the third party.
Secondly, your treatment of the word infringement strikes me as the same way some people treat the word cancer - if it not said out loud then it doesn't exist. IBM saying that Hercules infringes their patents is not what makes it infringe, and IBM not saying it infringes their patents does not make it non-infringing. The only two things that matter are: does it actually infringe (IBM thinks so and I am not aware of any claims to the contrary), and has IBM done anything about it (no).
You can rail against 'software' (which these aren't) patents all you want, but in this case patents did exactly what they were supposed to - encourage progress and keep out freeloaders. IBM invested literally billions of dollars in research and development into a computer architecture that both protects customers existing programs and allows customers to perform their jobs quicker, more securely, and more efficiently. TurboHercules has invested exactly $0, but seeks to profit off of and devalue IBMs investment.
The post that I responded to included a quote saying "... just a few days before we filed ... may have violated 173 patents...". That is letter #4. Letter #2 was written months before they filed, and contains no reference at all to '173 patents', just a statement that 'we think it is an infringing platform'. The claim made by the poster that IBM made 'grandiose threatening claims about a number of patents without in any way providing what patents have actually been infringed' is completely false, no matter how you try to spin it.
IBM did license their software for use on other hardware (Amdahl etc). I don't think they were forced to (I believe the only case that IBM lost with the DOJ was in 1956, long before 'software' entered the picture). However, whether they were forced to or not Amdahl (and other manufacturers) did not get the free ride that Hercules/TurboHercules seems to think they are entitled to. Those other companies actually PAID IBM for patent licenses, and in many cases made cross-licensing deals so that IBM could use their IP. Contrast that with TH, who are offering IBM nothing at all.
In what language does the word 'bundle' include two different things that are sold separately, at potentially the same or different times? By your definition, every video game sold by Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo is 'bundled' with the respective consoles. Every app Apple sells for OS X is 'bundled' with OS X, etc.
I am quite sure that if you have 'superior' ways of doing things either IBM or it's customers would love to hear from you. Since you obviously have no interest in patents, why not enlighten us all?
It is amazing how you can cite something that completely disproves the point you are trying to make and try to use it as 'proof'. Yes, Microsoft sued TomTom and HTC. Yet how many Linux users were sued? How many Linux developers were sued? So it IS possible to sue a commercial company who happens to be using open source, and at the same time leave the open source project, it's developers, and it's non-commercial users untouched. Yet here we have Jay once again complaining how it is IMPOSSIBLE for IBM to go after TH and leave him alone.
Exactly what would IBM have to gain by suing TurboHercules, Hercules or it's developers? Their 'product' is useless without IBMs blessing, and IBM isn't giving it. Now, if they succeed in FORCING IBM to license z/OS, then it is a whole new ballgame.
Sorry, but you are entirely incorrect. In the letter where the 173 patents are mentioned is a list of each and every patent, including the patent number and title of the patent. This letter is directly linked to in the Groklaw article.
You are correct - IBM is not preventing anyone from running what they want on their hardware. For some reason unfathomable to me, MS seems to think they do have the right to force IBM to license their software for use on other hardware.
Bundling is putting two things together in one package. You do not need z/OS to run a mainframe - you can use Linux, z/VM, OpenSolaris, or z/VSE. You do need a zSeries machine to run z/OS, but the license can be transferred to a different machine. The two products (hardware and software) are sold separately. If a legitimate competitor (ie. one that licenses IBM IP) arose, IBM may very well license z/OS to be run on that hardware. No such competitor currently exists.
IBM stopped bundling hardware and software in 1969. z/OS is a separate product from the hardware. You do not get a copy of z/OS when you buy a zSeries machine. You can run any OS on it you wish. That includes z/OS, Linux, z/VM, z/VSE, and OpenSolaris. However, if you want to run z/OS, then you DO need a zSeries machine, as that is the only way it is licensed. TH would like IBM to license z/OS to run on their emulator. But, there is a problem - IBM believes the TH emulator infringes on over 100 of it's hardware and architecture patents, and therefore will not license z/OS to run on it.
This is not about 'bundling' of hardware and software (IBM stopped doing that more than 40 years ago). This is about an operating system (z/OS), which is a product IBM sells. z/OS runs only on z/Architecture machines. Currently, there is one manufacturer of z/Architecture machines - IBM. Therefore, if you want to run z/OS, you must have an IBM mainframe. Microsoft (through TurboHercules) is complaining that IBM is abusing it's position by not licensing z/OS to be run on TurboHercules' emulator. However, they only want IBM to change it's behavior, they don't want to play by the same rules. In particular, they see nothing wrong with the fact that TH infringes IBM patents, and IBM therefore does not recognize them as a legitimate competitor.
Way overpriced by what criteria?
Ah, the old 'it's an old people' problem. Well, let's roll the clock back 40 years or so, to a time when these 'old people' were in high-school and college, and see what big changes in the world THEIR generation was going to produce (because all these problems were caused by 'old people'):
No more war (make love not war) - oops
No more corporations (down with the establishment) - oops
No more 'illegal' drugs - oops
No more monogamous relationships/marriage (free love) - oops
No more religion - oops
So what happened? Well, they grew up and matured, and realized that the world is not quite so simple as it was in their imaginations.
Now, let's fast-forward 40 years, to a time when YOU are in charge of hiring someone. You have one job opening, and a couple dozen qualified applicants. Do you think you can honestly say that you will not use 'character' to help narrow the choices, and that you will not whatever tools you have available to help determine what the character of an applicant is?
I don't think there are many employers whose primary requirement is 'no embarrassing photos or comments online'. However, in a job market like we are in now (way more applicants than jobs), every little differentiator helps. An employer that faces multiple equally-qualified (education, experience, etc) applicants for one job opening must use SOME criteria for choosing one. Employers have always asked for things like character references to help them make the decisions, doing an online search is just one more tool they have.
What scientists? OK, the guy is a professor - of spanish. His entire 'study' seems to be 'some cars are now hybrid, and pedestrian deaths went down recently, therefore hybrid cars are not a problem for pedestrians'.
Yes, you are of course right. Thanks for the clarification.
The 'information' is free and can not be copyrighted. The information in this case would be the fact that there was an accident, number of cars, etc. However, if you write a creative description of that information, it can be copyrighted.
You could not copyright the following description: There was an auto accident at the corner of A and B streets today. One of the cars was speeding and ran a red light. Minor injuries were reported.
However, the following may be able to be copyrighted: A spectacular auto accident occurred at the corner of A and B streets today. One vehicle was careening down the street and inadvisedly ran the red light. The other vehicle had already entered the intersection, and they collided in a cacophony of breaking glass and crumpling steel. Fortunately for all involved, only minor injuries were reported.
Anyone could strip out all of your 'creative' content and still reprint the facts, adding their own creative content if they wish. But that is not what is occurring. Instead, people are just copying YOUR sentences.
I never once mentioned 'publisher' or said who was doing the marketing. I was merely responding to the statement that said if you write a good book you don't need marketing, and your statement that if publishers are doing marketing they are doing a crappy job. Whether it is you personally doing the marketing, or a family member, or someone you hire, or a publisher, you still need to do the marketing. Even for eBooks, you need to get someone to offer it (even if it is putting up your own web site). That is marketing. Now, if your statement was 'I don't need a publisher to market for me, I can do it myself' then I would agree. But that is not what you said.
There is plenty of competition in those markets. The question is: who is competing for what? Are publishers competing for authors, or are authors competing to be published? If you are a best-selling author, then publishers will compete for you. They may try to one-up each others percentages, or offer stronger promotion, or any number of things to win that author. However, if you are an author competing to be published, then it is YOU who must offer better terms. If other authors are willing to settle for 20%, you are not going to get higher than that. If you really want to be published, you need to be willing to DROP your take, not complain that they won't give you more.
It seems that you think marketing consists only of consumer-level advertising. The B&N Unbound Blog is marketing. Their Friday giveaway is marketing.
You could write the best book in the world, but until someone other than yourself knows about it you are not going to sell a single copy. As soon as you tell someone, you have begun marketing it. Next, it does no good at all to have thousands (millions?) of people clamoring for your book if they can't buy it anywhere. So before you have consumers wanting your book, you better convince the retailers that this is going to be a best-seller so that they can stock up on it. That is marketing (and is in fact the real heavy-duty marketing as far as books are concerned).