Just find the agreement that you signed with them and see what it says. If you never signed one, then the product belongs to you.
Not necessarily...
If the application is something that is in the area that the employer's area of business, the original poster may be screwed. In some areas, an employee is required by law to inform the employer of any side work, and offer any opportunities to the employer first -- especially if it crosses into the employers area of business. Failing to do so is sufficient grounds for dismissal, and the app could become property of the employer.
On the other hand, if your agreement says you can develop your own stuff on the side, no questions asked, then everthing's (probably) kosher. Again, it depends where you are in the world...
Should've though it through before starting the app, and probably quit the job and secured a loan to develop the app... It would've been the ethical thing to do, also.
Poster: Did you actually think before you posted?
Moderators: Did you actualy think before you moderated?
Once a patent has been granted, the information regarding it is available to anyone. This means that anyone can find the patent description and use it to reimplement the same idea. This is hardly "proof" that the idea is obvious.
What you should expect is not to have your presumption of innocence in question merely because you happen to look like someone else.
Where, exactly, is the presumtion of innocence questioned??? Innocent people get stopped often enough without this type of technology. And when it does happen, it gets sorted out and people get on with their life. No big deal. But now that there's a camera, it's a Big Deal???
The burden of proof should be on the authorties to be reasonably sure of who they've id'd before hassling an innocent citizen.
How should they be reasonably sure? They probably want to see some ID, right? What's so wrong with that? It hardly qualifies as hassling.
The figures are quickly approaching the "Your papers please" stage.
Puhleeeessse! Get a grip! The cops didn't have time to stop everyone before, and they don't now! That's the point of the system!
OK. So this type of system isn't as accurate as a person (yet). But it's not like it flags every person. If it does flag somebody, that should be reasonable grounds to ask for ID, and that's all they can do... and a few false positives won't hurt. I'd rather have the cops ask me for ID because the system says I look like a wanted murderer, than have the (accused... presumption of innocence, remember?) murderer pass by the (underpaid, underappreciated, overworked) cop because he was looking at his watch.
If anyone cares, you can get some actual facts about this type of technology if you (omigawd!) search for it at google. Try "face recognition", "face detection", "human face recognition", or any other seemingly intelligent phrase...
I returned to school 3 years ago to get a degree in Computing Science -- not because I wanted more money, but because I am fascinated by so many areas related to computing. Imagine my dissapoinment when I realized how many other students are in it for the money, and even worse how many don't even really like computers!!! OK, so I was a little naive...
If there is a shortage of good people (like someone else proposed), as opposed to just a shortage of people in general, then I don't see a solution soon. With all of the "carreer colleges" and "professional education centers" advertising the quick buck and easy employment, the number of people doing it for the money will only increase, and will do so much faster than the number of people who are doing it for fun, so to speak. Unfortunately, the former group is likely to have a very small proportion of "good" programmers (someday I hope to find out what that means), but it is the group that will dominate the workforce. The other group (including me, one day, I hope), as well as those "good programmers" from the first group, will have to accept that the skills of many coworkers are inadequate, or alternatively that there won't be enough people who can get the job done, and so they will be overworked.
This may cause incomes to increase, and I believe will only cause the problem to spiral out of control. Eventually the whole poverbial bandwagon will crash, and the I see one of two possibilities:
The crash is loud and painful (huge pileup on I90). People not involved (i.e. government) will decide that the industry must change, and will come up with some sort of professional regulation -- similar to what exists for architect and engineers, possibly.
The crash is quiet an uneventful (a fender-bender). People inside the industry decide that there must be some minimal skill level, and will enforce that standard. Simply having a degree or diploma or manufacturers certification won't always be enough. This is different from the other option in that people who understand the industry use their knowledge to ensure it operates efficiently, rather than outsiders forcing rules on the industry that may be well suited to other industries, but not to computing.
Either way, something will have to change. Maybe not anytime soon, but eventually.
Then again, I'm only a student. All of my experience is from another industry (construction), so I may be way off base. Comments?
Tim
Reminds me of a story...
on
Laptop Exams?
·
· Score: 1
The prof for my 3rd calculus course had a policy for the final exam that we could bring "anything non-human that you can carry" (the non-human part was so nobody brought "a grad student riding piggyback" along). He figured that if you knew your stuff, having a graphing calculator and/or all of your notes wouldn't make a difference, and on the other hand, if you didn't know you're stuff then nothing was going to help anyways. Unfortunately, some people brought laptops with programs that do integrals alphanumerically, solve summations, etc. These people had a definite advantage, and didn't need to know what they were doing. The prof has since changed his policy, so now students can bring in all of their notes and any calculator, but no computers. Am I bitter? Yes. I got a 6 (of 9), and worked my butt of to get it. Another student (with a laptop) got a 9, but probably couldn't tell you how to solve the geometric series.
So what's my point? Simply that whether or not to allow laptops (or any materials) in an exam situation depends largely on what the purpose of the course is. If, like calculus, we're supposed to learn the fundamental mathematical theories that we may or may not (another discussion) use in our careers, then we probably should be on our own. But if the course is, say, exploring ways to use technology in the classroom then certainly using the internet (web, mail, news, whatever) in an exam situation should be considered.
Sure software companies have lots of choices in the candidate pool, but the fastest way to the chaff from the wheat is to put a B.Sc requirement on the job. (Not that it always works, as there are some people I wonder how the heck they even PASSED with so little they know.)
This touches on something that I rant about in the RW alot. If you want to build a hospital, you go hire an Architect (who legally must have professional association for a project like this), who in turn will likely hire engineering consultants (who must also legally have professional association). Then the client goes and hires a consultant to build the computer systems that will help run the hospital. If they're a smart organization then they'll know how to get a company that is qualified to do this, but it really could come down to luck.
How does the client know that the company they are hiring is capable of completing the project. How does the copmpany know that the programmers it hires even have some basic formal knowledge about testing, documentation, etc.
I read an article in a Transactions on... journal a couple of years back talking about exactly this. In fact the article was commenting on the way that programmers call themselves "Software Engineers". In some locales the term "Engineer" is restricted in its use -- you can't call yourself an engineer unless you legally are one. Since most (all??) "Software Engineers" have no legal (not trade) certification, they aren't engineers.
The argument that Computing is a relatively new field doesn't excuse a company that builds a critical app which subsequently fails (and possibly costs lives). In some areas, if a building collapses, the engineer can be brought up on criminal charges (ie criminal negligence). The company that build the critical app which failed might be sued, but the "Software Engineer" who runs the company will come out of it OK.
Now the question arises, "Where do you draw the line?" Analogous to construction, there are certain projects that there is no need for the developer to be qualified as an Engineer. In Canada, anyone can design and build a house. In fact, anyone can design a building less than a certain size, or for certain uses (residential and light commercial under 600 square meters, I think). Likewise, there is no reason that a game, word processor, or other application which isn't going to cause major problems if it fails should be designed by a (legal) "Software Engineer". But the person designing an app that has the potential to cause a great deal of harm if it fails should (in my opinion) have a legal certifcation that the client can view as a guarantee that the designer is qualified and capable.
even if that means breaking an encryption. You say this isn't the case in Sweden - well, I live here, so tell me where you found that information:)
I don't know for certain (hence the AFAIK), but I suspect that the laws in Sweden aren't that much different from the rest of the West. If I'm wrong, so be it.
And breaking encryption isn't the point here, either. Simply because you have the means to do something doesn't make it entirely legal. Let me make it clear that I support the idea that you should be able to do whatever you want with the DVD that you buy (except distribute copies of it), but I did feel the need to point out that you don't legally own the data on the DVD and therefore you can't do whatever you want with it. The data on the disk falls under copyright just like the words in a book. Therefore, "fair use" is a consideration in deciding if whatever you choose to do is legal or not. I'm quite certain that writing software to view the movie on an unsupported platform would be considered fair use. The MPAA doesn't seem to follow this same line of reasoning, which is what is causing the problem.
There's no software license I have to agree to when buying a DVD that says I can only view it using means given to me by the MPAA or DVD-CCA...
Absoultely correct. This isn't contradictory to what I was saying. Basically, the studios (or their representatives) have the right to say that you can't copy the DVD and then sell those copies. Many people (myself included) feel that copying DVDs for personal use falls under fair use, and so should be legal. To do this with DVDs, one needs to break the encryption. Even if you don't want to copy the disk, you still need to break the encryption to view the movie on an unsupported platform. So breaking the encryption scheme shouldn't be illegal. But until a judge says so, anyone who provides info on how to do so runs the risk of a lawsuit and criminal charges.
After say all that, I went and reread the rest of our thread. I think we basically agree in spirit. What I was trying to express is that you don't own the data on the disk...
...but there's no question about it that you do own the encrypted contents on the actual DVD...
Sorry. Wrong. DVD's are just like (music) CD's, software (even if you disagree, it is "legally" the same), and books. You don't generally own the information on the media. You could say that you own the media, and can do what you want with it, but that doesn't allow you to do what you want (without restriction) with the data.
When you purchase a DVD, you are purchasing the right to view the movie. This is why they (the studios) can contemplate such things as self-destructing media, etc. If you were to purchase a movie on a self-destructing DVD, you would essentially be paying for the right to view the movie for a certain amount of time, or for only a certain numberof uses. Scary.
AFAIK, this applies to Sweden, Norway, and most anywhere else in the West.
dvd-hoy-reply.htm + DVD CCA: Reply Declaration of John J. Hoy January 22, 2000 Caution: It may be illegal for California and New York residents to download the file above. Before downloading read the contents below. Have lawyer on hand. Or say fuck it and enjoy the forbidden fruit of intellectual censorship. Rest of world is free to grab it, for now.
So it seems likely that this isn't supposed to be public information, at least not yet. But maybe I'm wrong... Tim
This probably would be a good defence. It comes down to the difference between a broadcaster (publisher, webmaster) and an "innocent disseminator" (bookstore, directory service). The broadcaster can be reasonably expected to be aware of the content that they are distributing, but an "innocent disseminator" would not be expected to know exactly what he is distributing (although after being informed of some illegal content -- libel, for example -- he would no longer be "innocent", and would be required to take action to stop disseminating the content).
If the search engine/directory service can convince a judge that they are an innocent disseminator, then they should be home free.
Naturally, but money is not an end, it is a means.
Absolutely, at least insofar as the researchers are concerned. However, once you look at the administrative level, the point of the University is to make money. They need this money to survive.So while in principle it sounds great, in practice the institution uses the same profit maximization techniques as companies. But instead of turning profits over to shareholders, they reinvest the profits in more research. True, this is a Good Thing, but the fact remains that it is the money that is running the machine.
our university doesn't have a department for that (AFAIK). I do research at the CS dept. and software patents aren't allowed here
2 things: First, and only if you don't mind answering this, what University are you doing research at?
Second, we were discussing genetics, not software. These are two very different animals. I'm a third year CS student, and I have enough knowledge that I could write a useful piece of software right now. With enough effort (and some help from friends), I might be able to throw something innovative into it. Now, I'm not saying it would be the next killer app (I wish!!), but it would be useful. But if I want to protect my (or our, as the case may be) development (which may not be the case), I personally feel the best way to do this is Trade Secret, and not Patents.
A genetisist, however, is more likely to have a degree before (s)he begins doing any substantial work in the field. When they develop something (process or use), then that should be patentable (I agree, for 3-5 years only).
My point is, software is such an algorithmic and technical process that any two pieces of software will likely have a large amount of overlap -- whether it was intended or not. After all, if the method is a good way to do something then other reasonably capable people should be able to reach the same "obvious" conclusion. When we're talking in terms of bits, there are only so many ways to efficiently and effectively do something. Genetics, however, is a much more specialized field. If nobody knows an effective way to do something -- i.e. extract the longevity gene (why doesn't anyone want to find the gene to help grow bigger toes??) -- then the first to develop a particular method should be able to protect that development. This doesn't bar others from benifitting from using the gene, or from developing another method of extraction. It only protects the people who developed the (non-obvious) method of extraction.
Of course, unless the patent office has experts who can recognize what is obvious and non-obvious, we're all screwed anyways.
The purpose of all research is not profit for companies.
Not all, but much research is done to make a profit. And this doesn't apply only to the US (or even to only North America). Companies in Europe, Australia, Asia, and elsewhere also likely do research in this and many other fields.
It's not all about the money...
Ohhh, but it is. Even Universities do research for money. That's why every (nearly every??) has a department which is responsible for so called intellectual property. They need that money to continue operating (otherwise, student tuition would rise!!LOL). Admitedly, the Universities need the money to continue operating so that they can do more research, but make no mistake about it: the University is there for economic, and not only social reasons as many people think.
most power should always be in the hands of democratically elected people.
Have you taken a close look at the democratically elected people (ESPECIALLY in the US) lately? First, most are so technologically inept that they are the last group who should be making decisions about technological issues. And second, they are nearly all so corrupt (remember, they all need campaign contributions) that What Is Right and What Should Be Done really don't matter anyways. Until the system is repaired (has democracy ever actually been done properly??), the rich (organizations more than people) will continue to dictate policy. Again, there's that money thing... "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Also, sometimes it would be better to publically fund research
Much research is publicly funded. However, the companies that get the funding are often those that made the largest campaign contributions during the preceding elections.
Guess what, the company doing this privately is patenting 1000s of things when they had agreed to patent only 100s; they are not sharing any of their research with any public institutions; and it is entirely possible that there are many things they discover about that human genome that they don't patent, but keep privately as "Trade Secrets".
So?? This is entirely within their rights (under the US legal system, and unless there was some prior legal agreement to the contrary).
I also didn't read the entire article, for the same reasons as you, and everyone else can just deal with that. Since I didn't read it, I'll just offer, for better for worse, what I feel would be reasonable.
Obviously, there will continue to be research in genetics for a long time to come (certainly the rest of all of our lives -- unless someone exploits the "longevity gene..."). The organizations which do this have the right, and in fact should have the right, to protect their interests in that research (otherwise, they wouldn't spend the money in the first place). So it seems to me that they should be able to patent something when they reach a certain stage in that research. Since we all have genes (as do all other animals, not to mention plants), the gene itself shouldn't be what is patentable. However, if some company develops some particular use for that gene -- say, using fish genes to make plants frost resistant -- or some particular method for extracting the gene then that company should have every right to patent that development.
Quite frankly, genetic development is something that will continue in the future, and already affects the life of nearly every person in the developed world. I would prefer to see information related to new developments in the field become public information so that at least there can be some control -- even through public pressure -- on what genetiscists are doing. The alternative is "Trade Secret", which, although it is perfectly legitimate, simply doesn't open corparate researchers up to public scrutiny.
In North America, as long as the images that you captured were captured in public places, it is perfectly legal. However, the legal definition of public would make all the difference in the world. It comes down to whether or not the space is a space where there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy. But there is also the issue of whether or not sound is recorded also. I don't know enough about the legalities to elaborate any more than that.
I do think that if you are walking down a public street, or in a public park, or on a public beach, you are in a public space, and what you do there can legally be recorded (visually). If you are in a private venue, such as a stadium for a concert, then you would probalbly not be allowed to record things without permisson. In fact, most venues such as stadiums post signs which expressly prohibit recording of any kind. The laws regarding audio recordings (eg, of a conversation between two other parties) are different.
Seriously, though, I think such a thing exists, or will soon. If not, It wouldn't be too hard (in principle) to make one.
What I'd really be impressed by is an mp3 player that had (on board, not removable) storage for a substantial amount of music -- say 8 to 10 hours -- that costs less than US$600 (CAN$1000). That would make long drives, long days at school, and long nights at work much easier.
In terms of car sterio systems, I'd love to see stereos with USB ports to enable downloading from a laptop, or simply to accept input from another device -- imagine: a car stereo that you can play CD's, mp3's, tapes, and even any future formats simply by hooking in the portable device you already own...
Points (i), (ii), and(iii), really depend on what the laws in Uruguay say.
If the GPL is not enforceable under their laws (does anyone know for sure?) then point (i) is irrelevant.
Also, (point (ii)) it doesn't matter if the name LinuxTECH was coined to deliberately confuse people. What matters is if it is close enough to some other trademarked name (i.e. Linux) to legally be considered confusing (note: this is how it works in the US and Canada. I don't know about Uruguay). I don't know exactly what the criteria are for determining this, but I doubt that LinuxTECH would qualify (but maybe Lenux, Linex, or Linuks would...). Yes, it may be sneaky, but it is also legal and makes good business sense.
Point (iii) is like making a gamble. Basically, it must be shown that the term Linux is considered to refer to the product that we all know as Linux, and this must be shown in Uruguay. Otherwise, there is no existing Trademark. I don't know how popular Linux is in Uruguay, but the decision might just hinge around this concept.
Something worth noting: Uruguay is a party to the Paris Treaty, which means (as I understand it) that the date of filing is considered to be the date of filing in all other states that are party to the Paris Treaty, provided an application is filed within six months of this date. Obviously, Linux is Trademark in some of these states (i.e. The United States). But there are probably some states in which Linux is not a registered Trademark. Now what??? Essentially, it means that they could file for Trademark in these locations within six months, and if it is registered, then they would hold the registered Trademark in these locations, regardless of what happens now -- in other words, even if someone else files for Trademark in one of these countries, the date of the application in Uruguay would be the date of the application in other countries, provided the application by Mr. Francisco Pereira and Mr. Enrique Place de Cuadrois is made within six months.
At this point, the only thing that can be done is to fight the application in Uruguay. If it is accepted, then who knows what will happen next...
"...what avail? All serious Linux users will avoid them like the plague."
Sorry, but I have to say something on this. The open source community will definitely avoid them like the plague. On this I have no doubt. BUT, Linux is starting to become commonly used in industries other than computing. And many people in these other industries (and even in the computing industry) really don't care about open source, free software, and the like. When it comes right down to it, these people have to answer to the bottom line (and marketing gimmicks, let's be honest here), and if they can get a product that does the job at a better price (or at least believe they can), they'll jump on it. They don't (and won't) care about the other "issues" regarding that product.
So, while it is likely that "serious Linux users" will boycott this and other companies, the reality (I feel) is that in the near future the "serious Linux users", or the proponents of open source, will begin to make up the minority of the Linux market.
This, unfortunately, is a side effect of Linux becoming a Mainstream Product, as opposed to something that "those computer guys in the basement like to play with." And if you want to fight it, you need to do more than complain (not directed at MostlyHarmless, but rather the general community) about what company X is doing. Start by educating yourself (if you haven't already) on what it means to Trademark, Patent, or enforce Copyright and Trade Secret, and what the differences are. Find out what the IP laws are in your country, and maybe neighboring countries and economic parters. And most importantly, understand these laws before complaining about them. And stop saying IANAL!!
If you want to stop the bandwagon, you can either do it from on board, or stand in front of it and get run over.
In a way, it's kind-of sad that Amazon didn't patent a whole load more. Why? Because this is clearly a case of politicians, corporations and the general public perceiving it as "not bad enough", "not their problem" and "only affecting others". IMHO, software patents will remain until some company makes it so odious for so many people that it's no longer possible to pass it off as an irrelevent foible.
And herein lies a possibe course of action: If you are a software developer, computing scientist, or anything else of that nature, and you come up with something innovative, patent it. Patent everything. And if someone want to liscence that technology, refuse (or charge an exorbitant amount of $$ for the liscence). Eventually something'll have to give. And since we know the problem is only going to get (much) worse before it gets any better, this won't hurt more than doing nothing, it'll just hurt faster. Sure it goes against everything that is Good and True in computing, but sometimes a good solution to a bad problem has to hurt.
And I know the chance of us nerds ever banding together to solve this problem is slim, but one can hope...
Now, before you go off and insult me for suggesting something so stupid, realize that I know this is insane. But, maybe we need to take real action rather than whining about how the industry is going to shit. What are the possibilities? Any suggestions???
Don't forget, he was on Oprah, too!! (the show, I mean)
Seriously -- what did he do that was so inovative/important/interesting? He runs a bookstore, people! Sure, he sells the books differently, and some other bookstores now do the same thing (B&N, Fatbrain, Chapters, the corner bookstore,...). So he gets his lawyers to do some "marketplace manipulation". Sounds like the dream that is Amazon can't hack it...
My Economics prof told us a story the other day that was interesting. I'll probably mess up the numbers/terminology a bit, but the essence is the same:
For Amazon stocks to produce a rate of return that matches their value, the company would need to increase revenues by 30% per year for ten years.
Does anyone have info to support, refute or elaborate on this? Thought that was interesting.
Patents might be a free source of ideas, but you definitely can't use the ideas for your own benifit -- well, you can, but you'll likely have to pay a rather large sum of money to the patent holder. And if you happen to be a competitor of the patent holder, that sum of money might just be more than you can afford...
I notice your URL and email indicate Cuba, so you might not have to face the same reality that those of us in the US and Canada (I believe) do. Or does the US have an agreement of some sort with Cuba?
It's really a shame that the patent system is so messed up (abused?). I'm a CS student in Canada, and am just starting to realize how much potential there is for getting screwed by the big companies (who have the $$ to manipulate the system -- I'm getting by on student loans right now). I wish I knew more about this stuff, so I could avoid litigation later in life.
Slashdot Mirror
Just find the agreement that you signed with them and see what it says. If you never signed one, then the product belongs to you.
Not necessarily...
If the application is something that is in the area that the employer's area of business, the original poster may be screwed. In some areas, an employee is required by law to inform the employer of any side work, and offer any opportunities to the employer first -- especially if it crosses into the employers area of business. Failing to do so is sufficient grounds for dismissal, and the app could become property of the employer.
On the other hand, if your agreement says you can develop your own stuff on the side, no questions asked, then everthing's (probably) kosher. Again, it depends where you are in the world...
Should've though it through before starting the app, and probably quit the job and secured a loan to develop the app... It would've been the ethical thing to do, also.
Like a dozen others have said: Talk to a lawyer.
Tim
Moderators: Did you actualy think before you moderated?
Once a patent has been granted, the information regarding it is available to anyone. This means that anyone can find the patent description and use it to reimplement the same idea. This is hardly "proof" that the idea is obvious.
Maybe you should look here for more info.
What you should expect is not to have your presumption of innocence in question merely because you happen to look like someone else.
/.ers watch waaaaay too many cop shows...
Where, exactly, is the presumtion of innocence questioned??? Innocent people get stopped often enough without this type of technology. And when it does happen, it gets sorted out and people get on with their life. No big deal. But now that there's a camera, it's a Big Deal???
The burden of proof should be on the authorties to be reasonably sure of who they've id'd before hassling an innocent citizen.
How should they be reasonably sure? They probably want to see some ID, right? What's so wrong with that? It hardly qualifies as hassling.
The figures are quickly approaching the "Your papers please" stage.
Puhleeeessse! Get a grip! The cops didn't have time to stop everyone before, and they don't now! That's the point of the system!
OK. So this type of system isn't as accurate as a person (yet). But it's not like it flags every person. If it does flag somebody, that should be reasonable grounds to ask for ID, and that's all they can do... and a few false positives won't hurt. I'd rather have the cops ask me for ID because the system says I look like a wanted murderer, than have the (accused... presumption of innocence, remember?) murderer pass by the (underpaid, underappreciated, overworked) cop because he was looking at his watch.
If anyone cares, you can get some actual facts about this type of technology if you (omigawd!) search for it at google. Try "face recognition", "face detection", "human face recognition", or any other seemingly intelligent phrase...
If there is a shortage of good people (like someone else proposed), as opposed to just a shortage of people in general, then I don't see a solution soon. With all of the "carreer colleges" and "professional education centers" advertising the quick buck and easy employment, the number of people doing it for the money will only increase, and will do so much faster than the number of people who are doing it for fun, so to speak. Unfortunately, the former group is likely to have a very small proportion of "good" programmers (someday I hope to find out what that means), but it is the group that will dominate the workforce. The other group (including me, one day, I hope), as well as those "good programmers" from the first group, will have to accept that the skills of many coworkers are inadequate, or alternatively that there won't be enough people who can get the job done, and so they will be overworked.
This may cause incomes to increase, and I believe will only cause the problem to spiral out of control. Eventually the whole poverbial bandwagon will crash, and the I see one of two possibilities:
Either way, something will have to change. Maybe not anytime soon, but eventually.
Then again, I'm only a student. All of my experience is from another industry (construction), so I may be way off base. Comments?
Tim
The prof for my 3rd calculus course had a policy for the final exam that we could bring "anything non-human that you can carry" (the non-human part was so nobody brought "a grad student riding piggyback" along). He figured that if you knew your stuff, having a graphing calculator and/or all of your notes wouldn't make a difference, and on the other hand, if you didn't know you're stuff then nothing was going to help anyways. Unfortunately, some people brought laptops with programs that do integrals alphanumerically, solve summations, etc. These people had a definite advantage, and didn't need to know what they were doing. The prof has since changed his policy, so now students can bring in all of their notes and any calculator, but no computers. Am I bitter? Yes. I got a 6 (of 9), and worked my butt of to get it. Another student (with a laptop) got a 9, but probably couldn't tell you how to solve the geometric series.
So what's my point? Simply that whether or not to allow laptops (or any materials) in an exam situation depends largely on what the purpose of the course is. If, like calculus, we're supposed to learn the fundamental mathematical theories that we may or may not (another discussion) use in our careers, then we probably should be on our own. But if the course is, say, exploring ways to use technology in the classroom then certainly using the internet (web, mail, news, whatever) in an exam situation should be considered.
This is incorrect. You do not need to decrypt the disk to copy it. You can do direct copying without decrypting.
You're right, of course. I don't know what I was thinking. Brain fart, I guess.
Sure software companies have lots of choices in the candidate pool, but the fastest way to the chaff from the wheat is to put a B.Sc requirement on the job. (Not that it always works, as there are some people I wonder how the heck they even PASSED with so little they know.)
This touches on something that I rant about in the RW alot. If you want to build a hospital, you go hire an Architect (who legally must have professional association for a project like this), who in turn will likely hire engineering consultants (who must also legally have professional association). Then the client goes and hires a consultant to build the computer systems that will help run the hospital. If they're a smart organization then they'll know how to get a company that is qualified to do this, but it really could come down to luck.
How does the client know that the company they are hiring is capable of completing the project. How does the copmpany know that the programmers it hires even have some basic formal knowledge about testing, documentation, etc.
I read an article in a Transactions on... journal a couple of years back talking about exactly this. In fact the article was commenting on the way that programmers call themselves "Software Engineers". In some locales the term "Engineer" is restricted in its use -- you can't call yourself an engineer unless you legally are one. Since most (all??) "Software Engineers" have no legal (not trade) certification, they aren't engineers.
The argument that Computing is a relatively new field doesn't excuse a company that builds a critical app which subsequently fails (and possibly costs lives). In some areas, if a building collapses, the engineer can be brought up on criminal charges (ie criminal negligence). The company that build the critical app which failed might be sued, but the "Software Engineer" who runs the company will come out of it OK.
Now the question arises, "Where do you draw the line?" Analogous to construction, there are certain projects that there is no need for the developer to be qualified as an Engineer. In Canada, anyone can design and build a house. In fact, anyone can design a building less than a certain size, or for certain uses (residential and light commercial under 600 square meters, I think). Likewise, there is no reason that a game, word processor, or other application which isn't going to cause major problems if it fails should be designed by a (legal) "Software Engineer". But the person designing an app that has the potential to cause a great deal of harm if it fails should (in my opinion) have a legal certifcation that the client can view as a guarantee that the designer is qualified and capable.
even if that means breaking an encryption. You say this isn't the case in Sweden - well, I live here, so tell me where you found that information :)
...
I don't know for certain (hence the AFAIK), but I suspect that the laws in Sweden aren't that much different from the rest of the West. If I'm wrong, so be it.
And breaking encryption isn't the point here, either. Simply because you have the means to do something doesn't make it entirely legal. Let me make it clear that I support the idea that you should be able to do whatever you want with the DVD that you buy (except distribute copies of it), but I did feel the need to point out that you don't legally own the data on the DVD and therefore you can't do whatever you want with it. The data on the disk falls under copyright just like the words in a book. Therefore, "fair use" is a consideration in deciding if whatever you choose to do is legal or not. I'm quite certain that writing software to view the movie on an unsupported platform would be considered fair use. The MPAA doesn't seem to follow this same line of reasoning, which is what is causing the problem.
There's no software license I have to agree to when buying a DVD that says I can only view it using means given to me by the MPAA or DVD-CCA
Absoultely correct. This isn't contradictory to what I was saying. Basically, the studios (or their representatives) have the right to say that you can't copy the DVD and then sell those copies. Many people (myself included) feel that copying DVDs for personal use falls under fair use, and so should be legal. To do this with DVDs, one needs to break the encryption. Even if you don't want to copy the disk, you still need to break the encryption to view the movie on an unsupported platform. So breaking the encryption scheme shouldn't be illegal. But until a judge says so, anyone who provides info on how to do so runs the risk of a lawsuit and criminal charges.
After say all that, I went and reread the rest of our thread. I think we basically agree in spirit. What I was trying to express is that you don't own the data on the disk...
Tim
...but there's no question about it that you do own the encrypted contents on the actual DVD ...
Sorry. Wrong. DVD's are just like (music) CD's, software (even if you disagree, it is "legally" the same), and books. You don't generally own the information on the media. You could say that you own the media, and can do what you want with it, but that doesn't allow you to do what you want (without restriction) with the data.
When you purchase a DVD, you are purchasing the right to view the movie. This is why they (the studios) can contemplate such things as self-destructing media, etc. If you were to purchase a movie on a self-destructing DVD, you would essentially be paying for the right to view the movie for a certain amount of time, or for only a certain numberof uses. Scary.
AFAIK, this applies to Sweden, Norway, and most anywhere else in the West.
Just had to be anal.
Tim
Tim
This probably would be a good defence. It comes down to the difference between a broadcaster (publisher, webmaster) and an "innocent disseminator" (bookstore, directory service). The broadcaster can be reasonably expected to be aware of the content that they are distributing, but an "innocent disseminator" would not be expected to know exactly what he is distributing (although after being informed of some illegal content -- libel, for example -- he would no longer be "innocent", and would be required to take action to stop disseminating the content).
If the search engine/directory service can convince a judge that they are an innocent disseminator, then they should be home free.
Naturally, but money is not an end, it is a means.
Absolutely, at least insofar as the researchers are concerned. However, once you look at the administrative level, the point of the University is to make money. They need this money to survive.So while in principle it sounds great, in practice the institution uses the same profit maximization techniques as companies. But instead of turning profits over to shareholders, they reinvest the profits in more research. True, this is a Good Thing, but the fact remains that it is the money that is running the machine.
our university doesn't have a department for that (AFAIK). I do research at the CS dept. and software patents aren't allowed here
2 things:
First, and only if you don't mind answering this, what University are you doing research at?
Second, we were discussing genetics, not software. These are two very different animals. I'm a third year CS student, and I have enough knowledge that I could write a useful piece of software right now. With enough effort (and some help from friends), I might be able to throw something innovative into it. Now, I'm not saying it would be the next killer app (I wish!!), but it would be useful. But if I want to protect my (or our, as the case may be) development (which may not be the case), I personally feel the best way to do this is Trade Secret, and not Patents.
A genetisist, however, is more likely to have a degree before (s)he begins doing any substantial work in the field. When they develop something (process or use), then that should be patentable (I agree, for 3-5 years only).
My point is, software is such an algorithmic and technical process that any two pieces of software will likely have a large amount of overlap -- whether it was intended or not. After all, if the method is a good way to do something then other reasonably capable people should be able to reach the same "obvious" conclusion. When we're talking in terms of bits, there are only so many ways to efficiently and effectively do something. Genetics, however, is a much more specialized field. If nobody knows an effective way to do something -- i.e. extract the longevity gene (why doesn't anyone want to find the gene to help grow bigger toes??) -- then the first to develop a particular method should be able to protect that development. This doesn't bar others from benifitting from using the gene, or from developing another method of extraction. It only protects the people who developed the (non-obvious) method of extraction.
Of course, unless the patent office has experts who can recognize what is obvious and non-obvious, we're all screwed anyways.
The purpose of all research is not profit for companies.
Not all, but much research is done to make a profit. And this doesn't apply only to the US (or even to only North America). Companies in Europe, Australia, Asia, and elsewhere also likely do research in this and many other fields.
It's not all about the money...
Ohhh, but it is. Even Universities do research for money. That's why every (nearly every??) has a department which is responsible for so called intellectual property. They need that money to continue operating (otherwise, student tuition would rise!!LOL). Admitedly, the Universities need the money to continue operating so that they can do more research, but make no mistake about it: the University is there for economic, and not only social reasons as many people think.
most power should always be in the hands of democratically elected people.
Have you taken a close look at the democratically elected people (ESPECIALLY in the US) lately? First, most are so technologically inept that they are the last group who should be making decisions about technological issues. And second, they are nearly all so corrupt (remember, they all need campaign contributions) that What Is Right and What Should Be Done really don't matter anyways. Until the system is repaired (has democracy ever actually been done properly??), the rich (organizations more than people) will continue to dictate policy. Again, there's that money thing...
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Also, sometimes it would be better to publically fund research
Much research is publicly funded. However, the companies that get the funding are often those that made the largest campaign contributions during the preceding elections.
Guess what, the company doing this privately is patenting 1000s of things when they had agreed to patent only 100s; they are not sharing any of their research with any public institutions; and it is entirely possible that there are many things they discover about that human genome that they don't patent, but keep privately as "Trade Secrets".
So?? This is entirely within their rights (under the US legal system, and unless there was some prior legal agreement to the contrary).
I also didn't read the entire article, for the same reasons as you, and everyone else can just deal with that. Since I didn't read it, I'll just offer, for better for worse, what I feel would be reasonable.
Obviously, there will continue to be research in genetics for a long time to come (certainly the rest of all of our lives -- unless someone exploits the "longevity gene..."). The organizations which do this have the right, and in fact should have the right, to protect their interests in that research (otherwise, they wouldn't spend the money in the first place). So it seems to me that they should be able to patent something when they reach a certain stage in that research. Since we all have genes (as do all other animals, not to mention plants), the gene itself shouldn't be what is patentable. However, if some company develops some particular use for that gene -- say, using fish genes to make plants frost resistant -- or some particular method for extracting the gene then that company should have every right to patent that development.
Quite frankly, genetic development is something that will continue in the future, and already affects the life of nearly every person in the developed world. I would prefer to see information related to new developments in the field become public information so that at least there can be some control -- even through public pressure -- on what genetiscists are doing. The alternative is "Trade Secret", which, although it is perfectly legitimate, simply doesn't open corparate researchers up to public scrutiny.
In North America, as long as the images that you captured were captured in public places, it is perfectly legal. However, the legal definition of public would make all the difference in the world. It comes down to whether or not the space is a space where there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy. But there is also the issue of whether or not sound is recorded also. I don't know enough about the legalities to elaborate any more than that.
I do think that if you are walking down a public street, or in a public park, or on a public beach, you are in a public space, and what you do there can legally be recorded (visually). If you are in a private venue, such as a stadium for a concert, then you would probalbly not be allowed to record things without permisson. In fact, most venues such as stadiums post signs which expressly prohibit recording of any kind. The laws regarding audio recordings (eg, of a conversation between two other parties) are different.
That'd make a mighty uncomfortable wristwatch!!
Seriously, though, I think such a thing exists, or will soon. If not, It wouldn't be too hard (in principle) to make one.
What I'd really be impressed by is an mp3 player that had (on board, not removable) storage for a substantial amount of music -- say 8 to 10 hours -- that costs less than US$600 (CAN$1000). That would make long drives, long days at school, and long nights at work much easier.
In terms of car sterio systems, I'd love to see stereos with USB ports to enable downloading from a laptop, or simply to accept input from another device -- imagine: a car stereo that you can play CD's, mp3's, tapes, and even any future formats simply by hooking in the portable device you already own...
But enough dreaming for one day...
Points (i), (ii), and(iii), really depend on what the laws in Uruguay say.
If the GPL is not enforceable under their laws (does anyone know for sure?) then point (i) is irrelevant.
Also, (point (ii)) it doesn't matter if the name LinuxTECH was coined to deliberately confuse people. What matters is if it is close enough to some other trademarked name (i.e. Linux) to legally be considered confusing (note: this is how it works in the US and Canada. I don't know about Uruguay). I don't know exactly what the criteria are for determining this, but I doubt that LinuxTECH would qualify (but maybe Lenux, Linex, or Linuks would...). Yes, it may be sneaky, but it is also legal and makes good business sense.
Point (iii) is like making a gamble. Basically, it must be shown that the term Linux is considered to refer to the product that we all know as Linux, and this must be shown in Uruguay. Otherwise, there is no existing Trademark. I don't know how popular Linux is in Uruguay, but the decision might just hinge around this concept.
Something worth noting: Uruguay is a party to the Paris Treaty, which means (as I understand it) that the date of filing is considered to be the date of filing in all other states that are party to the Paris Treaty, provided an application is filed within six months of this date. Obviously, Linux is Trademark in some of these states (i.e. The United States). But there are probably some states in which Linux is not a registered Trademark. Now what??? Essentially, it means that they could file for Trademark in these locations within six months, and if it is registered, then they would hold the registered Trademark in these locations, regardless of what happens now -- in other words, even if someone else files for Trademark in one of these countries, the date of the application in Uruguay would be the date of the application in other countries, provided the application by Mr. Francisco Pereira and Mr. Enrique Place de Cuadrois is made within six months.
At this point, the only thing that can be done is to fight the application in Uruguay. If it is accepted, then who knows what will happen next...
For more info on the Paris Treaty, go to http://www.wipo.org.
"...what avail? All serious Linux users will avoid them like the plague."
Sorry, but I have to say something on this. The open source community will definitely avoid them like the plague. On this I have no doubt. BUT, Linux is starting to become commonly used in industries other than computing. And many people in these other industries (and even in the computing industry) really don't care about open source, free software, and the like. When it comes right down to it, these people have to answer to the bottom line (and marketing gimmicks, let's be honest here), and if they can get a product that does the job at a better price (or at least believe they can), they'll jump on it. They don't (and won't) care about the other "issues" regarding that product.
So, while it is likely that "serious Linux users" will boycott this and other companies, the reality (I feel) is that in the near future the "serious Linux users", or the proponents of open source, will begin to make up the minority of the Linux market.
This, unfortunately, is a side effect of Linux becoming a Mainstream Product, as opposed to something that "those computer guys in the basement like to play with." And if you want to fight it, you need to do more than complain (not directed at MostlyHarmless, but rather the general community) about what company X is doing. Start by educating yourself (if you haven't already) on what it means to Trademark, Patent, or enforce Copyright and Trade Secret, and what the differences are. Find out what the IP laws are in your country, and maybe neighboring countries and economic parters. And most importantly, understand these laws before complaining about them. And stop saying IANAL!!
If you want to stop the bandwagon, you can either do it from on board, or stand in front of it and get run over.
In a way, it's kind-of sad that Amazon didn't patent a whole load more. Why? Because this is clearly a case of politicians, corporations and the general public perceiving it as "not bad enough", "not their problem" and "only affecting others".
IMHO, software patents will remain until some company makes it so odious for so many people that it's no longer possible to pass it off as an irrelevent foible.
And herein lies a possibe course of action: If you are a software developer, computing scientist, or anything else of that nature, and you come up with something innovative, patent it. Patent everything. And if someone want to liscence that technology, refuse (or charge an exorbitant amount of $$ for the liscence). Eventually something'll have to give. And since we know the problem is only going to get (much) worse before it gets any better, this won't hurt more than doing nothing, it'll just hurt faster. Sure it goes against everything that is Good and True in computing, but sometimes a good solution to a bad problem has to hurt.
And I know the chance of us nerds ever banding together to solve this problem is slim, but one can hope...
Now, before you go off and insult me for suggesting something so stupid, realize that I know this is insane. But, maybe we need to take real action rather than whining about how the industry is going to shit. What are the possibilities? Any suggestions???
Give Amazon enough time, and they'll probably try to patent this as well
/. uses moderation. hmmm....
Not if someone beets him to the punch.
Seriously -- what did he do that was so inovative/important/interesting? He runs a bookstore, people! Sure, he sells the books differently, and some other bookstores now do the same thing (B&N, Fatbrain, Chapters, the corner bookstore,
My Economics prof told us a story the other day that was interesting. I'll probably mess up the numbers/terminology a bit, but the essence is the same: Does anyone have info to support, refute or elaborate on this?
Thought that was interesting.
Patents might be a free source of ideas, but you definitely can't use the ideas for your own benifit -- well, you can, but you'll likely have to pay a rather large sum of money to the patent holder. And if you happen to be a competitor of the patent holder, that sum of money might just be more than you can afford...
I notice your URL and email indicate Cuba, so you might not have to face the same reality that those of us in the US and Canada (I believe) do. Or does the US have an agreement of some sort with Cuba?
It's really a shame that the patent system is so messed up (abused?). I'm a CS student in Canada, and am just starting to realize how much potential there is for getting screwed by the big companies (who have the $$ to manipulate the system -- I'm getting by on student loans right now). I wish I knew more about this stuff, so I could avoid litigation later in life.