Trade secrets are required to be "secret" in order to be considered as such. Microsoft's own Encarta World English Dictionary defines a trade secret as follows:
trade secret (pluraltrade secrets) noun
1.company's secret: a secret formula or technique that is used to make a product, known only to the company that manufactures it
2.secret: any secret (informal) Which shampoo do you use - or is it a trade secret?
There is precedent behind this. The courts require that a company take reasonable measures to prevent the dissemination of "trade secrets" if they are to be protected as such under intellectual property law. If not, the information may still be copyrighted, etc., but no longer qualifies as a trade secret.
This is a very important distinction to make. For example, CmdrTaco could declare Slashdot a trade secret, and sue you in civil court for stealing when you viewed it without permission. However, the courts would rule that the trade secret law did not apply because he had not made reasonable efforts to keep the information within the confines of his company. His copyright, however would still apply, so those stealing and reusing his work as their own without permission would still be liable.
As an aside, I'm an NTBugTraq subscriber and I've paid reasonably close attention to the discussion of the differences between Microsoft's implementation and the Kerberos specification. I have been of the understanding that Microsoft has not, in fact, violated the specification, but that they have added several features not included therein. This is similar to what they did with J++, where it actually surpassed Sun's implementation of Java at the time (according to Sun's tests) but added several features specific to Windows and not included in the specification.
There are those that would say that this sort of extended implementation equals non-compliance. For what it's worth, I disagree. I say, forget the religious issues. If you don't want to use the extensions, don't. Microsoft's platforms will still integrate into your solution. That's compliance in my book.
I think it's interesting that everyone in this conversation (well, all the comments I got a chance to read) forgot all about WSH or Windows Scripting Host. I can script Windows tasks using VBScript, JavaScript, Perl, or whatever I feel like using. I have full access to any objects in my scripting context and can access the filesystem, mail messages, web objects, whatever. I use it a lot, and I would argue that it's comparably powerful to most *nix based scripting models.
BTW, I'm calling the fire department right now, in anticipation of my post bursting into flames any minute.:)
I have to agree...I have shelves and shelves of manuals and I can't remember the last time I opened one. Even new operating systems are so predictable these days that I haven't really needed it.
I always thought that it was important to have paper manuals, but this story made me re-evaluate how often I actually use them.
Then again, you MUST have access to the web and/or online documentation when doing installs or learning. I suppose that isn't possible for many people who have only one machine nearby.
I guess it comes down to choice. When I bought my first Visual Studio, it came with only a quickstart guide, but the complete reference set (30 volumes or so) was available for the cost of shipping. I ordered them, and didn't use them. When I upgraded, I didn't bother with manuals. I knew I'd only use the online versions anyway.
I've worked on Deep Brain Stimulation protocols for Parkinson's disease and Dystonia at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. I was the computer geek in the Neurology Department, designing databases and managing imaging systems.
As a result, I'm no expert in Neurology. However, I can tell you that the mechanisms involved in Deep Brain Stimulation, are much better understood than you might imagine. They are largely based on earlier lesioning procedures, such as pallidotomy and thalamotomy (removal of parts of the Basal Ganglia - deep structures in the motor cortex). Accurate neuroimaging is crucial in procedures like these.
If you would like to know more about the science behind the experiments mentioned in the story, or others, I don't recommend you spend your time looking at the web pages. Very often, they are written by guys like me for the benefit of patients and benefactors (or just to show off cool technology), and have no intention of explaining the hard science. You are better off reading the academic journals at your local medical library or visiting the appropriate department at your local university or teaching hospital.
After extensive testing, I've found that the book does indeed stand up to translocation with no discernible ill effects.
To test, I first translocated the book from my shelf to my coffee table, and then to my desk. I was unable to find any damage to the book, and the story was just as enjoyable as in its original setting.
Furthermore, I am happy to report that, yes, my Shakespeare has survived far greater mangling as described above...
I disagree. In fact, Motorola is patenting the technique of redirecting satellite to satellite communications to a ground station as well so that the call may be monitored. This was an invention required by many governments and state run telcos in order to license the handsets in some countries.
I met Theo at Beyond HOPE (Hackers on Planet Earth) in New York in the summer of 97. Besides being a cool guy, he did seem to have some pretty deep seated bad feelings about the NetBSD team. If his feelings then are any indication, it's not likely he'll ever work closely with them again.
...and why should he? He set out to write the world's most secure operating system and he succeeded. I'm hate to see a codebase fork as much as the next guy, but we've got a great product here... OpenBSD doesn't try to be all things to all people and that's exactly what we needed.
Y'know you take a perfectly valid argument like this, sprinkle it with some overenthusiastic "journalism" and then soundbite it into "a patent in the hundreds of pages gets an 8 hour review" and it makes it hard for anyone to take it seriously.
I totally agree with this argument. The USPTO is overloaded and has made some high profile errors lately. One piece of good news, is that they are using technology as well as they can to streamline the patent review process. But their is no way around good old common sense being applied to these applications and that takes time. Agreed.
However, soundbites like the one in the teaser for this article, can really misstate the situation. An application may run to hundreds of pages. Maybe most are only 10! Does anyone know the average? Patent Office employees get 8 hours to process, review, and approve a patent application. I bet you'd get really good at it after the first few thousand. I've seen bio papers peer reviewed in about that time.
Anyway...most regular Slashdot readers seem to have enough critical thinking skills to ignore this kind of slanted journalism and make their own conclusions. That's what makes our moderation and rating system work. Hey...maybe you could patent it and license it back to the USPTO for patent review.
We could argue all night about whether these new TLD's are a good idea or not, etc., etc...and up 'til now, that's all we could do. At least now ICANN is making an effort to pretend that our opinions count in some official capacity.
The members at large program may be a sham. I choose to believe it isn't. It makes me feel better.
That's right. We should never celebrate the hard work of anyone in the open source community because someone might get left out.
<!-- End Sarcasm -->
The open source community needs events and celebrations just as much as any other community. Recognition is just about the only thing most of us hope to get out of our hard work and time spent. (Oh yeah... and better software)
Slashdot Mirror
This is a very important distinction to make. For example, CmdrTaco could declare Slashdot a trade secret, and sue you in civil court for stealing when you viewed it without permission. However, the courts would rule that the trade secret law did not apply because he had not made reasonable efforts to keep the information within the confines of his company. His copyright, however would still apply, so those stealing and reusing his work as their own without permission would still be liable.
As an aside, I'm an NTBugTraq subscriber and I've paid reasonably close attention to the discussion of the differences between Microsoft's implementation and the Kerberos specification. I have been of the understanding that Microsoft has not, in fact, violated the specification, but that they have added several features not included therein. This is similar to what they did with J++, where it actually surpassed Sun's implementation of Java at the time (according to Sun's tests) but added several features specific to Windows and not included in the specification.
There are those that would say that this sort of extended implementation equals non-compliance. For what it's worth, I disagree. I say, forget the religious issues. If you don't want to use the extensions, don't. Microsoft's platforms will still integrate into your solution. That's compliance in my book.
BTW, I'm calling the fire department right now, in anticipation of my post bursting into flames any minute. :)
I have to agree...I have shelves and shelves of manuals and I can't remember the last time I opened one. Even new operating systems are so predictable these days that I haven't really needed it.
I always thought that it was important to have paper manuals, but this story made me re-evaluate how often I actually use them.
Then again, you MUST have access to the web and/or online documentation when doing installs or learning. I suppose that isn't possible for many people who have only one machine nearby.
I guess it comes down to choice. When I bought my first Visual Studio, it came with only a quickstart guide, but the complete reference set (30 volumes or so) was available for the cost of shipping. I ordered them, and didn't use them. When I upgraded, I didn't bother with manuals. I knew I'd only use the online versions anyway.
Survey says....Choice is good!
I've worked on Deep Brain Stimulation protocols for Parkinson's disease and Dystonia at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. I was the computer geek in the Neurology Department, designing databases and managing imaging systems.
As a result, I'm no expert in Neurology. However, I can tell you that the mechanisms involved in Deep Brain Stimulation, are much better understood than you might imagine. They are largely based on earlier lesioning procedures, such as pallidotomy and thalamotomy (removal of parts of the Basal Ganglia - deep structures in the motor cortex). Accurate neuroimaging is crucial in procedures like these.
If you would like to know more about the science behind the experiments mentioned in the story, or others, I don't recommend you spend your time looking at the web pages. Very often, they are written by guys like me for the benefit of patients and benefactors (or just to show off cool technology), and have no intention of explaining the hard science. You are better off reading the academic journals at your local medical library or visiting the appropriate department at your local university or teaching hospital.
Ahhh...Now there's a Pandora's box. What is source code? How about scripting? Macros? Malformed http requests?
There is more than one way to skin a cat, er, instruct a computer...
After extensive testing, I've found that the book does indeed stand up to translocation with no discernible ill effects.
To test, I first translocated the book from my shelf to my coffee table, and then to my desk. I was unable to find any damage to the book, and the story was just as enjoyable as in its original setting.
Furthermore, I am happy to report that, yes, my Shakespeare has survived far greater mangling as described above...
I disagree. In fact, Motorola is patenting the technique of redirecting satellite to satellite communications to a ground station as well so that the call may be monitored. This was an invention required by many governments and state run telcos in order to license the handsets in some countries.
I met Theo at Beyond HOPE (Hackers on Planet Earth) in New York in the summer of 97. Besides being a cool guy, he did seem to have some pretty deep seated bad feelings about the NetBSD team. If his feelings then are any indication, it's not likely he'll ever work closely with them again.
...and why should he? He set out to write the world's most secure operating system and he succeeded. I'm hate to see a codebase fork as much as the next guy, but we've got a great product here... OpenBSD doesn't try to be all things to all people and that's exactly what we needed.
Y'know you take a perfectly valid argument like this, sprinkle it with some overenthusiastic "journalism" and then soundbite it into "a patent in the hundreds of pages gets an 8 hour review" and it makes it hard for anyone to take it seriously.
I totally agree with this argument. The USPTO is overloaded and has made some high profile errors lately. One piece of good news, is that they are using technology as well as they can to streamline the patent review process. But their is no way around good old common sense being applied to these applications and that takes time. Agreed.
However, soundbites like the one in the teaser for this article, can really misstate the situation. An application may run to hundreds of pages. Maybe most are only 10! Does anyone know the average? Patent Office employees get 8 hours to process, review, and approve a patent application. I bet you'd get really good at it after the first few thousand. I've seen bio papers peer reviewed in about that time.
Anyway...most regular Slashdot readers seem to have enough critical thinking skills to ignore this kind of slanted journalism and make their own conclusions. That's what makes our moderation and rating system work. Hey...maybe you could patent it and license it back to the USPTO for patent review.
We could argue all night about whether these new TLD's are a good idea or not, etc., etc...and up 'til now, that's all we could do. At least now ICANN is making an effort to pretend that our opinions count in some official capacity.
The members at large program may be a sham. I choose to believe it isn't. It makes me feel better.
That's right. We should never celebrate the hard work of anyone in the open source community because someone might get left out.
<!-- End Sarcasm -->
The open source community needs events and celebrations just as much as any other community. Recognition is just about the only thing most of us hope to get out of our hard work and time spent. (Oh yeah... and better software)