Trademarks are ridiculous when they're normal, everyday words.
The word with trademark protection is "iPod." One of those words made up to actually be unique for use as a mark. It is a single word. This isn't even a case where unique combinations of normal words are trademarked, like "Honest Bob's Pet Repair" (one of my personal favorite business names; an actual business).
They're claiming trademark protection of a syllable of their mark, which happens to be a common word as well. Like Honest Bob trying to claim propriatary rights to the word "pair."
Chances are, Kimball is going to grant the summary judgement on this one.
Well, let's just, at this point, note that Judge Kimball has used language intending to alert SCO that any such filing is going to be given due consideration and not just glanced over and tossed.
Basically a bit of a "nudge, nudge. Wink, wink," that SCO might be better off if they find a way of settling this thing.
KFG
Re:The problem with guis is they don't work
on
GUIs Get a Makeover
·
· Score: 1
"And here something arbitrary occurs."
You'll have to forgive me (well, actually, you don't, it's just a figure of speech), I'm just being privately bemused in public. It'll go away.
.. they now insist on slapping DRM all over everything... This would be like me selling you a house but denying you the right to open any exterior or bedroom doors. ..
I wrote an argument in a decss/DMCA case. The analogy that I used was a book in a safe. The rights holder was selling you the book and the safe, but claiming monopoly rights (under copyright law) to the combination, which it would only license to you for an additional fee, further claiming that if you managed to obtain the combination from a third party you were not legally allowed to use it and also claiming that you were only legally allowed to open the safe with the combination. Because they had a copyright on the combination you could not blow your own safe even though it was your own property.
This was not a direct infringement case, such as p2p file sharing. Property rights in the book and the safe were undisputed by the rights holder. You had bought them. Had reciepts and everything. Neither were rights to actually read the book in dispute. If you steal a book you have commited larceny, but have not infringed upon copyright if you read the stolen book (the copy of the book is perfectly legitimate).
Naturally I argued that property rights gave you, well, ya know, property rights and that certain provisions of the DMCA actually acknowledged these rights; as well as others, under copyright law.
The judge actually used my analogy in his finding, but completely ignored all of the arguments, did not address them at all; and ruled that the DMCA prevented you from accessing the book by any means other than a licensed copy of the combination, even though you owned both the safe and the book, simply because the lock existed.
So, anyway, under this ruling if you buy a house with an electronic security system that is constructed very cleverly, just so, yes, you could not only be legally prevented from using the doors, but prevented from installing a new door to get into your house. The ownership rights to your house would be trumped by a copyright.
But yes, you'll sure still be expected to pay the taxes on it.
I don't hate change. That's why I have a digital piano that "intelligently" moves the notes around on me. Fur Elise tends to come out a bit strange now and again, but only if you hate change.
KFG
Re:The problem with guis is they don't work
on
GUIs Get a Makeover
·
· Score: 2, Funny
. . . pick a few arbitrary cells to perform a quick calculation on.
Actually, I rather try to avoid such things.
"And how did you arrive at this result?"
"Ooooooh, ya know. I picked a few arbitrary cells and performed a quick calculation on them."
For the same reasons that people use large format film cameras, or, in the case of the camera the article is about, use a longer strip of film to produce a panoramic image. More "stuff," more picture.
No, Moore's law applies to dicrete componants. Semiconductors. Transistors are one type of semiconductor, so are the discrete sensor componants of a CCD. It's like a tiny LCD screen working in reverse.
It's not like we need to figure out how to make to small transistors all over again from scratch.
No, but you do need to learn how to make 'em smaller than you did the last time, and that's what Moore's Law is all about. The rate at which we learn to do that. Make 'em smaller, get more of 'em on a chip of the same area.
"Consumer grade" cameras use sensor chips of a fixed size, so more discrete sensor componants must be crammed onto the chip to get greater resolution.
The camera the article is about doesn't do this. It doesn't have greater pixel density. It uses a bigger chip to store more pixels, producing a larger, panoramic image. Thus it has nothing to do with the editorial comment about phone cameras.
I misswired a capacitor once. Jeezum Crow! Who knew you could pack that much shredded paper into that tiny, little aluminum can? I was standing there in a manila snow storm, with my ears ringing and my adrenelin pumping, just glad there wasn't enough aluminum involved to make any real shrapnel.
Firefox is more secure, but attempts like this to twist numbers to make is seem like maybe Firefox is not more secure in practice, are misleading and simply a way to get . ..
A camera is a device which refracts light onto a backplane of some sort, creating an image of the light source. The first backplanes were called "the other side of the room." Later on they were called "the other side of the box." You might want to try making one. It's fun. I use this simple sort of nonrecording camera to observe the sun in realtime, just like Kepler did. If the backplane has a means of fixing the image the image may be removed from the camera and viewed elsewhere, elsewhen.
Since the means of fixing the image has nothing to do with whether a device is a camera or not (it is the presence of the lens, the refracting device, that defines it as a camera); and many means have been devised to do so, simply saying "camera" may not convey enough information about the device, so we use expository words to futher define it.
Say, "film camera." Which may still not be explicit enough in context, so we may say "Large format film camera," or even "8x10 film camera."
If the image is fixed electronically in the form of numeric code it is refered to as a "digital camera." The particular camera in question is refered to as a "Scanback Digital Camera."
"Camera" tells us the device is a projector of an image from a remote light source. "Scanback Digital" tells us how that light is fixed as a permanant image.
Slashdot Mirror
Make frivolous patents illegal and punishable by a 10-year FPMITA prison sentence.
How about saving everyone a lot of time, trouble and expense and just not grant frivolous patents?
Just stamp all such applications "Dumbass" and send 'em back. Problem solved.
KFG
The problem is that "podcasting" comes directly from the iPod name. . .
However, it is the "i" in front of a word that constitutes their unique mark.
KFG
Trademarks are ridiculous when they're normal, everyday words.
The word with trademark protection is "iPod." One of those words made up to actually be unique for use as a mark. It is a single word. This isn't even a case where unique combinations of normal words are trademarked, like "Honest Bob's Pet Repair" (one of my personal favorite business names; an actual business).
They're claiming trademark protection of a syllable of their mark, which happens to be a common word as well. Like Honest Bob trying to claim propriatary rights to the word "pair."
KFG
Chances are, Kimball is going to grant the summary judgement on this one.
Well, let's just, at this point, note that Judge Kimball has used language intending to alert SCO that any such filing is going to be given due consideration and not just glanced over and tossed.
Basically a bit of a "nudge, nudge. Wink, wink," that SCO might be better off if they find a way of settling this thing.
KFG
"And here something arbitrary occurs."
You'll have to forgive me (well, actually, you don't, it's just a figure of speech), I'm just being privately bemused in public. It'll go away.
'til next time.
KFG
.. they now insist on slapping DRM all over everything... This would be like me selling you a house but denying you the right to open any exterior or bedroom doors. . .
I wrote an argument in a decss/DMCA case. The analogy that I used was a book in a safe. The rights holder was selling you the book and the safe, but claiming monopoly rights (under copyright law) to the combination, which it would only license to you for an additional fee, further claiming that if you managed to obtain the combination from a third party you were not legally allowed to use it and also claiming that you were only legally allowed to open the safe with the combination. Because they had a copyright on the combination you could not blow your own safe even though it was your own property.
This was not a direct infringement case, such as p2p file sharing. Property rights in the book and the safe were undisputed by the rights holder. You had bought them. Had reciepts and everything. Neither were rights to actually read the book in dispute. If you steal a book you have commited larceny, but have not infringed upon copyright if you read the stolen book (the copy of the book is perfectly legitimate).
Naturally I argued that property rights gave you, well, ya know, property rights and that certain provisions of the DMCA actually acknowledged these rights; as well as others, under copyright law.
The judge actually used my analogy in his finding, but completely ignored all of the arguments, did not address them at all; and ruled that the DMCA prevented you from accessing the book by any means other than a licensed copy of the combination, even though you owned both the safe and the book, simply because the lock existed.
So, anyway, under this ruling if you buy a house with an electronic security system that is constructed very cleverly, just so, yes, you could not only be legally prevented from using the doors, but prevented from installing a new door to get into your house. The ownership rights to your house would be trumped by a copyright.
But yes, you'll sure still be expected to pay the taxes on it.
KFG
. . . they're referring to the point when the bungee makes you bounce back upward again. . .
Oh yeah. That's exactly when I want to have someone lean over me with a scalpel.
KFG
I don't hate change. That's why I have a digital piano that "intelligently" moves the notes around on me. Fur Elise tends to come out a bit strange now and again, but only if you hate change.
KFG
. . . pick a few arbitrary cells to perform a quick calculation on.
Actually, I rather try to avoid such things.
"And how did you arrive at this result?"
"Ooooooh, ya know. I picked a few arbitrary cells and performed a quick calculation on them."
KFG
. . . all the slashdoters can kiss my ass.
You first.
KFG
For the same reasons that people use large format film cameras, or, in the case of the camera the article is about, use a longer strip of film to produce a panoramic image. More "stuff," more picture.
KFG
Moore's law applied to transistors.
No, Moore's law applies to dicrete componants. Semiconductors. Transistors are one type of semiconductor, so are the discrete sensor componants of a CCD. It's like a tiny LCD screen working in reverse.
It's not like we need to figure out how to make to small transistors all over again from scratch.
No, but you do need to learn how to make 'em smaller than you did the last time, and that's what Moore's Law is all about. The rate at which we learn to do that. Make 'em smaller, get more of 'em on a chip of the same area.
"Consumer grade" cameras use sensor chips of a fixed size, so more discrete sensor componants must be crammed onto the chip to get greater resolution.
The camera the article is about doesn't do this. It doesn't have greater pixel density. It uses a bigger chip to store more pixels, producing a larger, panoramic image. Thus it has nothing to do with the editorial comment about phone cameras.
KFG
It's called a MetroCard. Plenty faster, more energy-efficient, and more convenient than a car
I can't sleep in my MetroCard; and they won't let me use it from Albany anyway.
KFG
I misswired a capacitor once. Jeezum Crow! Who knew you could pack that much shredded paper into that tiny, little aluminum can? I was standing there in a manila snow storm, with my ears ringing and my adrenelin pumping, just glad there wasn't enough aluminum involved to make any real shrapnel.
KFG
> > > . . there is this thing called the OUTSIDE!!!
>
> > But I'd have to put on clothes to go there.
>
>Aight. I put on my robe and wizard hat.
Laugh it up, you insensitive clod, but a sweet young thing came upon me on a hiking trail awhile ago and blurted out, "Oh! It's Gandalf."
KFG
So real world copyright law will apply in the virtual world.
It always has. So has trademark law and a design my be protected as a mark as well as by copyright.
KFG
. . . there is this thing called the OUTSIDE!!!
But I'd have to put on clothes to go there.
KFG
Either you are an MS Shill, or you are totally ignorant of the fact that FireFox is FREE. . .
Symantec "security" products, however, are not.
No one can be that dumb as to not know that FF is free, so you must be an MS Shill/fanboi.
Get a grip.
KFG
Firefox is more secure, but attempts like this to twist numbers to make is seem like maybe Firefox is not more secure in practice, are misleading and simply a way to get . . .
.your money.
. .
KFG
He's been able to develop his bald, bespectacled man into a hot chick. . .
.who appears to be a reasonable synthetic rendition of the sophmore, complete airhead.
. .
KFG
Who speak should know first !
A camera is a device which refracts light onto a backplane of some sort, creating an image of the light source. The first backplanes were called "the other side of the room." Later on they were called "the other side of the box." You might want to try making one. It's fun. I use this simple sort of nonrecording camera to observe the sun in realtime, just like Kepler did. If the backplane has a means of fixing the image the image may be removed from the camera and viewed elsewhere, elsewhen.
Since the means of fixing the image has nothing to do with whether a device is a camera or not (it is the presence of the lens, the refracting device, that defines it as a camera); and many means have been devised to do so, simply saying "camera" may not convey enough information about the device, so we use expository words to futher define it.
Say, "film camera." Which may still not be explicit enough in context, so we may say "Large format film camera," or even "8x10 film camera."
If the image is fixed electronically in the form of numeric code it is refered to as a "digital camera." The particular camera in question is refered to as a "Scanback Digital Camera."
"Camera" tells us the device is a projector of an image from a remote light source. "Scanback Digital" tells us how that light is fixed as a permanant image.
KFG
Eh! If I break it I'll just buy another.
KFG
It's a lens with a scanner !
We even have a phrase for such devices. That phrase is - "Digital Camera."
KFG
There ARE areas where extremely high resolutions are needed, but they're definitely not consumer level.
My mother prints on 2 x 3 foot paper.
KFG
What is the big point in churning up the pixel count, if the dynamic range is the same old 1.0e03?
Bigger pictures.
KFG