I do not have experience with software patents, but I think most patents are similar and having gone through the process (successfully, cost me ~10k total), I may be able to advise you a bit. First, in my experience, very large firms are very expensive, while very small firms are often overworked to a point of giving you little service or stretching filing times. Go with midium size firms. Second, I have not seen an good lawyer work on a flat fee. Third, even when you have negotiated the terms with your lawyer, have another lawyer read the contract. Some lawyers will construe the terms in their favor (yes they can get disbarred, yes it happened to me, but we settled). Know the steps involved: 1. Application filing - duh 2. Prior art disclosure - tell patent examiner what's the background of your invention. It is (can be) a separate filing, so make sure your agreement wih your lawyer includes that stage. 3. "Prosecution" - defend your patent from examiner's objections. This is the stage where I got screwed, because my contract with my first lawyer was construed so he didn't have to prosecute without additional fees (we had a flat fee arrangement).
Fourth, most lawyers will not do the work themselves, rather they will offload the work to their "apprentices" who are registered as patent agents. This is almost inevitable and may be desirable from fee perspective as associates charge less per hour. They will usually not make a secret of this fact and let you talk to the associate. If he seems knowledgeable and reasonable, this may be the most important piece of info for your decision. Lastly, you may be tempted to write a filing yourself. There are books (Nolo press comes to mind) and if you are confident with legalese, read CFR nightly and are ready to go to the library for relevant court precedents, then it may be a reasonable idea, although even then I'd go to a professional the first time. The reason you need a professional is that your entire patent is contained in your claims. The claims define the breadth of coverage (i.e. how easy it is to circumvent your patent), so writing them is an art. You want to cover your entire idea AND get the examiner to accept the formulation. BTW, having a lawyer adds you weight with USPTO. If you plan to file abroad, lawyer contacts may come handy too.
Open source is hardly an answer, unless you actually read the code (I'll bet most people have never audited a piece of software in their lives). What would be an answer is to have a trusted organization, which would audit code, put its stamp of approval AND serve as the distributor of said code. Such an organization could be subject to NDA so it could work for both closed and open source. However, as we see from hardware review sites, it is important to have several audit sources, so a consumer would have a choice of who to trust. I am thinking of Nader competing with FSF, competing with BSD guys for public trust. (On second thought, FSF is unlikely to sign an NDA:-).
I'd argue that the good judge gave a better definition of a network computer than Larry Ellison ever did. He has also given the reference definition of what an operating system is, so further legal cases could start from it. The first half of his ruling should be part of an orientation for CS majors.
This article was timely because M11 is about to come out, with an alpha version of Mozilla soon thereafter.
Re:Alright! A genetic algorithm to beat the market
on
Quickie Fu
·
· Score: 1
This is not such a bad idea for research. Either you do get superior market predictors or you prove that market activity follows no pattern. Either way the end result would be valuable.
The key word here is "probably". Noone has gotten nanotubes to self assemble, and more importantly research into defects in nanotubes is only beginning. Electromigration is alsways an issue for ULSI. And then of course cross-talk in the form of tunneling or scattering is an issue for these materials as well. Lastly, (this is not a joke) at those scales, information carriers have to travel very fast, so fast in fact that special relativity limitations become fundamental. My guess is that it will be easy to get to 100 nm scale, hard to get to 10 nm scale and virtually impossible to get to 1 nm. I doubt we will move beyond 0.13 - 0.10 micron technology in the next ten years.
I am not sure I agree. Even in his beloved first half of the century, peer review ruled. That's why anyone who was someone would come to Gottingen. It is also why Einstein's critique of quantum mechanics did not sway scientists. It is also why Einstein was considered crazy for a long time for suggesting the notion of a photon. Radical ideas were always subject to peer review, and only by surviving such a brutal test do they earn trust. It's tough on scientists but good for science, at least in the infinite amount of time approximation.
Couldn't you fool an OS into thinking that a DVD partition is a DVD hardware device? This is possible for CDs, so why not for DVDs. Granted, your OS would have to be able to support up to 17 Gb per file, but you could then do a bit/bit copy and avoid those stupid decoded rips. What am I missing?
Technocrat seems to me like a bad site for an intelligent discussion, since the maintainer has the right to censor or edit your postings. Their copyright policy is also highly questionable. Technocrat.net is stuff that matters to FS/OSS nerds. It has little news in it.
It's funny you refer to me as, ahem, a "yankie prick", given that I am a fairly recent immigrant from Europe. I wouldn't call Haider's election marginal or freak, he has held high posts before, and came back after being forced out, so this shows clear support for his views. Indeed my understanding is that some other prominent Austrian politicians have had a direct relationship with Hitler's SS and Hitleryugend. So specifically in the case of Austria, Haider seems to be the rule not the exception.
Except for strange criticism of freedom of speech (for KKK or whoever), I concur with your opinion of America. You seem to be just like our politicians here - slinging mud at others hoping it'll make yourself look better. But remember, my point was that Buchannan is similar to Haider, whom you just called a "marginal ultra conservative" - a very fitting description of Buchannan as well. And republicans vary widely, from very conservative to very liberal. Most even desire to save social security - the ultimate big government program around these places.
Well, you may like this "man of character" (you may even adore Hitler's employment policies) just do not compare him to moderate republicans. Buchannan is a far closer comparison. BTW, the last Austrian politician that got the world to pay attention actually was Hitler. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
For all the non-American's: Buchanan is one of the smartest analysts around, yet he is also one of the most bigoted people I am aware of (almost like that Austrian furer, Heider or something).
It has been widely known that vote stuffig has started at least at move #4, maybe earlier. Kasparov has acknoledged that the correct move #51 proposed by the core of world team would be a straightforward tie. Furthermore, it has been known for a while that some crucial moves in the middle of the game have been stuffed, that time in accordance with the core team recommendations. It is therefore hard to say that this was a fair game although the world loss is due to its decentralized and uncontrolled nature as much as Microsoft glitches and outright failures. If anything this game has shown that a different structure is needed for this to be successful. Anyone who claims this game to be a success is lying - it was exactly as the pessimists have foreseen. Anyone who wants to repeat this game needs to think about democratic process through the internet. This game shows that just trusting the user is unacceptable.
It seems to me most people mentioned were suits. Who is going to code this thing, or is it going to be developed entirely through acquisitions (a la Worldcom)? The ASP market seems to be taking off (as much as I hate it), so they'll need a product within the next couple of years, thus I expect Netscape quality of code, that is to say that it'll be hard make a worse product (granted MS will find a way, as with browsers).
What concerns me somewhat here is that most Linux proponents suggest giving yourself root and restricting the user, so that you could administer the system. I'd argue that this points to a complete disregard for your client's privacy. I have said this before and will repeat many more times - sysadmins are evil, they exist to restrict user rights and to take away your privacy. Resist the temptation to be a sysadmin whenever and wherever you can. For the above reason I'd choose a true single user system, i.e. the Mac, more specifically the iMac.
Where I come from we used to have a joke that a lazy person is one who lies atop his woman and waits for an earthquake. Apparently you live somewhere, where this need not be a joke. Still, so long as people get injured by and sue on grounds of flight turbulence, I do not see how any earthquake can be discounted as a minor thing.
In this game, vote stuffing became noticeable and aggravating at a level of 100 per person, since only few people were dedicated enough to cheat. Thus, making a vote registration procedure long (10 minutes, say) would alone cut down on cheating, especially if you only allow one vote per IP address, so one couldn't have several Netscapes open and vote a few times at once. Indeed, you'd need about that long to make sure a person has a clue before they vote. This would quickly weed out people who don't care about the game and would make stuffing hard. If you cared to promote the game of chess, you could prearrange with chess clubs around the country and have them authenticate users in face to face meetings, providing them with new members and also increasing security. Ultimately, it comes down to how much you care. Neither MS, nor three out four of its analysts cared one bit, hence the result.
Read this: http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/kasparov-team/posts/od/ 94732.asp Still think it's a simple cock-up? I'd argue that MS's main problem is not of technical nature - but rather their attitude throughout the game. I can understand glitches, I can't understand coverups, especially when they are so needless that the only reason for them seems to be MS overall corporate climate. Here's what MS could have done: have basic security (at least a SETI level authentication), show vote counts, have a 24/7 staffer(s) to update their web page - this is after all the "easy to maintain" Microsoft system they are running, better yet - allow analysts to submit their recommendations via the web (with authentication). If they have a problem - come out and say so. They had other problems as well - like (a)pathetic analysts of which only one cared, a web page that doesn't draw correctly on different platforms, lack of basic chess functionality such as offer draw and resign buttons, incorrect timing shown on their web page (the world had 24 hours but the page would make you believe at times that you had less), bad BBS system - I wished they used slash. Technical problems were just too numerous to put forth here. I'd argue once again that this was not a simple cock-up.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like s-key authentication.
Good idea, but your patients will
think it's too much work to login.
I know it'll be a long post, but would you mind posting the code here,
anonymously.
Matlab with simulink should do for you.
Runs on Linux. Expensive.
I do not have experience with software patents, but I think most
patents are similar and having gone through the process
(successfully, cost me ~10k total), I may be able to advise you
a bit.
First, in my experience, very large firms are very expensive,
while very small firms are often overworked to a point of giving
you little service or stretching filing times. Go with midium size
firms.
Second, I have not seen an good lawyer work on a flat fee.
Third, even when you have negotiated the terms with your lawyer,
have another lawyer read the contract. Some lawyers will construe
the terms in their favor (yes they can get disbarred, yes it happened
to me, but we settled).
Know the steps involved:
1. Application filing - duh
2. Prior art disclosure - tell patent examiner what's the background of your
invention. It is (can be) a separate filing, so make sure your agreement
wih your lawyer includes that stage.
3. "Prosecution" - defend your patent from examiner's objections. This is the stage
where I got screwed, because my contract with my first lawyer was construed so
he didn't have to prosecute without additional fees (we had a flat fee arrangement).
Fourth, most lawyers will not do the work themselves, rather they will offload
the work to their "apprentices" who are registered as patent agents. This is almost
inevitable and may be desirable from fee perspective as associates charge less
per hour. They will usually not make a secret of this fact and let you talk to the
associate. If he seems knowledgeable and reasonable, this may be the most important
piece of info for your decision.
Lastly, you may be tempted to write a filing yourself. There are books (Nolo press
comes to mind) and if you are confident with legalese, read CFR nightly and
are ready to go to the library for relevant court precedents, then it may be a
reasonable idea, although even then I'd go to a professional the first time.
The reason you need a professional is that your entire patent is contained in
your claims. The claims define the breadth of coverage (i.e. how easy it is to
circumvent your patent), so writing them is an art. You want to cover your
entire idea AND get the examiner to accept the formulation. BTW, having a
lawyer adds you weight with USPTO. If you plan to file abroad, lawyer
contacts may come handy too.
You got a point. But there is still a need
for an analog of Debian (in the specific auditing
sense) for closed source world.
Open source is hardly an answer, unless :-).
you actually read the code (I'll bet most
people have never audited a piece of
software in their lives). What would be an
answer is to have a trusted organization,
which would audit code, put its stamp of
approval AND serve as the distributor
of said code. Such an organization could
be subject to NDA so it could work for
both closed and open source.
However, as we see from hardware review sites,
it is important to have several audit sources,
so a consumer would have a choice of who to
trust. I am thinking of Nader competing with
FSF, competing with BSD guys for public trust.
(On second thought, FSF is unlikely to sign
an NDA
I'd argue that the good judge gave a better
definition of a network computer than
Larry Ellison ever did. He has also given
the reference definition of what an
operating system is, so further legal cases
could start from it.
The first half of his ruling should be part
of an orientation for CS majors.
This article was timely because M11
is about to come out, with an alpha
version of Mozilla soon thereafter.
This is not such a bad idea for research.
Either you do get superior market predictors
or you prove that market activity follows
no pattern. Either way the end result would be
valuable.
The key word here is "probably".
Noone has gotten nanotubes to self
assemble, and more importantly
research into defects in nanotubes is
only beginning. Electromigration
is alsways an issue for ULSI.
And then of course cross-talk in the
form of tunneling or scattering is
an issue for these materials as well.
Lastly, (this is not a joke) at those
scales, information carriers have to travel
very fast, so fast in fact that special
relativity limitations become fundamental.
My guess is that it will be easy to get to
100 nm scale, hard to get to 10 nm scale
and virtually impossible to get to 1 nm.
I doubt we will move beyond 0.13 - 0.10 micron
technology in the next ten years.
I am not sure I agree. Even in his beloved
first half of the century, peer review ruled.
That's why anyone who was someone would come
to Gottingen. It is also why Einstein's
critique of quantum mechanics did not sway
scientists. It is also why Einstein was
considered crazy for a long time for suggesting
the notion of a photon. Radical ideas were
always subject to peer review, and only by
surviving such a brutal test do they earn
trust. It's tough on scientists but good for
science, at least in the infinite amount of
time approximation.
Couldn't you fool an OS into thinking
that a DVD partition is a DVD hardware
device? This is possible for CDs,
so why not for DVDs. Granted, your OS
would have to be able to support up to
17 Gb per file, but you could then do
a bit/bit copy and avoid those stupid
decoded rips. What am I missing?
Technocrat seems to me like a bad site for
an intelligent discussion, since the
maintainer has the right to censor or edit
your postings. Their copyright policy is also
highly questionable.
Technocrat.net is stuff that matters to
FS/OSS nerds. It has little news in it.
If there were to be a Linux port of Lotus
stuff, wouldn't it also run on BSDs, not
to mention SCO and solaris. That
may (?) be even more stable.
Oh, and that quote "man of character" was how Haider referred to
SS veterans.
It's funny you refer to me as, ahem, a "yankie prick", given
that I am a fairly recent immigrant from Europe.
I wouldn't call Haider's election marginal or freak, he has
held high posts before, and came back after being forced out,
so this shows clear support for his views. Indeed my understanding
is that some other prominent Austrian politicians have had a
direct relationship with Hitler's SS and Hitleryugend. So specifically in
the case of Austria, Haider seems to be the rule not the exception.
Except for strange criticism of freedom of speech (for KKK or whoever),
I concur with your opinion of America. You seem to be just like our
politicians here - slinging mud at others hoping it'll make yourself
look better.
But remember, my point was that Buchannan is similar to Haider, whom
you just called a "marginal ultra conservative" - a very fitting description
of Buchannan as well. And republicans vary widely, from very conservative
to very liberal. Most even desire to save social security - the ultimate
big government program around these places.
Well, you may like this "man of character"
(you may even adore Hitler's employment
policies) just do not compare him to
moderate republicans. Buchannan is a far
closer comparison.
BTW, the last Austrian politician that got the
world to pay attention actually was Hitler.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
For all the non-American's: Buchanan
is one of the smartest analysts around,
yet he is also one of the most bigoted
people I am aware of (almost like that
Austrian furer, Heider or something).
It has been widely known that vote stuffig has started at least at
move #4, maybe earlier. Kasparov has acknoledged that the
correct move #51 proposed by the core of world team would be
a straightforward tie. Furthermore, it has been known for a while that
some crucial moves in the middle of the game have been stuffed,
that time in accordance with the core team recommendations. It is
therefore hard to say that this was a fair game although the world
loss is due to its decentralized and uncontrolled nature as much as
Microsoft glitches and outright failures. If anything this game has shown
that a different structure is needed for this to be successful. Anyone
who claims this game to be a success is lying - it was exactly as the
pessimists have foreseen. Anyone who wants to repeat this game needs
to think about democratic process through the internet. This game shows
that just trusting the user is unacceptable.
It seems to me most people mentioned were suits. Who
is going to code this thing, or is it going to be developed
entirely through acquisitions (a la Worldcom)? The ASP
market seems to be taking off (as much as I hate it), so
they'll need a product within the next couple of years,
thus I expect Netscape quality of code, that is to say that
it'll be hard make a worse product (granted MS will find a way,
as with browsers).
What concerns me somewhat here is that most
Linux proponents suggest giving yourself root
and restricting the user, so that you could
administer the system. I'd argue that this
points to a complete disregard for your client's
privacy. I have said this before and will repeat
many more times - sysadmins are evil, they exist
to restrict user rights and to take away your
privacy. Resist the temptation to be a sysadmin
whenever and wherever you can.
For the above reason I'd choose a true single user
system, i.e. the Mac, more specifically the iMac.
This is a bit offtopic but I think
you mistook a quote in my sig as
my name. I wish.
In any case, I am changing the sig.
Where I come from we used to have a joke
that a lazy person is one who lies atop
his woman and waits for an earthquake.
Apparently you live somewhere, where this
need not be a joke.
Still, so long as people get injured by and
sue on grounds of flight turbulence, I do not
see how any earthquake can be discounted as a
minor thing.
In this game, vote stuffing became noticeable and
aggravating at a level of 100 per person, since
only few people were dedicated enough to cheat.
Thus, making a vote registration procedure
long (10 minutes, say) would alone cut down on
cheating, especially if you only allow one
vote per IP address, so one couldn't have several
Netscapes open and vote a few times at once. Indeed, you'd need about that long to
make sure a person has a clue before they vote.
This would quickly weed out people who don't care
about the game and would make stuffing hard.
If you cared to promote the game of chess, you
could prearrange with chess clubs around the
country and have them authenticate users in
face to face meetings, providing them with new
members and also increasing security.
Ultimately, it comes down to how much you care.
Neither MS, nor three out four of its analysts
cared one bit, hence the result.
Read this:/ 94732.asp
http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/kasparov-team/posts/od
Still think it's a simple cock-up? I'd argue
that MS's main problem is not of technical
nature - but rather their attitude throughout
the game. I can understand glitches, I can't
understand coverups, especially when they are so
needless that the only reason for them seems to
be MS overall corporate climate.
Here's what MS could have done: have basic
security (at least a SETI level authentication),
show vote counts, have a 24/7 staffer(s) to
update their web page - this is after all the
"easy to maintain" Microsoft system they are
running, better yet - allow analysts to submit
their recommendations via the web (with
authentication). If they have a problem - come
out and say so.
They had other problems as well - like
(a)pathetic analysts of which only one cared,
a web page that doesn't draw correctly on
different platforms, lack of basic chess
functionality such as offer draw and resign
buttons, incorrect timing shown on their
web page (the world had 24 hours but the page
would make you believe at times that you had
less), bad BBS system - I wished they used slash.
Technical problems were just too numerous to
put forth here. I'd argue once again that this
was not a simple cock-up.