I think the Judge's point is that e-mail has become so common that if we don't add this protection normal e-mail conversation is/will become more stifled. Making people overly consious of their e-mail may have a detrimental effect greater than letting people "get away" from something they wrote 6 months after they said it. The permanence and ubiquity of e-mail is something that is significantly different from conversation and also writing (conversation usually gets "lost" immediately and writing tends to be much more careful than "e-mailing".).
Yes, there are programs that really will delete things, but what percentage of users do you think would know how to use them? Maybe 10%? Even if you know how to use these programs, what happens if you want to delete your e-mail a week later? Oopps you admin backed up your files. Now, there's really no practical way for you to delete it.
I find the Judge's ideas quite interesting and definitely worth thinking about and debating.
It is strange that Microsoft feels it needs so much time to prepare, or that this case would be so unusual, after going to great lengths to deny the specialness of this case to the Supreme Court.
No, Microsoft is being consistent here. They've said all along that the case was "too complicated" for the Supreme Court to handle (how insulting!). They've consistently said that there were 10 zillion flaws in the case and they intend to mention every one of them in those 56,000 words (presumably with their innovative legal obfuscation technology).
Yes, but the only reason they would have agreed to such restrictions is because of anti-trust laws. If these laws didn't exist, Microsoft would have had no motivation to sign such a contract.
If you buy a car with a stereo you don't get a discount if you promise not to use it, why should you when you buy a PC ? Would you rather have it that when Joe Consumer buys a PC he gets a blank box and has to go about installing an OS himself ?
No, of course not. However, Microsoft if I don't want an MS operating system installed and I want to buy from any major manufacturer of PCs, I still have to pay MS. Years ago, MS was stopped (using anti-trust laws) from putting blanket restrictions on PC manufacturers that if they sold ANY PC with MS-DOS, they had to pay a license for EVERY PC they sold. This made manufacturers choose sides (MS-DOS or someone else). Since MS-DOS computers were a majority of those sold, a computer manufacturer would be crazy not to choose MS. This stiffled competition pretty damn effectively. You ALWAYS had to pay MS even if you wanted something else. (Coke doesn't make you pay for a Coke with every burger you buy at McDonalds - you're free to bring your own drink.)
Instead, now MS makes it so that for any given model you sell with Windows you have to pay for Windows with EVERY ONE of that model. I'm not entirely sure how models are defined, but it essentially means that you can't get a "Compaq Presario" without paying for Windows even if Compaq wanted to sell you a "Presario" without it installed. I may have some of these details wrong, but the basics I think are right and it pretty much has the same effect.
In the case of Netscape, Compaq wanted to include Navigator or Communicator but Microsoft prevented them by threatening to without their license to Windows. Compaq, and any other PC manufacturer, would go out of business very quickly without Windows. In this case Compaq is the "consumer" who didn't have any real choice. The fact is that Microsoft is able to bully companies like Compaq, IBM and even Intel with no restraints except anti-trust law.
The point of this is that the manufactuers of PC's don't even have the option (without fear of severe retailiation by Microsoft) of selling PCs without Windows or with certain software pre-installed. This, in my opinion, is harm to the consumer.
As for including radios in a car, every manufacturer of cars has the option to include one or not. There is no company that has a lock on the manufacture of radios. Pretend that there existed a company like that and that they had similar restrictions to Microsoft's. Now Ford can't choose to give the consumer the option of having a radio in their car. Every car model they make (or at least model they make that has the option of including a radio) now has to have a radio. You couldn't choose (as I believe is the case) to order a car without a radio and install, say, an Alpine radio yourself. The point is, the manufacturer doesn't have the choice of which features should be standard and which should be optional.
When IBM was creating the PC, they explicitly looked outside of the company. They chose outside suppliers for their OS (ie Microsoft) and processor (Intel). When the PC became a big hit, they had a clear opportunity to buy MS but they didn't due to anti-trust concerns. It looks to me like the anti-trust laws worked without even returning a guilty verdict!
In Microsoft's case, they have been found guilty. I believe that even if this is overturned in the end, the anti-trust procecution will have had significant benefit to the industry. Companies like Dell are shipping computers with Linux pre-installed. This wouldn't have happened (IMHO) if Microsoft weren't being procecuted.
As one can imagine, this is both good news and bad news for Apple They undoubtedly welcome this product as it gives the connectivity they so sorely need; particularly in their important scientific research market where they're already fairly popular. On the other hand there is likely a fear that developers might 'port' to MacOS X by simply running their apps in a X term session (possibly a cut-down server licensed from Tenon) and not go native.
I'm not so sure that Apple has much fear that this will happen. The reason? Apple isn't including the X Server with OS X. If you try to sell software to someone and require a 3rd party product (especially one from a fairly small company) you're asking for trouble. First, people are hesitant about installing more stuff on their computer (maybe OS X will make this better, but I doubt it), second, their support department will be driven crazy by compatibility/version problems (are you running Tenon X? XFreePPC? Which version?) and third, companies worry that the 3rd party might go out of business leaving them in a bit of a bind. It's hard enough to deal with the foibles of different versions of an OS (and, yikes, MS makes it truly annoying by upgrading the OS everytime you install a new browser or word processor).
I'm not saying that there won't be companies that take this route, but that the vast majority won't and this is enough to make Apple not worry so much about this.
It doesn't have to make great advances. That's just Microsoft's hype (really part of everything they do). I think the most interesting thing I've read about the X-Box was written by Robert X Cringely:
Quick summary of the article: they're basically fighting to keep Windows a monopoly. They feel threatened by the potential of Sony's Playstation 2. They will fight hard and dirty in this fight and use up a huge amount of resources. They win if they keep Sony out of the PC space and leave them in their game's space.
Go figure. I wonder if Apple will buy into it..their machines as scientific boxes;)
They recently added Arthur D. Levinson, CEO of Genentech to the board of directors. It probably (hopefully) means they plan on taking science seriously.
Although I forgot to mention it, you can only follow hyperlinks, no filling out of forms, etc allowed. Of course, it's not as if you can't go by your own rules, I just think it's a bit more challenging this way.
This reminds me of an old Andy Ihnatko article in MacWorld (MacUser?) I saw a couple of years ago. In it, he described a game called "Web that smut". The rules? Start with any page (preferably something like a congressman's home page) and find a set of links to pornography. The winner is the one who finds the minimum number of links. Anyone want to play "Web that DeCSS" starting with www.mpaa.org?
Apple didn't know who the person was. Given the fact they were determined to find out who it was, they needed to file a lawsuit in order to subpoena Yahoo. There was no other way they could accomplish their goal. They couldn't deal with it internally since they didn't know who to deal with.
This will make a whole new excuse for not completing their homework. "Oops, my program had a bug and it encrypted the source and I lost the key" or perhaps "Here it is (oops, it's encrypted, where's the key?)"
I'm sure apple tried this, but then they would have to color match the mice with the iMac shells. It's probably pretty hard to make a "snow" color opitical light.
White probably wouldn't be so hard (just put all the colors in there and have the detector filter out those that it didn't want to track), but how about graphite? (Make all the colors a bit dimmer?) That would be a challenge!
I see a great many posts throughout this discussion that say things like "blame the language", "real programmers wouldn't ever make a mistake like that - it's only schmucks who write programs with buffer overflows". I think these posts are completely missing the point.
First, even if you had, say, a perfect language in which you couldn't possibly overflow any buffers (in theory), there still might be bugs in the compiler for that language which could be exploited. In the end, all programs are machine language. As long as it is possible for an executable to write to executable memory, it will be done. The only way of eliminating this problem is through hardware (and an OS that uses the hardware features).
Second, even great programmers make mistakes. Have you ever written a bug free program of any reasonable length? Having a language that prohibits a totally unnecessary feature (e.g. writing beyond the end of an array) means that programmers cannot make that mistake (though it is still possible that the compiler might screw up the bounds checking...).
Reality is such that C and C++ are the dominant programming languages, which means that buffer overflows are significantly more likely, which means that it is even more important for the operating system to police it, if you want good security.
Good program design prohibits (or at least makes very difficult) that which shouldn't be done while making it easy to do the things you want done. It can (and should) be done in the language. It can (and should) be done in the OS.
What Napster is doing is not necessarily against the law (the courts will, of course, in the end decide). See my other comment. The temporary injuction didn't decide that (thought it does perhaps show how the judge is leaning). Furthermore, a temporary injunction isn't supposed to do irreparable harm, and this one would definitely do that, and I believe that's why the appellate court overturned it.
I agree with you that Napster is lying when they say that they can't do anything about copyrighted materials. However, I believe that if they do anything like what you've suggested (create a zillion filters) it will very likely eliminate a whole lot that is legitimate too. Also, users will quickly find work-arounds for any such thing. Short of downloading and listening to all songs (and matching them to the list of copyrighted materials) there really isn't much that is feasible.
I think, in the end, the issue will boil down to whether this is fair use. From what I've read, it is - under the law as it now exists (which didn't anticipate anything like Napster). Napster is merely a referal service for people to swap music files. The law doesn't say anything about whether people need to know each other or how far apart they may be, etc. Just as long as they don't sell the stuff they copied (the law applies, I think, explicitly to music, not other copyrighted intellectual property). Congress is of course free to change the law so that such services become illegal, if they think that's the most beneficial (for them, of course) thing to do.
Napster defended its service, saying its members were not violating copyright because their trades were all for personal, noncommercial use as defined by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.
Patel, in her decision Wednesday, disagreed, saying that Napster was clearly set up to enable users to evade paying fees for copyrighted material.
Couldn't these both be true simultanesouly? Napster may be set up to allow users to evade paying fees for copyrighted material AND the trading is covered under the 1992 act. I don't see how one follows from the other. The record companies may hate it. Perhaps the Judge had more significant arguments, but if this is the logic behind the injunction, it's wrong.
What business? How in God's name do these people make money?
Use some imagination - don't you think bands would pay to have a listing on Napster.com to get the publicity. Also, maybe they could make these songs pop up higher on searches than others (always search Napster's archives first would be one way). Future Napster clients might also become more annoying (like Netscape) and put up adds everywhere.
If you blocked any file with the word "Metallica" in its filename, that would make it so much more difficult to trade Metallica's works
What if I wrote a song "Metallic Sux" and wanted to distribute it on Napster? This would prevent me from doing so.
With their blunted cone-shaped noses, the laser-targeted bullets will be fired from more than 350 metres above the water, travel 12 metres through it and still be able to zap a mine.
I hope they're shooting from straight above, otherwise refraction (of the laser going from air to water) will mess them up and they'll miss.
I'm no expert, but I believe this is one of the ideas behind Windows NT. File system security in NT, as I have observed, is similar to that of Linux, so you would have to be logged in as Administrator in order to trash the system (or have a virus do it for you).
Although this is strictly true, if you're doing development under NT and installing/uninstalling programs often or modifying system settings you'll realize it is a royal pain to restrict your own access. You need to completely log out, log in as administrator, log out, and log back in as yourself. Personally, I usually have about 10 programs open at a time. This means that I have to quit all those programs, do the admin stuff then open all those programs again. Forget it, I'll just log in as administrator the first time. On average (even if now and then my system gets trashed) I'll spend less time doing stuff.
Unix does this better. You can just use su in an x-term to quickly change some settings - no need to quit everything else. I've heard that MacOS X will allow you to log in as su when having a control panel open, so you can modify system settings. Again, no need to log out and log back in again.
Well, Microsoft has repeatedly said that if they were to be broken up the whole economy would collapse or some such nonsense. By their own argument, it seems, the case is of national importance.
I think it is hard to argue that it isn't of national importance. After all, it affects virtually every computer user (even if you don't buy MS's products!).
Clearly, games are part of the operating system! Would you consider Windows complete without Minesweeper or Solitaire? I didn't think so.
Seriously, I think this is a direct attack on Sony, who Microsoft is really worried about. They don't really give a damn about the Mac versions and maybe care a little about Linux. Read Cringely's article on the X-Box: "A Shot Across the Bow".
Slashdot Mirror
I think the Judge's point is that e-mail has become so common that if we don't add this protection normal e-mail conversation is/will become more stifled. Making people overly consious of their e-mail may have a detrimental effect greater than letting people "get away" from something they wrote 6 months after they said it. The permanence and ubiquity of e-mail is something that is significantly different from conversation and also writing (conversation usually gets "lost" immediately and writing tends to be much more careful than "e-mailing".).
Yes, there are programs that really will delete things, but what percentage of users do you think would know how to use them? Maybe 10%? Even if you know how to use these programs, what happens if you want to delete your e-mail a week later? Oopps you admin backed up your files. Now, there's really no practical way for you to delete it.
I find the Judge's ideas quite interesting and definitely worth thinking about and debating.
It is strange that Microsoft feels it needs so much time to prepare, or that this case would be so unusual, after going to great lengths to deny the specialness of this case to the Supreme Court.
No, Microsoft is being consistent here. They've said all along that the case was "too complicated" for the Supreme Court to handle (how insulting!). They've consistently said that there were 10 zillion flaws in the case and they intend to mention every one of them in those 56,000 words (presumably with their innovative legal obfuscation technology).
Yes, but the only reason they would have agreed to such restrictions is because of anti-trust laws. If these laws didn't exist, Microsoft would have had no motivation to sign such a contract.
If you buy a car with a stereo you don't get a discount if you promise not to use it, why should you when you buy a PC ? Would you rather have it that when Joe Consumer buys a PC he gets a blank box and has to go about installing an OS himself ?
No, of course not. However, Microsoft if I don't want an MS operating system installed and I want to buy from any major manufacturer of PCs, I still have to pay MS. Years ago, MS was stopped (using anti-trust laws) from putting blanket restrictions on PC manufacturers that if they sold ANY PC with MS-DOS, they had to pay a license for EVERY PC they sold. This made manufacturers choose sides (MS-DOS or someone else). Since MS-DOS computers were a majority of those sold, a computer manufacturer would be crazy not to choose MS. This stiffled competition pretty damn effectively. You ALWAYS had to pay MS even if you wanted something else. (Coke doesn't make you pay for a Coke with every burger you buy at McDonalds - you're free to bring your own drink.)
Instead, now MS makes it so that for any given model you sell with Windows you have to pay for Windows with EVERY ONE of that model. I'm not entirely sure how models are defined, but it essentially means that you can't get a "Compaq Presario" without paying for Windows even if Compaq wanted to sell you a "Presario" without it installed. I may have some of these details wrong, but the basics I think are right and it pretty much has the same effect.
In the case of Netscape, Compaq wanted to include Navigator or Communicator but Microsoft prevented them by threatening to without their license to Windows. Compaq, and any other PC manufacturer, would go out of business very quickly without Windows. In this case Compaq is the "consumer" who didn't have any real choice. The fact is that Microsoft is able to bully companies like Compaq, IBM and even Intel with no restraints except anti-trust law.
The point of this is that the manufactuers of PC's don't even have the option (without fear of severe retailiation by Microsoft) of selling PCs without Windows or with certain software pre-installed. This, in my opinion, is harm to the consumer.
As for including radios in a car, every manufacturer of cars has the option to include one or not. There is no company that has a lock on the manufacture of radios. Pretend that there existed a company like that and that they had similar restrictions to Microsoft's. Now Ford can't choose to give the consumer the option of having a radio in their car. Every car model they make (or at least model they make that has the option of including a radio) now has to have a radio. You couldn't choose (as I believe is the case) to order a car without a radio and install, say, an Alpine radio yourself. The point is, the manufacturer doesn't have the choice of which features should be standard and which should be optional.
When IBM was creating the PC, they explicitly looked outside of the company. They chose outside suppliers for their OS (ie Microsoft) and processor (Intel). When the PC became a big hit, they had a clear opportunity to buy MS but they didn't due to anti-trust concerns. It looks to me like the anti-trust laws worked without even returning a guilty verdict!
In Microsoft's case, they have been found guilty. I believe that even if this is overturned in the end, the anti-trust procecution will have had significant benefit to the industry. Companies like Dell are shipping computers with Linux pre-installed. This wouldn't have happened (IMHO) if Microsoft weren't being procecuted.
As one can imagine, this is both good news and bad news for Apple They undoubtedly welcome this product as it gives the connectivity they so sorely need; particularly in their important scientific research market where they're already fairly popular. On the other hand there is likely a fear that developers might 'port' to MacOS X by simply running their apps in a X term session (possibly a cut-down server licensed from Tenon) and not go native.
I'm not so sure that Apple has much fear that this will happen. The reason? Apple isn't including the X Server with OS X. If you try to sell software to someone and require a 3rd party product (especially one from a fairly small company) you're asking for trouble. First, people are hesitant about installing more stuff on their computer (maybe OS X will make this better, but I doubt it), second, their support department will be driven crazy by compatibility/version problems (are you running Tenon X? XFreePPC? Which version?) and third, companies worry that the 3rd party might go out of business leaving them in a bit of a bind. It's hard enough to deal with the foibles of different versions of an OS (and, yikes, MS makes it truly annoying by upgrading the OS everytime you install a new browser or word processor).
I'm not saying that there won't be companies that take this route, but that the vast majority won't and this is enough to make Apple not worry so much about this.
It doesn't have to make great advances. That's just Microsoft's hype (really part of everything they do). I think the most interesting thing I've read about the X-Box was written by Robert X Cringely:
A Shot Across the Bow
Quick summary of the article: they're basically fighting to keep Windows a monopoly. They feel threatened by the potential of Sony's Playstation 2. They will fight hard and dirty in this fight and use up a huge amount of resources. They win if they keep Sony out of the PC space and leave them in their game's space.
They recently added Arthur D. Levinson, CEO of Genentech to the board of directors. It probably (hopefully) means they plan on taking science seriously.
Although I forgot to mention it, you can only follow hyperlinks, no filling out of forms, etc allowed. Of course, it's not as if you can't go by your own rules, I just think it's a bit more challenging this way.
I know, we'll get Metallica to do it!
http://www.mpaa.org/3 000wh-educ-edu.html
/ cyberlaw/11law.html
i nkscyberlaw.html
0 808_ny_post_trial_brief.html
http://www.mpaa.org/home.htm
http://www.mpaa.org/tv/
http://www.tvguidelines.org/default.htm
http://www.tvguidelines.org/resource.htm
http://www.nea.org/
http://www.nea.org/news/
http://www.nea.org/info/press/
http://www.nea.org/news/press/
http://www.edweek.org/clips/
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/08
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/tech/
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/08/cyber
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/reference/l
http://www.eff.org/
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/2000
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/dvd/
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/DeCSS/
http://www.zpok.demon.co.uk/decss/
I hope I just didn't get the NEA in hot water!
This reminds me of an old Andy Ihnatko article in MacWorld (MacUser?) I saw a couple of years ago. In it, he described a game called "Web that smut". The rules? Start with any page (preferably something like a congressman's home page) and find a set of links to pornography. The winner is the one who finds the minimum number of links. Anyone want to play "Web that DeCSS" starting with www.mpaa.org?
Apple didn't know who the person was. Given the fact they were determined to find out who it was, they needed to file a lawsuit in order to subpoena Yahoo. There was no other way they could accomplish their goal. They couldn't deal with it internally since they didn't know who to deal with.
When you toss a web server running slash into a black hole, will first posts finally get lost forever?
This will make a whole new excuse for not completing their homework. "Oops, my program had a bug and it encrypted the source and I lost the key" or perhaps "Here it is (oops, it's encrypted, where's the key?)"
I'm sure apple tried this, but then they would have to color match the mice with the iMac shells. It's probably pretty hard to make a "snow" color opitical light.
White probably wouldn't be so hard (just put all the colors in there and have the detector filter out those that it didn't want to track), but how about graphite? (Make all the colors a bit dimmer?) That would be a challenge!
I see a great many posts throughout this discussion that say things like "blame the language", "real programmers wouldn't ever make a mistake like that - it's only schmucks who write programs with buffer overflows". I think these posts are completely missing the point.
First, even if you had, say, a perfect language in which you couldn't possibly overflow any buffers (in theory), there still might be bugs in the compiler for that language which could be exploited. In the end, all programs are machine language. As long as it is possible for an executable to write to executable memory, it will be done. The only way of eliminating this problem is through hardware (and an OS that uses the hardware features).
Second, even great programmers make mistakes. Have you ever written a bug free program of any reasonable length? Having a language that prohibits a totally unnecessary feature (e.g. writing beyond the end of an array) means that programmers cannot make that mistake (though it is still possible that the compiler might screw up the bounds checking...).
Reality is such that C and C++ are the dominant programming languages, which means that buffer overflows are significantly more likely, which means that it is even more important for the operating system to police it, if you want good security.
Good program design prohibits (or at least makes very difficult) that which shouldn't be done while making it easy to do the things you want done. It can (and should) be done in the language. It can (and should) be done in the OS.
What Napster is doing is not necessarily against the law (the courts will, of course, in the end decide). See my other comment. The temporary injuction didn't decide that (thought it does perhaps show how the judge is leaning). Furthermore, a temporary injunction isn't supposed to do irreparable harm, and this one would definitely do that, and I believe that's why the appellate court overturned it.
I agree with you that Napster is lying when they say that they can't do anything about copyrighted materials. However, I believe that if they do anything like what you've suggested (create a zillion filters) it will very likely eliminate a whole lot that is legitimate too. Also, users will quickly find work-arounds for any such thing. Short of downloading and listening to all songs (and matching them to the list of copyrighted materials) there really isn't much that is feasible.
I think, in the end, the issue will boil down to whether this is fair use. From what I've read, it is - under the law as it now exists (which didn't anticipate anything like Napster). Napster is merely a referal service for people to swap music files. The law doesn't say anything about whether people need to know each other or how far apart they may be, etc. Just as long as they don't sell the stuff they copied (the law applies, I think, explicitly to music, not other copyrighted intellectual property). Congress is of course free to change the law so that such services become illegal, if they think that's the most beneficial (for them, of course) thing to do.
Napster defended its service, saying its members were not violating copyright because their trades were all for personal, noncommercial use as defined by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.
Patel, in her decision Wednesday, disagreed, saying that Napster was clearly set up to enable users to evade paying fees for copyrighted material.
Couldn't these both be true simultanesouly? Napster may be set up to allow users to evade paying fees for copyrighted material AND the trading is covered under the 1992 act. I don't see how one follows from the other. The record companies may hate it. Perhaps the Judge had more significant arguments, but if this is the logic behind the injunction, it's wrong.
What business? How in God's name do these people make money?
Use some imagination - don't you think bands would pay to have a listing on Napster.com to get the publicity. Also, maybe they could make these songs pop up higher on searches than others (always search Napster's archives first would be one way). Future Napster clients might also become more annoying (like Netscape) and put up adds everywhere.
If you blocked any file with the word "Metallica" in its filename, that would make it so much more difficult to trade Metallica's works
What if I wrote a song "Metallic Sux" and wanted to distribute it on Napster? This would prevent me from doing so.
With their blunted cone-shaped noses, the laser-targeted bullets will be fired from more than 350 metres above the water, travel 12 metres through it and still be able to zap a mine.
I hope they're shooting from straight above, otherwise refraction (of the laser going from air to water) will mess them up and they'll miss.
I'm no expert, but I believe this is one of the ideas behind Windows NT. File system security in NT, as I have observed, is similar to that of Linux, so you would have to be logged in as Administrator in order to trash the system (or have a virus do it for you).
Although this is strictly true, if you're doing development under NT and installing/uninstalling programs often or modifying system settings you'll realize it is a royal pain to restrict your own access. You need to completely log out, log in as administrator, log out, and log back in as yourself. Personally, I usually have about 10 programs open at a time. This means that I have to quit all those programs, do the admin stuff then open all those programs again. Forget it, I'll just log in as administrator the first time. On average (even if now and then my system gets trashed) I'll spend less time doing stuff.
Unix does this better. You can just use su in an x-term to quickly change some settings - no need to quit everything else. I've heard that MacOS X will allow you to log in as su when having a control panel open, so you can modify system settings. Again, no need to log out and log back in again.
Well, Microsoft has repeatedly said that if they were to be broken up the whole economy would collapse or some such nonsense. By their own argument, it seems, the case is of national importance.
I think it is hard to argue that it isn't of national importance. After all, it affects virtually every computer user (even if you don't buy MS's products!).
Clearly, games are part of the operating system! Would you consider Windows complete without Minesweeper or Solitaire? I didn't think so.
Seriously, I think this is a direct attack on Sony, who Microsoft is really worried about. They don't really give a damn about the Mac versions and maybe care a little about Linux. Read Cringely's article on the X-Box: "A Shot Across the Bow".
If you have a lot of paper to convert, check out
www.actionpoint.com
Our product InputAccel is geared towards exactly this kind of problem. It cost $$$, but it's worth it if you have lots of paper to convert.