In short, what does porn with a 12 year old have to do with terrorism.
I can't wait until everybody accepts whatever the government decides to use this for. That woman calling Bush Hitler... whoa, she was way off base, cuz Hitler didn't have the same technology at all.
I'm not sure it's not too late to respond to this ; but I will anyways.
You can use Pine to read the email, but currently you need a graphical web browser. What my company needs is a screen-reader to look into making this technology work for the visually impaired as well.
it may work, it may not. If it does not, we may need to add to it ; and I can see that you disagree with that.
The same rule applies to any agreement. There was nothing 'up in the air' about this. He worked for a company that hired him to invent what he invented. They funded his research, they paid his salary.
Where is the question? Some socialist / communist who thought he was being super insightful made a comment about people building a house and then claiming they own it even though they were paid to build it. Yeah they would own it, if they weren't paid to build it. There's no question, this is simple.
IF you want to own what you make, don't agree to make it for somebody else using their money.
"To be compensated a few thousand bucks for those patents (I believe it is $182 PER PATENT), is a frickin' JOKE."
That's a shame, I guess he shouldn't have agreed to be compensated so little for his efforts.
If I pay workers minimum wage to invent a teleporation device, and they spend their entire lives doing it, and then finally succeed. The agreement was still the same always.
He could have walked at any time, instead he invented what he did for the company that paid him and paid for his research ; no matter how little they paid.
I read the exact story on this when Wired first published it, I believe it was called "True Boo-Roo" - a reference to the japanese use of the english language to discribe "true blue" since their word for Blue is the same as Green.
What I don't find amazing is the fact that the company took the right to the Blue Led. In the wired article they talked about how the company funded his research efforts for YEARS hoping that he would develop something. I don't know about you, but if I were to make such a risky investment I'd expect something for it - like what I invested in.
From the article itself, "Nakamura chose to work on gallium nitride not because he was confident of success, but "because I had had the bitter experience that if you do the same as everyone else, when it comes to making products, you can't sell them. So I chose a material that almost no one else was working on... and our chairman and president let me have the money I needed."
Not only did he let him have the money, he paid his salary as an inventor for the company. This case is rediculous, on this one I'm for the corporation.
That would be the authentication system discussed at SolidBlue's web site. This form of authentication does not require a central authority.
Your message reads like a zealot without a cause. I can't believe your uninformed flamebait post wasn't modded down. Mentioning a company relevant to the context of a story isn't spam, especially a spam company in a story about spam.
As you can see I've responded to every critic you linked to, and while I'm not looking for a rubber stamp - I simply don't agree with them (as you can see from my replies).
We are going to the IETF, what we're looking for is a working group before hand to submit ideas and not just 'rubber stamp' our own - so that we can come up with a reasonable, informed, justifiable reason for the IETF to grant us a working group.
It would only take about as long as it's taking for AI Robots to take over the world. Because in actuality it is exactly the same level of complexity in computing vs. relative simplicity to a cognitive being that we're speaking about - and moreso there is much more push to develop intelligent AI for other reasons than there is for marketers to circumvent even a worldwide ban on Spam. Yet, it does not exist.
You make very good points, and in actuality I am a geekoid intentionally turning marketer. Also you're obviously serious about the topic so I'm definately not offended.
in this example, and in all examples utilizing this system your servers are not an issue. Your servers only transmit email and are not used to read email.
Actually this standard is not a haphazard mish-mash of technology - it really isn't. It is a very simple standard, but what I am speaking about is the possibility of adding technology to a very small segment of the population that is handicapped ; and while the concept of 'adding technology' everytime a protocol is re-written really is not feasible - it is possible that this is the special case that warrants it.
After all, software and most internet communications are being shifted more and more to only 2 primary mediums - The Web and Email (with Instant Messenging coming in a close third).
The technology I'm speaking of may not even be necessary as I am still not familiar with the technology currently used ; but the technology I'm speaking of is simply a modification to technology that *may* exist - that is a pin-grid capable of displaying more than just a standard alphabet. Perhaps you can correct me on this, because if that is already possible with existing technology than a special device really is not necessary.
In any event, I don't believe that email is primarily a text medium anymore - at all. I receive HTML formatted emails way too often (and personally I hate them). The best part about this system is that it works with all email types, even straight text. It simply requires the use of a web browser in addition to an email client.
I apologise, actually I was referring to the ability for monitors to display images and connect with enough bandwidth for images not to pose a problem.
In actuality, the issue of the blind using our technology came up almost in the beginning and I am personally a big advocate of making computing more accessable to the handicapped. My company has been trying to acquire or atleast make use of the same technology used by the blind to find another solution ; such as characters with 'noise' added if that's at all possible.
E.g. on a grid with characters only it is not, but with a grid of pins it very well may be. The answer may also lie in additional, but simple technology for the blind. Considering the relative importance of Email and the possibilities of such a system eliminating a very real problem - additional technology for the blind may be a small price to pay - and a price that could be paid by companies or the government.
I know we would be happy to provide a low-cost device to any visually impaired person using our software, and of course similar access would have to be granted by other companies such as ISP's etc. The visually impaired make up a small enough percentage of the population that it is feasible to provide additional technology at corporate cost.
No, why don't people just read the link? Nothing is calculated, nothing is forgeable, nothing is brute forceable.
Unknown email correspondents are asked to enter a series of numbers and letters that are sent to them in an image format.
Everybody on the internet today can now handle images.
You wanna brute force it? Can't. It changes with every bad attempt ; and we're working with it right now. over 500 registered, happy users. The concept is simple and it makes a million times more sense then all these posts on using SSL to a trusted server on a trusted network... blah blah blah.... that ain't gonna happen, and if it did it would be a nightmare.
"Which approach do you think produces the better results? I happen to think the best approach is a balance somewhere in the middle, but as business practices seem to get more and more invasive, I find myself leaning closer to the European approach, even though I'm normally quite wary of regulation." --
Even the left wing are getting scared because of unfair business practices. The real answer is in re-writing the Email protocol. It is simply too lax on security and too simple to accomodate todays needs and provide the level of 'security' people want with the Internet.
I propose that a working group be formed to incorporate the same type of Authentication we know works with email - and piggy back that authentication on an open platform like RFC 822's Email Protocol until it can be implemented as a required medium.
Any interested contributors to this working group should email us at inquiries@solidblue.biz. SolidBlue is a leader in networked communications and protocol development.
There are an increasing number of 'victories' in the war on spam by government ; but overall the number of Spam sent is increasing.
While the government can fight blatent abuse of a person or companies communication rights ; they have not (and I believe they can not) come up with legislation that actually makes spam illegal while allowing all legitimate communications to be made unhindered.
The solution to Spam and the new 'free marketing' medium of the Internet really is to use an Authentication system for all communications that are prone to abuse ; and that would work for telephones as well.
What we need is an Authentication System in the email protocol itself, and that is what my company - SolidBlue is working on over the next year or so. Interested researchers can email us and we'll see if we can get an RFC group started.
The point of the entire article is not to question the concept of asking for ID. It is about collecting too much information on individuals.
Taking a fingerprint in addition to a signature is that much less trusting. It degrades the common persons morale, and it makes even more strict forms of Identification that much less far fetched.
The Hitler analogy is very overused ; but look at the United States and Touristy-Canada post September 11th. Flags on everything, signs of solidarity and support for the US's not-yet-defined war on who-even-knew-yet.
Everybody was willing to undergo even more Identification, a national ID card was suggested and laws to ensure people carry ID were suggested all over the place.
This *exact*, *EXACT* scenario happened in Nazi Germany pre-Nazi. That's how the minorities are ID'd. No matter what institution you work for, it is a vital part of the country as a whole - and the choices it makes regarding how it treats citizens affect the country as a whole, and more specifically the entire countries sense of Freedom.
Don't banks often advertise along the lines, "You're not just a number to us". Yeah, now you're a number and a fingerprint and a retinal scan. I would be pissed off if the ATM asked for a fingerprint.
Your overworked fraud department can get some more funding if it needs to hire people. Yeah, I'm really sad for the Banks - they're definately not making enough money.
You're entirely correct, but I think he is really trying to stress the practicality of the situation. Your examples are great, and in terms of 'better worldly good' they are inspiring - but in terms of 'success' they really were a matter of being in the right place, at the right time, with the right idea.
And having the right idea is very hard, it only seems obvious in retrospect.
Our company has some lofty goals that do include open source software and re-writing some common protocols (Can't get in to much detail). This project is entirely about funding our future endeavours and as such really should be approached from a 'marketing' standpoint.
Of course, there is also the argument that a product that sells is a good product ; so in many ways approaching the situation 'backwards' with marketing research etc, is really a boring tried&true method of determining what the world wants and giving it to them. Neither approach seems right or wrong in my mind, but developing based on need seems like a more surefire method of reaching success - but maybe not a method of creating or inspiring innovation.
"The amazing thing is that if you're friendly to us, we're going to remember that, and you, and stop needing I.D. before long."
Spoken like a true authority figure. I've heard the police use a slight variation on this exact line many times - "If you're friendly and do what we say, we won't give you a hard time". It's amazing how the shortsighted cogs fall into place immedately.
"There not my rules" "I just enforce the rules" "I enforce the rules because I believe in them [For your Protection]" "I enforce the rules to the letter because I don't like you" "Treat me with respect or I'll enforce more rules".
We have tried to get our product on SourceForge and it was rejected for having a closed licensing system. It is shareware.
User feedback is an incredible avenue for us, and many people suggest opening up the software completely and offering it for free to get the information we need / help the project move forward so that a great product is produced.
The only problem with that, as some commenters have said is that we then lose the ability to make any money what-so-ever on our product. We do support open source, but I don't wish to develop at night and do dishes during the day.
The ability for a company to approach profitability in the open-source world is a whole other topic / many potential debates on its own. I do agree with the open-source model and I am aware of many companies profiting from Open Source, but for the purposes of this question let's assume we're speaking about a Closed Source Product.
Thank you for the response, and the encouragement.
Every one of your assumptions is wrong. First of all the software works with all mail clients, and the web site has information on working specifically with Mozilla as well as Outlook.
The software makes it *impossible* to receive spam using an authentication system. Using filters the spam never gets to their mailbox and doesn't have to be read.
What is your understanding of Mail Filters or the Mail Filter market, do you have any working knowledge of the potential of this type of software? Are you aware that every major Anti-Virus company is moving into this exact market?
At the moment we are targeting end-users on the Internet, we have gone through OSDN advertising, Google Advertising and are doing quite a bit of research on people looking for answers to Spam. Obviously we are not spamming people, that avenue is right out of the question.
We have released a free, Shareware version and charge for the upgrade, + the Service of our Authentication System.
What we offer for free, which I personally believe is much more important, is Support to all users. In my opinion that and a free product will get us much farther than a completely open product and paid-for support alone.
We really want to move into targeting Businesses and finding a Distributor that has an established marketing channel. This has been our largest hurdle. Kaspersky, McAffee, Norton and a lot of other potential OEM buyers have actually turned us down with a full working product to persue development of their own product - based entirely on our small market share.
I hope that's enough information, and everybodies feedback is appreciated!
The backlash against unsolicited marketing is really incredible these days, and it makes me happy to see people 'taking up the fight'.
My own company produces anti-spam software, and we have actually been accused of 'unsolicited marketing' in the past - when in reality we were mentioning our product in a valid medium, where announcements for new products were actually requested!
In the end, the accusations turned to apologies but our reputation as anti-spam company almost went down the drain. The Internet Activist community is a scary force to be reckoned with ; and that type of power requires some checks and balances from time to time.
Do I believe this particular company was trying to spam its own users? Yes, it seems pretty obvious they didn't care, and in all likelihood it was not a mistake.
Does this mean the company can not be shown the error of its ways, and reform? I believe it's possible. If online businesses knew the power of legitimate marketing methods, they would never take the chance at getting a negative slashdot.:)
It's called being the devils advocate ; but thank you for your worldly wisdom. It's good to know there's some grocery baggers out there with a solid phylosophy on problem solving.
The concept of a Patent was never intended to relate to computer software ; a Copyright is a much more accurate and viable protection option for individual companies rights.
With Software Patent, you are protecting an actual system of execution or problem solving. The problem is that the essential knowledge any computer programmer has is not protected (and could not be), and with software in particular there is no *system* that is not a very simple extention of commonly understood concepts. In short, computing overall is simple when you analyze software modularly.
Take for example the attempts to patent, 'click-throughs' or 'downloading software after authenticating'. Attempts have actually been made to patent these concepts, and they are not *bad* examples - in both cases the wording of the patent request was executed in such a way as to gain control over something that was seemingly legitimate because it was a simple extension of 'click-through' or 'downloading'. In both cases the patent *would have* given control over these actual acts. This is not simple wording, it is the nature of software.
My own company develops software, we have a representative for patent and copyright, and we are more than happy to utilize his services as a Copyright agent to protect our rights. We copyright the documents that explain our business, our systems, and which we feel portray us best. Over all the end result is protected business, not a protected product. It is in the representation of a product and a business that competitors gain their foothold ; that should be the real focus here.
I've just recently listed my company on google's Ad Words Select, and personally - I prefer to have google list us as a sponsored link.
The clarification that we are paying to be there encourages click-through's from people *looking* for products & information rather than free-information.
Otherwise, we would be paying for clickthrough's from people that really don't want to see our stuff ; and that's just bad for everybody.
Annoying people with results they don't want can only be bad for business.
Slashdot Mirror
In short, what does porn with a 12 year old have to do with terrorism.
I can't wait until everybody accepts whatever the government decides to use this for. That woman calling Bush Hitler... whoa, she was way off base, cuz Hitler didn't have the same technology at all.
I'm not sure it's not too late to respond to this ; but I will anyways.
You can use Pine to read the email, but currently you need a graphical web browser. What my company needs is a screen-reader to look into making this technology work for the visually impaired as well.
it may work, it may not. If it does not, we may need to add to it ; and I can see that you disagree with that.
Wrong.
The fact that people agree to do it only makes matters worse.
You can bitch about your job all you want, you're still working there.
The same rule applies to any agreement. There was nothing 'up in the air' about this. He worked for a company that hired him to invent what he invented. They funded his research, they paid his salary.
Where is the question? Some socialist / communist who thought he was being super insightful made a comment about people building a house and then claiming they own it even though they were paid to build it. Yeah they would own it, if they weren't paid to build it. There's no question, this is simple.
IF you want to own what you make, don't agree to make it for somebody else using their money.
"To be compensated a few thousand bucks for those patents (I believe it is $182 PER PATENT), is a frickin' JOKE."
That's a shame, I guess he shouldn't have agreed to be compensated so little for his efforts.
If I pay workers minimum wage to invent a teleporation device, and they spend their entire lives doing it, and then finally succeed. The agreement was still the same always.
He could have walked at any time, instead he invented what he did for the company that paid him and paid for his research ; no matter how little they paid.
I read the exact story on this when Wired first published it, I believe it was called "True Boo-Roo" - a reference to the japanese use of the english language to discribe "true blue" since their word for Blue is the same as Green.
... and our chairman and president let me have the money I needed."
What I don't find amazing is the fact that the company took the right to the Blue Led. In the wired article they talked about how the company funded his research efforts for YEARS hoping that he would develop something. I don't know about you, but if I were to make such a risky investment I'd expect something for it - like what I invested in.
From the article itself, "Nakamura chose to work on gallium nitride not because he was confident of success, but "because I had had the bitter experience that if you do the same as everyone else, when it comes to making products, you can't sell them. So I chose a material that almost no one else was working on
Not only did he let him have the money, he paid his salary as an inventor for the company. This case is rediculous, on this one I'm for the corporation.
That would be the authentication system discussed at SolidBlue's web site. This form of authentication does not require a central authority.
Your message reads like a zealot without a cause. I can't believe your uninformed flamebait post wasn't modded down. Mentioning a company relevant to the context of a story isn't spam, especially a spam company in a story about spam.
As you can see I've responded to every critic you linked to, and while I'm not looking for a rubber stamp - I simply don't agree with them (as you can see from my replies).
We are going to the IETF, what we're looking for is a working group before hand to submit ideas and not just 'rubber stamp' our own - so that we can come up with a reasonable, informed, justifiable reason for the IETF to grant us a working group.
It would only take about as long as it's taking for AI Robots to take over the world. Because in actuality it is exactly the same level of complexity in computing vs. relative simplicity to a cognitive being that we're speaking about - and moreso there is much more push to develop intelligent AI for other reasons than there is for marketers to circumvent even a worldwide ban on Spam. Yet, it does not exist.
This technology is solid.
You make very good points, and in actuality I am a geekoid intentionally turning marketer. Also you're obviously serious about the topic so I'm definately not offended.
in this example, and in all examples utilizing this system your servers are not an issue. Your servers only transmit email and are not used to read email.
Actually this standard is not a haphazard mish-mash of technology - it really isn't. It is a very simple standard, but what I am speaking about is the possibility of adding technology to a very small segment of the population that is handicapped ; and while the concept of 'adding technology' everytime a protocol is re-written really is not feasible - it is possible that this is the special case that warrants it.
After all, software and most internet communications are being shifted more and more to only 2 primary mediums - The Web and Email (with Instant Messenging coming in a close third).
The technology I'm speaking of may not even be necessary as I am still not familiar with the technology currently used ; but the technology I'm speaking of is simply a modification to technology that *may* exist - that is a pin-grid capable of displaying more than just a standard alphabet. Perhaps you can correct me on this, because if that is already possible with existing technology than a special device really is not necessary.
In any event, I don't believe that email is primarily a text medium anymore - at all. I receive HTML formatted emails way too often (and personally I hate them). The best part about this system is that it works with all email types, even straight text. It simply requires the use of a web browser in addition to an email client.
I don't believe that's too far fetched.
I apologise, actually I was referring to the ability for monitors to display images and connect with enough bandwidth for images not to pose a problem.
In actuality, the issue of the blind using our technology came up almost in the beginning and I am personally a big advocate of making computing more accessable to the handicapped. My company has been trying to acquire or atleast make use of the same technology used by the blind to find another solution ; such as characters with 'noise' added if that's at all possible.
E.g. on a grid with characters only it is not, but with a grid of pins it very well may be. The answer may also lie in additional, but simple technology for the blind. Considering the relative importance of Email and the possibilities of such a system eliminating a very real problem - additional technology for the blind may be a small price to pay - and a price that could be paid by companies or the government.
I know we would be happy to provide a low-cost device to any visually impaired person using our software, and of course similar access would have to be granted by other companies such as ISP's etc. The visually impaired make up a small enough percentage of the population that it is feasible to provide additional technology at corporate cost.
Thank you for reminding me,
--Ace905
No, why don't people just read the link? Nothing is calculated, nothing is forgeable, nothing is brute forceable.
Unknown email correspondents are asked to enter a series of numbers and letters that are sent to them in an image format.
Everybody on the internet today can now handle images.
You wanna brute force it? Can't. It changes with every bad attempt ; and we're working with it right now. over 500 registered, happy users. The concept is simple and it makes a million times more sense then all these posts on using SSL to a trusted server on a trusted network... blah blah blah.... that ain't gonna happen, and if it did it would be a nightmare.
" Which approach do you think produces the better results?
I happen to think the best approach is a balance somewhere in the middle, but as business practices seem to get more and more invasive, I find myself leaning closer to the European approach, even though I'm normally quite wary of regulation."
--
Even the left wing are getting scared because of unfair business practices. The real answer is in re-writing the Email protocol. It is simply too lax on security and too simple to accomodate todays needs and provide the level of 'security' people want with the Internet.
I propose that a working group be formed to incorporate the same type of Authentication we know works with email - and piggy back that authentication on an open platform like RFC 822's Email Protocol until it can be implemented as a required medium.
Any interested contributors to this working group should email us at inquiries@solidblue.biz. SolidBlue is a leader in networked communications and protocol development.
--Ace905
There are an increasing number of 'victories' in the war on spam by government ; but overall the number of Spam sent is increasing.
While the government can fight blatent abuse of a person or companies communication rights ; they have not (and I believe they can not) come up with legislation that actually makes spam illegal while allowing all legitimate communications to be made unhindered.
The solution to Spam and the new 'free marketing' medium of the Internet really is to use an Authentication system for all communications that are prone to abuse ; and that would work for telephones as well.
What we need is an Authentication System in the email protocol itself, and that is what my company - SolidBlue is working on over the next year or so. Interested researchers can email us and we'll see if we can get an RFC group started.
The point of the entire article is not to question the concept of asking for ID. It is about collecting too much information on individuals.
Taking a fingerprint in addition to a signature is that much less trusting. It degrades the common persons morale, and it makes even more strict forms of Identification that much less far fetched.
The Hitler analogy is very overused ; but look at the United States and Touristy-Canada post September 11th. Flags on everything, signs of solidarity and support for the US's not-yet-defined war on who-even-knew-yet.
Everybody was willing to undergo even more Identification, a national ID card was suggested and laws to ensure people carry ID were suggested all over the place.
This *exact*, *EXACT* scenario happened in Nazi Germany pre-Nazi. That's how the minorities are ID'd. No matter what institution you work for, it is a vital part of the country as a whole - and the choices it makes regarding how it treats citizens affect the country as a whole, and more specifically the entire countries sense of Freedom.
Don't banks often advertise along the lines, "You're not just a number to us". Yeah, now you're a number and a fingerprint and a retinal scan. I would be pissed off if the ATM asked for a fingerprint.
Your overworked fraud department can get some more funding if it needs to hire people. Yeah, I'm really sad for the Banks - they're definately not making enough money.
Geekoid,
You're entirely correct, but I think he is really trying to stress the practicality of the situation. Your examples are great, and in terms of 'better worldly good' they are inspiring - but in terms of 'success' they really were a matter of being in the right place, at the right time, with the right idea.
And having the right idea is very hard, it only seems obvious in retrospect.
Our company has some lofty goals that do include open source software and re-writing some common protocols (Can't get in to much detail). This project is entirely about funding our future endeavours and as such really should be approached from a 'marketing' standpoint.
Of course, there is also the argument that a product that sells is a good product ; so in many ways approaching the situation 'backwards' with marketing research etc, is really a boring tried&true method of determining what the world wants and giving it to them. Neither approach seems right or wrong in my mind, but developing based on need seems like a more surefire method of reaching success - but maybe not a method of creating or inspiring innovation.
I appreciate the feedback and the encouragement.
"The amazing thing is that if you're friendly to us, we're going to remember that, and you, and stop needing I.D. before long."
Spoken like a true authority figure. I've heard the police use a slight variation on this exact line many times - "If you're friendly and do what we say, we won't give you a hard time". It's amazing how the shortsighted cogs fall into place immedately.
"There not my rules"
"I just enforce the rules"
"I enforce the rules because I believe in them [For your Protection]"
"I enforce the rules to the letter because I don't like you"
"Treat me with respect or I'll enforce more rules".
We have tried to get our product on SourceForge and it was rejected for having a closed licensing system. It is shareware.
User feedback is an incredible avenue for us, and many people suggest opening up the software completely and offering it for free to get the information we need / help the project move forward so that a great product is produced.
The only problem with that, as some commenters have said is that we then lose the ability to make any money what-so-ever on our product. We do support open source, but I don't wish to develop at night and do dishes during the day.
The ability for a company to approach profitability in the open-source world is a whole other topic / many potential debates on its own. I do agree with the open-source model and I am aware of many companies profiting from Open Source, but for the purposes of this question let's assume we're speaking about a Closed Source Product.
Thank you for the response, and the encouragement.
Every one of your assumptions is wrong. First of all the software works with all mail clients, and the web site has information on working specifically with Mozilla as well as Outlook.
The software makes it *impossible* to receive spam using an authentication system. Using filters the spam never gets to their mailbox and doesn't have to be read.
What is your understanding of Mail Filters or the Mail Filter market, do you have any working knowledge of the potential of this type of software? Are you aware that every major Anti-Virus company is moving into this exact market?
Thank you very much, I will contact them immediately.
Steve,
I do appreciate the huge audience and the support, but getting answers was much more important to me than having a Slashdot Story rejected.
The name of my company is SolidBlue Software Inc, and our product is SolidBlue Spam Interceptor.
http://www.si20.com
At the moment we are targeting end-users on the Internet, we have gone through OSDN advertising, Google Advertising and are doing quite a bit of research on people looking for answers to Spam. Obviously we are not spamming people, that avenue is right out of the question.
We have released a free, Shareware version and charge for the upgrade, + the Service of our Authentication System.
What we offer for free, which I personally believe is much more important, is Support to all users. In my opinion that and a free product will get us much farther than a completely open product and paid-for support alone.
We really want to move into targeting Businesses and finding a Distributor that has an established marketing channel. This has been our largest hurdle. Kaspersky, McAffee, Norton and a lot of other potential OEM buyers have actually turned us down with a full working product to persue development of their own product - based entirely on our small market share.
I hope that's enough information, and everybodies feedback is appreciated!
The backlash against unsolicited marketing is really incredible these days, and it makes me happy to see people 'taking up the fight'.
:)
My own company produces anti-spam software, and we have actually been accused of 'unsolicited marketing' in the past - when in reality we were mentioning our product in a valid medium, where announcements for new products were actually requested!
In the end, the accusations turned to apologies but our reputation as anti-spam company almost went down the drain. The Internet Activist community is a scary force to be reckoned with ; and that type of power requires some checks and balances from time to time.
Do I believe this particular company was trying to spam its own users? Yes, it seems pretty obvious they didn't care, and in all likelihood it was not a mistake.
Does this mean the company can not be shown the error of its ways, and reform? I believe it's possible. If online businesses knew the power of legitimate marketing methods, they would never take the chance at getting a negative slashdot.
It's called being the devils advocate ; but thank you for your worldly wisdom. It's good to know there's some grocery baggers out there with a solid phylosophy on problem solving.
The concept of a Patent was never intended to relate to computer software ; a Copyright is a much more accurate and viable protection option for individual companies rights.
With Software Patent, you are protecting an actual system of execution or problem solving. The problem is that the essential knowledge any computer programmer has is not protected (and could not be), and with software in particular there is no *system* that is not a very simple extention of commonly understood concepts. In short, computing overall is simple when you analyze software modularly.
Take for example the attempts to patent, 'click-throughs' or 'downloading software after authenticating'. Attempts have actually been made to patent these concepts, and they are not *bad* examples - in both cases the wording of the patent request was executed in such a way as to gain control over something that was seemingly legitimate because it was a simple extension of 'click-through' or 'downloading'. In both cases the patent *would have* given control over these actual acts. This is not simple wording, it is the nature of software.
My own company develops software, we have a representative for patent and copyright, and we are more than happy to utilize his services as a Copyright agent to protect our rights. We copyright the documents that explain our business, our systems, and which we feel portray us best. Over all the end result is protected business, not a protected product. It is in the representation of a product and a business that competitors gain their foothold ; that should be the real focus here.
I've just recently listed my company on google's Ad Words Select, and personally - I prefer to have google list us as a sponsored link.
The clarification that we are paying to be there encourages click-through's from people *looking* for products & information rather than free-information.
Otherwise, we would be paying for clickthrough's from people that really don't want to see our stuff ; and that's just bad for everybody.
Annoying people with results they don't want can only be bad for business.