I seriously doubt that MS is unaware of the existence of sudo
well considering the fact that the "references" section at the bottom of the patent listing actually linked to sudo manuals and other sudo references... I would say they are definitely aware of the existence of sudo.
actually, according to wikipedia, the improvements were: better vacuum, better incandescent material, and then the one I cited (kept under melting point).
but that doesn't change my argument - it was still improved enough for it to be useful. A usable lightbulb (when contrasted with an unusable lightbulb) is patent-worthy, even if the original lightbulb is already patented. The fact that it's now usable is the "new functionality."
Edison's Patent is listed as "Improvement in Electric Lights." I read some of it, and it appears as though he just modified existing light bulbs in a way that kept the filament under the melting point. (which I guess makes it more efficient and helps it last longer)
He didn't invent the lightbulb... he invented a practical lightbulb that lasts long enough for it to be usable. He IMPROVED an existing patent which warrants a new patent in itself.
So, to summarize, patents keep people from copying functionality. The lightbulbs before Edison's were unreliable so Edison's lightbulb had new functionality. It produced light and did it effectively. That second component ("did it effectively") is the new functionality.
you don't know the size of the wallet of a John Doe... if the John Doe can't afford to pay you if he wins, then you've just spent time and money on legal fees in return for NOTHING.
You file a motion to dismiss, the defense agrees, laywers get their fees, everyone goes home.
Yeah that's the problem - you introduce many extra hours/dollars in legal fees and the spare time of your own (which, if you have a job, amounts to even more monetary losses).
But the obvious counter-argument to that would be: Lawsuits cost money and if the defendant can't even reimburse the legal fees, then the plaintiff is in trouble. It's risk management 101. If I spend $5 on legal fees, the plaintiff has $4 in his bank account, and I win the lawsuit, then I lose $1 and hours of my time. Why should the plaintiff have to risk that simply because she was a victim of a crime? She wants to figure out her "risk" and determine if it's worth her time.
Also, as the article mentions, there's the dilemma of potentially suing an autistic or mentally retarded person. That would introduce a greater risk of losing the case and could be an ethical problem for the plaintiff.
[I'm not a lawyer, though, so this is not legal advice]
Assuming we're still talking about the original article: to be fair you don't know what the John Doe said since it wasn't in the article. If the John Doe said something libelous (libel would be legit since the "mom" is an elected official / public figure), then the "mom" has a constitutional right to sue (in this case for his identity). When you break the law, you lose your right to anonymity. Committing libel IS breaking the law. Do you think someone who anonymously confesses to murder online deserves the right to not have their IP address and identity subpoenaed? I do...
[in the interest of full disclosure - IANAL and this is not legal advice]
copyright doesn't protect against duplicating functionality - only copying the exact binaries/source code. If I want to write my own sudo replica, copyright doesn't stop me... but a patent would.
That's some hard evidence you have there. If Microsoft had the leverage you claim, then Vista would've received the same glowing reviews as well. Not to mention the fact that Windows 7 IS drastically better than Windows Vista.
And as much as I hate to get into an argument about semantics, you're still wrong. "Astroturfing" is a much broader term than you're trying to make it. It covers both of the scenarios you're describing.
And quit posting AC... if you have a serious argument, claim it. People don't hide under anonymity unless they know they're wrong.
I agree... we're in a recession with the majority of U.S. companies LOSING money and someone decides to write an article about how Microsoft is only tripling their revenue?
get 2 copies from 2 seperate sources. Diff the two and you can create a unique sig than matches neither.
I think with overlapping regions it can be done.
(_ represents a change)
document 1: a _ c d e
document 2: a _ c _ e
substitute values:
document 1: a Q c d e
document 2: a Q c Z e
take the difference of 1 and 2 (deleting the changes):
document 3: a Q c e
Since the Q is still there, you still know that documents 1 and 2 were involved in a leak. Fire 'em both.
Applying that on a large scale, though, would probably require lots of changes to the point that the changes would be extraordinarily obvious... so it's probably not practical
This sounds like an exact copy of what they've done with maps for years.
They do it with phone books too... they load 'em with fake people/numbers.
Sometimes I wonder if major corporations do that with confidential internal documents to figure out who leaked the specs of their latest product to engadget. (that is, when they don't intentionally "leak" it)
Slashdot Mirror
No one get's a soda, they get a coke, even when that 'coke' is a Pepsi.
It appears as though Pepsi and Coke are pretty close...
Doesn't change your point, but still...
I seriously doubt that MS is unaware of the existence of sudo
well considering the fact that the "references" section at the bottom of the patent listing actually linked to sudo manuals and other sudo references... I would say they are definitely aware of the existence of sudo.
actually, according to wikipedia, the improvements were: better vacuum, better incandescent material, and then the one I cited (kept under melting point).
but that doesn't change my argument - it was still improved enough for it to be useful. A usable lightbulb (when contrasted with an unusable lightbulb) is patent-worthy, even if the original lightbulb is already patented. The fact that it's now usable is the "new functionality."
Edison's Patent is listed as "Improvement in Electric Lights." I read some of it, and it appears as though he just modified existing light bulbs in a way that kept the filament under the melting point. (which I guess makes it more efficient and helps it last longer)
He didn't invent the lightbulb... he invented a practical lightbulb that lasts long enough for it to be usable. He IMPROVED an existing patent which warrants a new patent in itself.
So, to summarize, patents keep people from copying functionality. The lightbulbs before Edison's were unreliable so Edison's lightbulb had new functionality. It produced light and did it effectively. That second component ("did it effectively") is the new functionality.
You file a motion to dismiss, the defense agrees, laywers get their fees, everyone goes home.
Yeah that's the problem - you introduce many extra hours/dollars in legal fees and the spare time of your own (which, if you have a job, amounts to even more monetary losses).
But the obvious counter-argument to that would be: Lawsuits cost money and if the defendant can't even reimburse the legal fees, then the plaintiff is in trouble. It's risk management 101. If I spend $5 on legal fees, the plaintiff has $4 in his bank account, and I win the lawsuit, then I lose $1 and hours of my time. Why should the plaintiff have to risk that simply because she was a victim of a crime? She wants to figure out her "risk" and determine if it's worth her time.
Also, as the article mentions, there's the dilemma of potentially suing an autistic or mentally retarded person. That would introduce a greater risk of losing the case and could be an ethical problem for the plaintiff.
[I'm not a lawyer, though, so this is not legal advice]
Assuming we're still talking about the original article: to be fair you don't know what the John Doe said since it wasn't in the article. If the John Doe said something libelous (libel would be legit since the "mom" is an elected official / public figure), then the "mom" has a constitutional right to sue (in this case for his identity). When you break the law, you lose your right to anonymity. Committing libel IS breaking the law. Do you think someone who anonymously confesses to murder online deserves the right to not have their IP address and identity subpoenaed? I do...
[in the interest of full disclosure - IANAL and this is not legal advice]
Exactly what kind of machine does one use to "build" software? (and don't say computers)
copyright doesn't protect against duplicating functionality - only copying the exact binaries/source code. If I want to write my own sudo replica, copyright doesn't stop me... but a patent would.
That's some hard evidence you have there. If Microsoft had the leverage you claim, then Vista would've received the same glowing reviews as well. Not to mention the fact that Windows 7 IS drastically better than Windows Vista.
And as much as I hate to get into an argument about semantics, you're still wrong. "Astroturfing" is a much broader term than you're trying to make it. It covers both of the scenarios you're describing.
And quit posting AC... if you have a serious argument, claim it. People don't hide under anonymity unless they know they're wrong.
I agree... we're in a recession with the majority of U.S. companies LOSING money and someone decides to write an article about how Microsoft is only tripling their revenue?
Or is it just another shitstorm of astroturf and payed for reviews that is pretty much the trademark of Microsoft?
Yeah I'm sure they payed off Cnet, PC World, PC Magazine, and even Engadget... You're an idiot.
And technically astroturfing is payed-for reviews since I'm pretty sure most companies pay their employees.
get 2 copies from 2 seperate sources. Diff the two and you can create a unique sig than matches neither.
I think with overlapping regions it can be done.
(_ represents a change)
document 1: a _ c d e
document 2: a _ c _ e
substitute values:
document 1: a Q c d e
document 2: a Q c Z e
take the difference of 1 and 2 (deleting the changes):
document 3: a Q c e
Since the Q is still there, you still know that documents 1 and 2 were involved in a leak. Fire 'em both.
Applying that on a large scale, though, would probably require lots of changes to the point that the changes would be extraordinarily obvious... so it's probably not practical
This sounds like an exact copy of what they've done with maps for years.
They do it with phone books too... they load 'em with fake people/numbers.
Sometimes I wonder if major corporations do that with confidential internal documents to figure out who leaked the specs of their latest product to engadget. (that is, when they don't intentionally "leak" it)