It's amazing that reverse-engineering software and
hardware is becoming an issue now, and it seems to
be controversy, especially when it's related to
computer.
Why don't we see this in IP of other domains?
Let's say an economist has come up with a new
"innovative" theory, and that theory becomes his
IP. Then a junior economist comes out, disect
the theory into pieces, run it through scenario
simulation, plug in all kinds of data to see how
it works, and finally, figures that he changes
a few premises in that theory, it would become
a better theory.
Now, is the junior economist going to be sued
for reverse-engineering?
How about those who are studying Sartre's existentialism? I'm sure the copyright on
existentialism has not expired yet.
It's amazing to see that Bob Young needs a justification (or a comment) on criticism that
is targeted to his company.
It's a known fact that good softwares without
good marketing won't sell. However, I also believe
good marketing without good softwares can just as
well backfire (e.g. some north-western company),
although that may bring good financial return.
I mean backfire from those who are really into
technologies, and not hype.
I've been using Slackware for a few years, and
switched to RH since 5.1. Have also tried Debian
and Suse in the meantime. But I decided to stick
with RH. So far so good.
So I think RH should concentrate on making good softwares rather than fencing off the criticism.
Whatever you do, there will also be criticism. As long as you are not screwing up your customers/partners by some not-so-nice business tactics and by double-charging, and as long as you can stand up straight, why bother?
Does that mean that now, I can start computing
the interest of my bank account on a nano
scale level, instead of having the bank round
it up to zero all the time?
Yeah, the update daemon has a big hole and leaks.
So what? Just turn it off and continue running
RH.
Besides, RH has put a fix to the problem already.
And if you are running that update daemon,
it will just update itself, won't it? So
problem fix.
Let's get some interesting news, like MPAA is
having Congress sign some new stupid and evil laws, so we
can bitch on those idiots. It's a more interesting game.
Reverse engineering is sometimes a necessity,
not just for fun, or for any evil purpose.
Freshly out of school, my first job as a programmer required me to reverse engineer a
proprietory database, because the vendor went under. The company I was working for has thousands
and thousands of customer info, contact info, and
tons of othe stuff in that database.
The trouble was that the db does not provide any
API or tools whatsoever to retrieve the information, except browsing thru its own
interface. It certainly was not very convenient
to enter by hand all the entries to another db.
As a test to see how well I could do my work while
I was still in probation period, I was asked to
figure out the file format of the database, and
retrieve the whole contents and feed them into
another database system.
So, in this case, reverse engineering is a necessity. And I'm sure that some software vendors
will go under too in the future. If that happens,
what would you do, if the law says you can't reverse engineer?
A business workflow that scans the patent office's database and all Internet databases and any other databases in the world and compare for any similarities for patent and/or copyright infringement. If any similarity is found, be it as
small as one single bit, we will start suing all parties involved for insane compensation. The business and economic term for this business model is called "robbing".
Shit, Roblimo, your name contains a sub-string "rob" and this is infringing our trade mark and also infringing our patent (#123WTF). You have been sent a cease and desist letter. Change your name or we'll meet in court.
This is a problem in most countries, but it is
most rampant in the US.
I don't have a problem with the fact that stock
options are tax deductible. And don't have problem
with the goal of eliminating double-taxing (corporate pays tax, then the shareholders pay again).
However, there must be a limit to this scheme.
This can only widen the gap between the haves and
the have-nots. Look at how much John Chamber (and
any other CEO as a matter of fact) took in last
year by exercising his option. These ultra-rich
people have all kinds of ways to pay less tax,
thanks to the convoluted tax system.
If these CEOs take in $100M/year, do you think they pay half of that as taxes? No, only those
Joe SixPacks who have no personal tax accountant have to pay the full amount for taxes.
In the end, the losers are those who can not
participate in this trickle-down scheme.
It's a shame!
Tax law should be clear, and easy to apply.
Should have one single formula to calculate
everyone's tax bracket. Then another single
formula to redistribute back to the population,
to achieve wealth distibution.
So what's the big deal about it? Is this whole damn shit worth writing an article and worth a post on/.?
Is Katz running out of ideas for articles? Generally, I find his articles to be quite decent, although he got "flamed" a lot. But hey, writing a whole article on this? Is Katz trying to prove or show something?
Ok, most people are complaining about reading e-books (or e-text, or whatever you call it).
The reasons being the nasty screen, the dumb
technology, the lack of book smell, blah blah
blah, yada yada yada....
A few thousand years ago, people write books on
bamboo slices in China. Then someone invented paper, and then suddenly, everyone write books
on paper. And then, guess what, someone complained
that books on bamboo are the best, because paper
smells bad, it's soft, it's too light, and you
don't have the feeling of "having the book on
your hand".
Put all books and documents in digital format,
I'll buy them in that format. And I'll carry
a 50GB HD and have my whole library on it.
Welcome to the future. I'd rather live in the
future than in the past.
Ah well, I guess it's good for both companies
anyways.
The money is urgently needed by cash-poor Corel,
and this little amount (to M$, of course) can
keep a dying competitor on a life-support, just
a way to avoid being beaten up by the Justice
Dept.
Slashdot Mirror
So that we get /., er... I guess....
Why don't we see this in IP of other domains? Let's say an economist has come up with a new "innovative" theory, and that theory becomes his IP. Then a junior economist comes out, disect the theory into pieces, run it through scenario simulation, plug in all kinds of data to see how it works, and finally, figures that he changes a few premises in that theory, it would become a better theory.
Now, is the junior economist going to be sued for reverse-engineering?
How about those who are studying Sartre's existentialism? I'm sure the copyright on existentialism has not expired yet.
While at it, why don't you just use Mac instead, and leave the Unix file as it is?
Keep the OS an OS, and everything else on the application level, let the applications handle it, would you?
It's a known fact that good softwares without good marketing won't sell. However, I also believe good marketing without good softwares can just as well backfire (e.g. some north-western company), although that may bring good financial return. I mean backfire from those who are really into technologies, and not hype.
I've been using Slackware for a few years, and switched to RH since 5.1. Have also tried Debian and Suse in the meantime. But I decided to stick with RH. So far so good.
So I think RH should concentrate on making good softwares rather than fencing off the criticism.
Whatever you do, there will also be criticism. As long as you are not screwing up your customers/partners by some not-so-nice business tactics and by double-charging, and as long as you can stand up straight, why bother?
Does that mean that now, I can start computing the interest of my bank account on a nano scale level, instead of having the bank round it up to zero all the time?
"The UW nanotech degree program will be spread across nine departments. Thirty faculty now work in the Center for Nanotechnology."
What? Are you telling me that to be considered a nanotechnology expert, I have to complete nine Ph.D.s?
No wonder Ph.D. means "permanent head damage". These people ....
Besides, RH has put a fix to the problem already. And if you are running that update daemon, it will just update itself, won't it? So problem fix.
Let's get some interesting news, like MPAA is having Congress sign some new stupid and evil laws, so we can bitch on those idiots. It's a more interesting game.
Freshly out of school, my first job as a programmer required me to reverse engineer a proprietory database, because the vendor went under. The company I was working for has thousands and thousands of customer info, contact info, and tons of othe stuff in that database.
The trouble was that the db does not provide any API or tools whatsoever to retrieve the information, except browsing thru its own interface. It certainly was not very convenient to enter by hand all the entries to another db.
As a test to see how well I could do my work while I was still in probation period, I was asked to figure out the file format of the database, and retrieve the whole contents and feed them into another database system.
So, in this case, reverse engineering is a necessity. And I'm sure that some software vendors will go under too in the future. If that happens, what would you do, if the law says you can't reverse engineer?
A business workflow that scans the patent office's database and all Internet databases and any other databases in the world and compare for any similarities for patent and/or copyright infringement. If any similarity is found, be it as small as one single bit, we will start suing all parties involved for insane compensation. The business and economic term for this business model is called "robbing".
Shit, Roblimo, your name contains a sub-string "rob" and this is infringing our trade mark and also infringing our patent (#123WTF). You have been sent a cease and desist letter. Change your name or we'll meet in court.
I don't have a problem with the fact that stock options are tax deductible. And don't have problem with the goal of eliminating double-taxing (corporate pays tax, then the shareholders pay again).
However, there must be a limit to this scheme.
This can only widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Look at how much John Chamber (and any other CEO as a matter of fact) took in last year by exercising his option. These ultra-rich people have all kinds of ways to pay less tax, thanks to the convoluted tax system.
If these CEOs take in $100M/year, do you think they pay half of that as taxes? No, only those Joe SixPacks who have no personal tax accountant have to pay the full amount for taxes.
In the end, the losers are those who can not participate in this trickle-down scheme.
It's a shame!
Tax law should be clear, and easy to apply. Should have one single formula to calculate everyone's tax bracket. Then another single formula to redistribute back to the population, to achieve wealth distibution.
So what's the big deal about it? Is this whole damn shit worth writing an article and worth a post on /.?
Is Katz running out of ideas for articles? Generally, I find his articles to be quite decent, although he got "flamed" a lot. But hey, writing a whole article on this? Is Katz trying to prove or show something?
If they are paid to work full time on it, I'm sure it would go faster.
Oh wait, you are going to the Sun, and not returning back to Earth....
Oh shit....
The arguments just don't stand up.
A few thousand years ago, people write books on bamboo slices in China. Then someone invented paper, and then suddenly, everyone write books on paper. And then, guess what, someone complained that books on bamboo are the best, because paper smells bad, it's soft, it's too light, and you don't have the feeling of "having the book on your hand".
Put all books and documents in digital format, I'll buy them in that format. And I'll carry a 50GB HD and have my whole library on it.
Welcome to the future. I'd rather live in the future than in the past.
The money is urgently needed by cash-poor Corel, and this little amount (to M$, of course) can keep a dying competitor on a life-support, just a way to avoid being beaten up by the Justice Dept.