Sure, we'll get our journalists from Rupurt Murdock TV or GE TV or Disney TV or Westinghouse TV to stand up and demand aswers about why the government gives away research to corporations.
Aren't they just chaining USB devices. If you don't like your mouse dangling from your keyboard then plug it into the computer directly. The same thing would apply to a PC, right?
I've received a snail/junk mail advertisement (which looked very official) asking me to "renew" my domain registratiosn. In the small fine print it was made somewhat clear that this wasn't, in fact, a renewal but a completly different company wanting me to switch registration. I think it is sleazy and I'm certain many people have fallen victim to the add.
Slightly off topic, but along a similar vein, every magazine I have a subscribtion to asks me to renew my subscription about 3 months after I've renewed for the previous year. A friend of mine's father who has Parkinsons ended up with 6 years of advance subscription to Discover magazine because every time they sent out a new notice he'd send in a check since he really couldn't remember when he sent in the last check. Legal, I suppose, but very sleazy.
What's t say that some other lawyer isn't going to claim that thay have a patent on one or more of the algorithms used in Jpeg 2000?
A search on patents using "image AND compression" at the US Patent office returned 21314 hits for 1996 through 2002, 6592 from 1991 through 1995, and 3741 from 1986 through 1990. That's a total of 31647 patents in 12 years.
Are you trying to tell me that there is nothing in the Jpeg 2000 specification that couldn't be shoehorned to fit within one of these 31 thousand patents given a sufficiently unscrupulous company and a technically clueless judge???
What does this have to do with patent law? Absolutely nothing. This question of whether a company's patent on JPEGs is enforceable has absolutely nothing to do with frivolous lawsuits like the kinds you described. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the honesty of the legal profession.
Actually, they have absolutly everything to do with each other. Most defendents can't afford to defend themselves from frivolous patent claims any more than they can afford to defend themselves from frivolous lawsuits. Only rich corporations and lawyers win. The defendant ALWAYS loses. Even if they win a case they are still out their time, sanity, and whatever money they had to shell out to pay another lawyer.
They fear years of research and work being stolen from them because they are unable to work the system the way Forgent or Microsoft or BT or Amazon can. They fear some white trash bimbo is going to pour coffee on herself at your family restaraunt and suddenly your livlihood is gone. Or, perhaps, some redneck is going to slip walking up the steps to your house and steal your home from you. They fear being screwed by the people who are supposed to advise them in the intricacies of law.
They fear being rendered helpless in a system that ONLY rewards those with money and those with the most expensive lawyers.
You claim that everyone should assess their risk (using the tools that are, supposedly, "easily and cheaply available to everyone") and it's foolish "to put yourself in harm's way without accessing the likelihood of litigation".
I think the perception of most of the citizens of the USA is this: you are at risk for being sued at any moment of any day for doing any action at any time for the rest of your natural life and extending many years into the lives of your descendants. And, whether or not you take advantage of these "cheap" tools, someone can hire more expensive tools to rob you of your work, your business, and your home and there is nothing you can do about it.
Anyway, I'm sorry you lost Karma. I guess some of the moderators can't separate their feelings about the failings of the system from the postings of those that think it is worthy of being defended.
If the answer is "more lawyers" then the question shouldn't have been asked.
Seriously, though.
Your contention is that SONY, Apple, Microsoft, Nikon, Canon, HP, IBM, AOL, Xerox, and every other company that engages in the fields that "include digital cameras, digital still image devices, personal digital assistants (PDA's), cellular telephones that download images, browsers, digital camcorders with a still image function, scanners and other devices used to compress, store, manipulate, print or transmit digital images" either failed to hire a Search Firm or did hire a Search Firm and then willfully ignored this patent?
Of course not. The file format was released as an open standard and Forgent is now attempting to cash in on a vaguely related patent.
I realize, with a name like "IP, Daily", that you are, probably, an otherwise respected member of the slashdot community who has assumed an alternate name to preserve your reputation while you take it upon yourself to play devil's advocate on this very touchy subject.
In the interest of expanding the debate on this subject I must admit I firmly disagree with your posts. My objection rests on a simple observation; many of the "joke" patent claims we see listed on slashdot appear to be originally based on completely different technologies or they never should have been awarded in the first place due to prior art or the nebulous concept of "obviousness".
If the Patent Office is unable to do "due diligence" then how is the rest of the marketplace supposed to accomplish this?
Or, one the other hand, do you think everyone who ever used a hyperlink should have done the due diligence to determine that BT may have owned the patent on that "technology"?
Don't forget the search warrants on those who call people who call people who call the middle east. You need to flush out those terrorist cells somehow.
Like wxWindows it is cross platform and open. Unlike wxWindows the GUI is part of the library and not a wrapper around the OS user interface. This may be an advantage or a disadvantage. Anyway, FOX is another mature alternative and I like it.
That would be fine. In the spirit of the GNU, in fact. Since the ad-supported groups would probably not share the money, the final analysis would be simple; is the money going to the ad-supported OS advancing the project faster than the non-ad-supported OS? If yes, then everyone benefits (even the non-ad group as it incorporated the advances of the ad group into it's project). If no, then everyone uses the non-ad version anyway and project dies on the vine.
Well, AC, if you can't see the road in front of you then driving several car lengths behind is what you are supposed to do and I guess I don't see what is "impractical" about driving in a way that is less likely to get people killed.
What are the alternatives? Just assuming that nothing will ever cause the car in front of you to brake suddenly may work in your fantasy world, but in the real world it gets people killed.
News flash! If she was so close behind the U-Haul that she wasn't able to react in time, then in my opinion she was partially at fault. It's called tailgating. It should be illegal.
Maybe those kids would be alive today if she didn't tailgate. An increase on her insurance rates is a pretty minor penalty for her poor driving habits.
If I send information on birth control by snail mail to a cousin in England I can be pretty sure it isn't going to be routed through Saudi Arabia.
If I send that same information by email am I guilty of breaking some fundementalist religious law if a router happens to send some packets through that country.
The parent post should be copied and send en mass to every one of these skeptics.
The sad part is, given all of the above examples of business-friendly laws (not necessarily technology-friendly as it was described in the article) the only example the journalist was able to come up with was the French-Nazi-Yahoo ruling. Wow, the sceptics are against Nazies, but I guess they'll probably come out in favour of apple pie and mothers.
Talking about a division between reality... Based on the half paragraph of text and three photographs on the web site, I guess they are probably just about done. Better start saving those nickles, it will probably be ready by the fall semester.
I like games, therefor solios believes I must love everything a specific game company's lawyers do. I believe that the DMCA is a good example of corporations buying legislation, therefor solios believes I must hate all movies and music that are released. I believe a certain OS company illegally leverages its monopoly to crush competition, therefore solios believes that I shouldn't support an unrelated game company that may actually be earning a living making games for that OS.
When you are older, you might realize that the world doesn't all fall into simplistic notions of Good versus Evil. What you call hypocrisy, I call reality.
With all due respect, comedians, circuses (i.e. Circe di Solei (sp?)) and broadway musicals put on a live show and somehow manage to support themselves via ticket prices.
To claim that Madonna would be completely unable to have a show with $120 ticket prices seems, too me at least, unbelievable. Now, on the other hand, I have no doubt that through creative, Enron-style accounting any live show by any artist can be made to appear to lose money.
Anyway, I agree with your second paragraph; add a hearty "me too...".
Anyone else notice that FOX rarely shows the intro anymore. If they cut everything except the "family running to the sofa scene" I guess they can fit in another commercial.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, we'll get our journalists from Rupurt Murdock TV or GE TV or Disney TV or Westinghouse TV to stand up and demand aswers about why the government gives away research to corporations.
Aren't they just chaining USB devices. If you don't like your mouse dangling from your keyboard then plug it into the computer directly. The same thing would apply to a PC, right?
I've received a snail/junk mail advertisement (which looked very official) asking me to "renew" my domain registratiosn. In the small fine print it was made somewhat clear that this wasn't, in fact, a renewal but a completly different company wanting me to switch registration. I think it is sleazy and I'm certain many people have fallen victim to the add.
Slightly off topic, but along a similar vein, every magazine I have a subscribtion to asks me to renew my subscription about 3 months after I've renewed for the previous year. A friend of mine's father who has Parkinsons ended up with 6 years of advance subscription to Discover magazine because every time they sent out a new notice he'd send in a check since he really couldn't remember when he sent in the last check. Legal, I suppose, but very sleazy.
What's t say that some other lawyer isn't going to claim that thay have a patent on one or more of the algorithms used in Jpeg 2000?
A search on patents using "image AND compression" at the US Patent office returned 21314 hits for 1996 through 2002, 6592 from 1991 through 1995, and 3741 from 1986 through 1990. That's a total of 31647 patents in 12 years.
Are you trying to tell me that there is nothing in the Jpeg 2000 specification that couldn't be shoehorned to fit within one of these 31 thousand patents given a sufficiently unscrupulous company and a technically clueless judge???
Why do so many people hate lawyers?
They hate what they fear.
Why do so many people fear lawyers?
They fear years of research and work being stolen from them because they are unable to work the system the way Forgent or Microsoft or BT or Amazon can. They fear some white trash bimbo is going to pour coffee on herself at your family restaraunt and suddenly your livlihood is gone. Or, perhaps, some redneck is going to slip walking up the steps to your house and steal your home from you. They fear being screwed by the people who are supposed to advise them in the intricacies of law.
They fear being rendered helpless in a system that ONLY rewards those with money and those with the most expensive lawyers.
You claim that everyone should assess their risk (using the tools that are, supposedly, "easily and cheaply available to everyone") and it's foolish "to put yourself in harm's way without accessing the likelihood of litigation".
I think the perception of most of the citizens of the USA is this: you are at risk for being sued at any moment of any day for doing any action at any time for the rest of your natural life and extending many years into the lives of your descendants. And, whether or not you take advantage of these "cheap" tools, someone can hire more expensive tools to rob you of your work, your business, and your home and there is nothing you can do about it.
Anyway, I'm sorry you lost Karma. I guess some of the moderators can't separate their feelings about the failings of the system from the postings of those that think it is worthy of being defended.
If the answer is "more lawyers" then the question shouldn't have been asked.
Seriously, though.
Your contention is that SONY, Apple, Microsoft, Nikon, Canon, HP, IBM, AOL, Xerox, and every other company that engages in the fields that "include digital cameras, digital still image devices, personal digital assistants (PDA's), cellular telephones that download images, browsers, digital camcorders with a still image function, scanners and other devices used to compress, store, manipulate, print or transmit digital images" either failed to hire a Search Firm or did hire a Search Firm and then willfully ignored this patent?
Of course not. The file format was released as an open standard and Forgent is now attempting to cash in on a vaguely related patent.
I realize, with a name like "IP, Daily", that you are, probably, an otherwise respected member of the slashdot community who has assumed an alternate name to preserve your reputation while you take it upon yourself to play devil's advocate on this very touchy subject.
In the interest of expanding the debate on this subject I must admit I firmly disagree with your posts. My objection rests on a simple observation; many of the "joke" patent claims we see listed on slashdot appear to be originally based on completely different technologies or they never should have been awarded in the first place due to prior art or the nebulous concept of "obviousness".
If the Patent Office is unable to do "due diligence" then how is the rest of the marketplace supposed to accomplish this?
Or, one the other hand, do you think everyone who ever used a hyperlink should have done the due diligence to determine that BT may have owned the patent on that "technology"?
Don't forget the search warrants on those who call people who call people who call the middle east. You need to flush out those terrorist cells somehow.
It seems like I get a lot of calls from Ponzi Schemes, credit card frauds, and other marketing scams.
It all makes sense now that I know who Verizon's Business Affiliates are.
I'd like to do a quick shout-out to FOX.
Like wxWindows it is cross platform and open. Unlike wxWindows the GUI is part of the library and not a wrapper around the OS user interface. This may be an advantage or a disadvantage. Anyway, FOX is another mature alternative and I like it.
As an average person...
I think we should shoot at the space debris with huge machine guns; like those huge gatling guns on the from of the attack helecopters.
That would be fine. In the spirit of the GNU, in fact. Since the ad-supported groups would probably not share the money, the final analysis would be simple; is the money going to the ad-supported OS advancing the project faster than the non-ad-supported OS? If yes, then everyone benefits (even the non-ad group as it incorporated the advances of the ad group into it's project). If no, then everyone uses the non-ad version anyway and project dies on the vine.
Well, AC, if you can't see the road in front of you then driving several car lengths behind is what you are supposed to do and I guess I don't see what is "impractical" about driving in a way that is less likely to get people killed.
What are the alternatives? Just assuming that nothing will ever cause the car in front of you to brake suddenly may work in your fantasy world, but in the real world it gets people killed.
Assuming, of course, I get back from my vacation cruise...
I have discovered the proof which I will happily post when my karma gets to 50 ;-)
News flash! If she was so close behind the U-Haul that she wasn't able to react in time, then in my opinion she was partially at fault. It's called tailgating. It should be illegal.
Maybe those kids would be alive today if she didn't tailgate. An increase on her insurance rates is a pretty minor penalty for her poor driving habits.
If I send information on birth control by snail mail to a cousin in England I can be pretty sure it isn't going to be routed through Saudi Arabia.
If I send that same information by email am I guilty of breaking some fundementalist religious law if a router happens to send some packets through that country.
The parent post should be copied and send en mass to every one of these skeptics.
The sad part is, given all of the above examples of business-friendly laws (not necessarily technology-friendly as it was described in the article) the only example the journalist was able to come up with was the French-Nazi-Yahoo ruling. Wow, the sceptics are against Nazies, but I guess they'll probably come out in favour of apple pie and mothers.
Talking about a division between reality... Based on the half paragraph of text and three photographs on the web site, I guess they are probably just about done. Better start saving those nickles, it will probably be ready by the fall semester.
Or maybe you are too simplistic.
I like games, therefor solios believes I must love everything a specific game company's lawyers do. I believe that the DMCA is a good example of corporations buying legislation, therefor solios believes I must hate all movies and music that are released. I believe a certain OS company illegally leverages its monopoly to crush competition, therefore solios believes that I shouldn't support an unrelated game company that may actually be earning a living making games for that OS.
When you are older, you might realize that the world doesn't all fall into simplistic notions of Good versus Evil. What you call hypocrisy, I call reality.
With all due respect, comedians, circuses (i.e. Circe di Solei (sp?)) and broadway musicals put on a live show and somehow manage to support themselves via ticket prices.
To claim that Madonna would be completely unable to have a show with $120 ticket prices seems, too me at least, unbelievable. Now, on the other hand, I have no doubt that through creative, Enron-style accounting any live show by any artist can be made to appear to lose money.
Anyway, I agree with your second paragraph; add a hearty "me too...".
Maybe, but at least I get to sleep in on Sunday.
Anyone else notice that FOX rarely shows the intro anymore. If they cut everything except the "family running to the sofa scene" I guess they can fit in another commercial.