Where they are sold is completely irrelevant. I think its more a question of how the chips are marketed (i.e. how does Intel/AMD define them) and to a greater extent how they interact with the OS. If the OS treats them as two individual processors then Oracle probably has a case. Someone with more of a CS background can probably shed more light on this area.
Also remember that you are entering into a contract with Oracle when you purchase their software. Oracle can define the terms of that contract however they want. If they want to start charging "per core" there is no reason why they can't. On the other hand, if you don't like the terms of their contract you can always find a new database to run things off of.
But it's totally trivial. Such a patent should not be granted imho. Anyone can come up with that. Patents were meant for `innovative ideas', `inventions'. For the complicated stuff that takes research.
Whether something is trivial to implement is completely irrelevant to its being an 'invention' or 'innovatinve idea'.
The light bulb is trivial, but it was an 'innovative idea'. Sometimes the stupidest little things make the best inventions, just thinking of them is often the toughest part of the process.
Re:Is this news? or a wikipedia entry?
on
Decrypting Kryptos
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Technically, I think its "News for nerds, Stuff that was posted on Fark.com yesterday", but others may disagree.
My CD collection clocks in at about 300 discs which translates into about 20.5GB (encoded with Lame -aps) not including another 50 or so classical discs and another 20 discs which are beyond repair.
As it is now, I have to play around with a few smart playlists to sync to an ipod. I would absolutely love to have a good deal more storage (and flac support) to be able to use my lossless versions instead of lossy mp3s.
That said, the shuffle is somewhat intriguing, but I think it would drive me crazy trying to figure out what song is playing. As far as a hi-quality ~$1k option, I honestly don't know of one, but if one did exist it might be worth looking into. Although, it would probably be easier to buy a portable headphone amp and some decent cans.
Ohhh... I see, you have to have good drivers. You can't just throw anyone off the street in the fastest car and expect him to win every time? Huh, sounds like the drivers are also important.
A good car will make a good driver look even better. On the other hand a good car won't do a damn thing for a bad driver other than make him crash faster.
Thats a very limited sample of a genre to be comdeming the entire genre on. I suggest looking deeper into the genre. However, this is a pointed that has been debated way more than it should be, and usually by people who have no business debating it.
My personal theory is that as long as a Ramone is alive, so is punk. Then again I really have no business debating it so pay no attention to me. Now where'd that Richard Hell cd go...
9% of respondants identified themselves as composing, performing or publishing "punk" music. Looking at the purely statistical properties of the study it is biased since it is a non-random sample, but it doesn't seem far enough off to dismiss the results altogether.
Heres the breakdown from page 35 of the pdf for those too lazy to RTFPdf:
Independent 28 Pop 27 Folk 25 Modern Rock 23 Country 22 Adult Contemporary 21 Electronic 15 Blues 14 Mainstream Rock 14 Jazz 12 Christian 9 Punk 9 World Music 7 Classical 7 R&B/Hip Hop 7 Soundtrack 6 Top 40 5 Contemporary Jazz 5 Dance/Club 5 Bluegrass 5 Gospel 5 New Age 5 Latin 3 Reggae 2 Rap 2 Other 24
Footnote from table: Total exceeds 100 percent due to multiple responses.
Congress doesn't have to vote themselves raises. They wisely set it up so that they automatically get yearly raises unless they vote against the raise.
Unsuprisingly, very few congresscritters vote to deny themselves a raise.
"Your assertion is that Linux violates a set of patents, and therefore as an end user I might be found liable and forced to pay dammages at some future date.* Does using Windows remove this problem for me? Are you willing to either guarantee that Windows does not have any IP property issues or to indemnify me if someone decides that they want $699 for every copy of XP that I use because they think one of their patents is being violated?"
It looks like the answer to those questions is yes. See here and here.
No, Microsoft filed a patent application for the isnot operator which probably hasn't even been looked at by anyone at the USPTO yet. Go back and read the discussion from that story or better yet look at the published patent application. As a former patent examiner you should know the difference between an issued patent and a PGPUB.
Each claims stands alone. So, only claim 2 would be limited to BASIC, while claims 1, 3 and 4 would apply to any programming language.
The dependent claims (2, 3 and 4) are merely shorthand to avoid writing the entire claim out each time, but for purposes of what they cover, you should read the claims like this:
1. A system for determining if two operands point to different locations in memory, the system comprising: a compiler for receiving source code and generating executable code from the source code, the source code comprising an expression comprising an operator associated with a first operand and a second operand, the expression evaluating to true when the first operand and the second operand point to different memory locations.
2. A system for determining if two operands point to different locations in memory, the system comprising: a compiler for receiving source code and generating executable code from the source code, the source code comprising an expression comprising an operator associated with a first operand and a second operand, the expression evaluating to true when the first operand and the second operand point to different memory locations, wherein the compiler is a BASIC-derived programming language compiler.
3. A system for determining if two operands point to different locations in memory, the system comprising: a compiler for receiving source code and generating executable code from the source code, the source code comprising an expression comprising an operator associated with a first operand and a second operand, the expression evaluating to true when the first operand and the second operand point to different memory locations, wherein the operator is IsNot.
4. A system for determining if two operands point to different locations in memory, the system comprising: a compiler for receiving source code and generating executable code from the source code, the source code comprising an expression comprising an operator associated with a first operand and a second operand, the expression evaluating to true when the first operand and the second operand point to different memory locations, wherein the compiler comprises a scanner, a parser, an analyzer and an executable-generator.
Yes, this is a publication of a pending patent application. The easy to tell is to look at the number: 20040230959.
Published patent applications use the format of YYYY/####### to denote the Year and the number in which the application was received.
Granted patents have the format of ####### with no year attached to denote the order in which the patent was granted. They are someone around 6,800,000 right now.
I think you are greatly over-generalizing the situation, but if it is how you say, lets put it to the test.
The point this community is making is that the prior art is the easiest thing in the world to find if you actually are familiar with the field and know where to look. It's not that it doesn't exist, it's that the examiners haven't a clue where to find it.
As a member of this community, you should be intimatetly knowledgable in all matters of software design and implementations. Since this prior art is "the easiest thing in the world to find" you should be able to find references which either show that this patent either lacks novelty (this is done by finding a single reference (dated prior to December 30, 1996) which contains all claim limitations) or that this patent is obvious (this is done by finding a combination of references (each reference dated prior to December 30, 1996) which teach all claim limitations and give motivation to combine the references into a single system as claimed).
I anxiously await your response and look forward to reading the prior art references that you produce.
Any difficulty in finding prior art does not negate the obviousness of the invention.
No, in a perfect world it doesn't. However, the way the laws are written the applicant is entitled to a patent unless it can be proven to be obvious or lacking novelty.
So, if the prior art can not be found the office has no choice but to allow the patent. If there were better indexing of prior art, or more time (read: funds) alotted to the patent office the chances of prior art not being found would be smaller. However, funding the patent office isn't very high on congress's priorities at the moment, so were stuck with what we have.
I wouldn't say it's completely non-productive. Clearly, this demonstrates the clash between the "common sense obviousness" inherent in most people in a particular field, and the "must provide documentation obviousness" specified by the USPTO. I imagine that I am not alone.
Rarely is any argument completely unproductive, but there are much better ways of going about the arguments against the patent system than the average slashdotter's approach (see almost every other post attached to this story).
My main goal here isn't to defend the PTO's system or to claim that there is nothing wrong with it, because there definately are problems. However, until people understand the patent system they won't be in any position to try to change it.
Ummm, not once in your posts did you make a single argument against the requirments of obviousness. Every post you were claiming that this patent was obvious. When you talk obviousness of patents there are requirements which must be met before it can be called obvious.
If your real argument is against those requirements, then I suggest you lay out the requiments and state what is wrong with them.
However, if you want to keep stating that this patent is obvious then I strongly reccomend following the steps outlined in my previous post.
Slashdot Mirror
Where they are sold is completely irrelevant. I think its more a question of how the chips are marketed (i.e. how does Intel/AMD define them) and to a greater extent how they interact with the OS. If the OS treats them as two individual processors then Oracle probably has a case. Someone with more of a CS background can probably shed more light on this area.
Also remember that you are entering into a contract with Oracle when you purchase their software. Oracle can define the terms of that contract however they want. If they want to start charging "per core" there is no reason why they can't. On the other hand, if you don't like the terms of their contract you can always find a new database to run things off of.
obvious != trivial
go read chapter 2100 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) and learn what the current laws actually state.
But it's totally trivial. Such a patent should not be granted imho. Anyone can come up with that. Patents were meant for `innovative ideas', `inventions'. For the complicated stuff that takes research.
Whether something is trivial to implement is completely irrelevant to its being an 'invention' or 'innovatinve idea'.
The light bulb is trivial, but it was an 'innovative idea'. Sometimes the stupidest little things make the best inventions, just thinking of them is often the toughest part of the process.
Technically, I think its "News for nerds, Stuff that was posted on Fark.com yesterday", but others may disagree.
My CD collection clocks in at about 300 discs which translates into about 20.5GB (encoded with Lame -aps) not including another 50 or so classical discs and another 20 discs which are beyond repair.
As it is now, I have to play around with a few smart playlists to sync to an ipod. I would absolutely love to have a good deal more storage (and flac support) to be able to use my lossless versions instead of lossy mp3s.
That said, the shuffle is somewhat intriguing, but I think it would drive me crazy trying to figure out what song is playing. As far as a hi-quality ~$1k option, I honestly don't know of one, but if one did exist it might be worth looking into. Although, it would probably be easier to buy a portable headphone amp and some decent cans.
Ohhh... I see, you have to have good drivers. You can't just throw anyone off the street in the fastest car and expect him to win every time? Huh, sounds like the drivers are also important.
A good car will make a good driver look even better. On the other hand a good car won't do a damn thing for a bad driver other than make him crash faster.
If a driver crashed every race he would never win no matter how good the car is. Like it or not, both the car and driver are important.
Why don't you hop in an F1 car and take on Schumacher. The driver is still very important.
I'd love to see some proof of this "patent acceptance quota" of which you speak.
Thats a very limited sample of a genre to be comdeming the entire genre on. I suggest looking deeper into the genre. However, this is a pointed that has been debated way more than it should be, and usually by people who have no business debating it.
My personal theory is that as long as a Ramone is alive, so is punk. Then again I really have no business debating it so pay no attention to me. Now where'd that Richard Hell cd go...
9% of respondants identified themselves as composing, performing or publishing "punk" music. Looking at the purely statistical properties of the study it is biased since it is a non-random sample, but it doesn't seem far enough off to dismiss the results altogether.
Heres the breakdown from page 35 of the pdf for those too lazy to RTFPdf:
Independent 28
Pop 27
Folk 25
Modern Rock 23
Country 22
Adult Contemporary 21
Electronic 15
Blues 14
Mainstream Rock 14
Jazz 12
Christian 9
Punk 9
World Music 7
Classical 7
R&B/Hip Hop 7
Soundtrack 6
Top 40 5
Contemporary Jazz 5
Dance/Club 5
Bluegrass 5
Gospel 5
New Age 5
Latin 3
Reggae 2
Rap 2
Other 24
Footnote from table: Total exceeds 100 percent due to multiple responses.
Congress doesn't have to vote themselves raises. They wisely set it up so that they automatically get yearly raises unless they vote against the raise.
Unsuprisingly, very few congresscritters vote to deny themselves a raise.
Have you ever tried?
"Your assertion is that Linux violates a set of patents, and therefore as an end user I might be found liable and forced to pay dammages at some future date.* Does using Windows remove this problem for me? Are you willing to either guarantee that Windows does not have any IP property issues or to indemnify me if someone decides that they want $699 for every copy of XP that I use because they think one of their patents is being violated?"
It looks like the answer to those questions is yes. See here and here.
So where is this bullshit of which you speak?
No, Microsoft filed a patent application for the isnot operator which probably hasn't even been looked at by anyone at the USPTO yet. Go back and read the discussion from that story or better yet look at the published patent application. As a former patent examiner you should know the difference between an issued patent and a PGPUB.
Guess Taco doesn't like MSNBC.
The dependent claims (2, 3 and 4) are merely shorthand to avoid writing the entire claim out each time, but for purposes of what they cover, you should read the claims like this:
Yes, this is a publication of a pending patent application. The easy to tell is to look at the number: 20040230959.
Published patent applications use the format of YYYY/####### to denote the Year and the number in which the application was received.
Granted patents have the format of ####### with no year attached to denote the order in which the patent was granted. They are someone around 6,800,000 right now.
Seriously, who cares about passwords when you can exploit all the flaws LINUX systems have ?
They'd better fix their software first.
I think its poorly done. It lacks a legend to show what the significance of the colors is, and is too small.
Seriously, what are you going for here?
I think you are greatly over-generalizing the situation, but if it is how you say, lets put it to the test.
The point this community is making is that the prior art is the easiest thing in the world to find if you actually are familiar with the field and know where to look. It's not that it doesn't exist, it's that the examiners haven't a clue where to find it.
As a member of this community, you should be intimatetly knowledgable in all matters of software design and implementations. Since this prior art is "the easiest thing in the world to find" you should be able to find references which either show that this patent either lacks novelty (this is done by finding a single reference (dated prior to December 30, 1996) which contains all claim limitations) or that this patent is obvious (this is done by finding a combination of references (each reference dated prior to December 30, 1996) which teach all claim limitations and give motivation to combine the references into a single system as claimed).
I anxiously await your response and look forward to reading the prior art references that you produce.
Perhaps you mean GiB instead of GB.
1 GB = 10^9 Bytes
1 GiB = 2^30 Bytes
Any difficulty in finding prior art does not negate the obviousness of the invention.
No, in a perfect world it doesn't. However, the way the laws are written the applicant is entitled to a patent unless it can be proven to be obvious or lacking novelty.
So, if the prior art can not be found the office has no choice but to allow the patent. If there were better indexing of prior art, or more time (read: funds) alotted to the patent office the chances of prior art not being found would be smaller. However, funding the patent office isn't very high on congress's priorities at the moment, so were stuck with what we have.
I wouldn't say it's completely non-productive. Clearly, this demonstrates the clash between the "common sense obviousness" inherent in most people in a particular field, and the "must provide documentation obviousness" specified by the USPTO. I imagine that I am not alone.
Rarely is any argument completely unproductive, but there are much better ways of going about the arguments against the patent system than the average slashdotter's approach (see almost every other post attached to this story).
My main goal here isn't to defend the PTO's system or to claim that there is nothing wrong with it, because there definately are problems. However, until people understand the patent system they won't be in any position to try to change it.
Ummm, not once in your posts did you make a single argument against the requirments of obviousness. Every post you were claiming that this patent was obvious. When you talk obviousness of patents there are requirements which must be met before it can be called obvious.
If your real argument is against those requirements, then I suggest you lay out the requiments and state what is wrong with them.
However, if you want to keep stating that this patent is obvious then I strongly reccomend following the steps outlined in my previous post.