The changes seem fairly harmless, but I don't think it's ethical to change something like this. I don't know much about torts, but could something like this even be considered a breach of contract?
I don't think so. For an ongoing service, if they notify of changes far enough in advance for you to cancel the service, I see nothing wrong with it, particularly as most services I've dealt with (ISPs, credit cards, etc.) include a clause in their terms of service or contract that states that they can change the terms with x days of notice.
Oh and incase you're wondering when alt.2600 took the nosie dive into pure shit, I say summer of 1995. Basically USENET's commuliative quallity halved that summer. Don't know exactly why though.
Windows 95. Dial-up networking. Bundled TCP/IP stack. Everybody and their dog could get on the internet with a few clicks. I don't blame the increase in the signal/noise ratio on Microsoft or Windows per se, merely on the ease of use.
your prior art was not out for use by the public Does it have to be? If so, then 2.5E8 Americans could each individually develop the same solution, use it only in the privacy of their own homes, then get sued when the last guy patents it...
I am paid the same as the locals I'm glad you've had a positive experience. However, anecdotal evidence, while not false, does not refute the general case. This is similar to an 103-year-old man who says he's smoked a pack of cigarettes and drunk a quart of whiskey every day since he was 16 - it ignores the lung cancer and licer disease that affects most people who engage in similar behavior.
doing the same tech support jobs for Tandem Nothing personal, but do you really think your company needed to go outside the US to find workers who were qualified? Do you think it's possible that they could have retained the workers they had that have left? Do you think they could have recruited more people? Do you think they could have trained high school graduates to do the same work? I do; I worked in tech support for three years, and unless you're doing some REALLY high speed stuff, it can be done quickly and easily by anyone with a brain.
No, it does remain unspecified. The algorithm is described in great detail, but the device is usually pretty general. The actual description of the device might be "A device consisting of an electronic microprocessor, a mass storage unit, and volatile electronic memory" or something like that. I've seen such patent applications. They describe the device so vaguely that ANY computer which implements the very detailed algorithm will violate the patent. That's the point.
(Numbers may be approximate as a result of memory errors) Last year Congress authorized the immigration department to pass out 90,000 green cards. They were only able to process the paperwork for 60,000. Over 30,000 qualified applicants did not receive green cards. Holding an H1B visa is no guarantee; there's a good chance that after your six years are up, you'll be shipped home. Of course, you could always stay illegally; the worst thing they'll do is deport you, after imprisoning you without trial or counsel for an indefinite period of time. The immigration system is kinda broken right now...
Of course, this doesn't begin to address the question of whether or not companies should be permitted to import workers. Companies which claim that they need more or better qualified workers should detach themselves from the governmental teats long enough to develop better recruitment, retention, and training programs. Any corporation could have as many trained workers as they liked within two years if they were willing to pay for it. If they don't want to, why should we permit them the post-modern counterpart to slave labor - "Don't want to work 100 hour weeks for $30K/yr? Well, we'll just cancel our sponsorship of your visa and you can go home and live in squalor!"
Moderated up as informative...informative. I guess that means at least one moderator hasn't yet completed his 9th grade civics course...
BTW, it does mean something when the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case. It means the lower court's decision stands. It means the court case is over with, and the lobbying will start - oops, scratch that - the plaintiffs don't own a whole flock of lobbyists, so they can't appeal to Congress. It means that you'd better have a WHOLE lot of money if you want to sue an ISP because they've violated statutes or regulations that govern common carriers.
Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two (you can't have all three).
They picked PalmOS because it was fast (zero development time) and cheap (hey, they'd already paid for it). You're suggesting making your own OS, because it would be more good, but developing it would take time, meaning that developing this would be less fast.
Right...so you patent an unspecified device that implements the algorithm. This patents the algorith for all practical purposes, as it prevents anyone else from creating a device that implements the algorithm without your permission. This would also preclude writing software which causes a computer to implement the algorithm.
The word "attorney" means representative. When an attorney takes action, it is on behalf of their clients. In the eyes of the law, the attorneys aren't really there, only the people who hired the lawyers. Attorneys obviously can't do anything illegal, but there is nothing illegal in writing a letter.
...but the vast majority of people don't retire...The problem with working for companies and getting rich off of it is that it eventually becomes the end, not the means to the end. Yup. I work for a mediumish law firm and there are dozens of rich guys who can't let go. One is taking a week-long vacation to the Bahamas...and he's taking a laptop computer with him, so he can stay in touch with the office.
Attorneys at my firm START at $80K/yr, and it's in a mediumish Midwestern city where the cost of living isn't too high. Attorneys who are fiscally responsible can be millionaires within ten years (compound interest and all that). I don't see any quitting...
Oh my god, I've got a huge pile of money, but I hate my life because all I ever do is work? None. Anybody I know who has a huge pile of money and who doesn't want to work...doesn't have to.
How many people do you know in ALL fields who wake up at age 40 saying I've got no real cash in the bank, and I hate my life because all I ever do is work? The trick is to amass the huge pile of money so that you CAN stop working when you have the epiphay...
In related news, the student's body was stripped of electrons, after a schoolmate pointed out that it was theoretically possible that he was storing infinite numbers of MP3s in them.
"It was a real tragedy," admitted Everett Eaton, public safety director at OSU. "Fortunately, I was across town at the time, so I wasn't caught in the blast as the resultant plasma explosion wiped out half the campus, leaving the remainder a radioactive wreck that won't be fit for human habitation, let alone study, for about 50,000 years. The boy did not survive the procedure, of course, but do the crime, do the time, I always say."
Everett Eaton, public safety director at OSU, Thank GOODNESS that this threat to public safety has been removed. We all know that distributing MP3s can lead to date rape in fraternity houses, underage drinking, and alcohol poisoning.
"We're doing some forensic review of the hard drive and determining what is there," Eaton said. "After we finish that review, we will evaluate the amount of substance he was distributing." Oops! Sorry about that irony up there, Eaton. I didn't realize he was distributing illegal substances. My mistake - good thing you jumped in there!
BTW, am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that state colleges have their own police force? I can see the practical need for policing a large group of people, but I see a real conflict of interest here, from the perspective of the surrounding community (college police are controlled by the college) and the students (police and professors, all working together...)
Individual uses service to send threat. Wrong. Individual uses service to send obscene message. Whether or not its a threat is in the mind of the sender. I'll grant, however, that the content of the message warranted further investigation if it disturbed the recipient.
[...]
Police/Authorities ask that proceedings be 'closed' so that investigation can proceed without individual learning of it. Asking that the details of the proceedings be kept secret is cool. Asking that the existence of the proceedings be kept secret is decidedly uncool. THAT scares me.
ISP/Annoy blockades the proceedings of the investigation and request for disclosure of identity based not upon merits of the investigation, but rather on principle, horribly delaying the investigation into a threat of violence against an individual. This would be uncool if they were merely blocking the investigation, but my take is that they were blocking the whole "Don't tell anybody we're looking at you" bit.
A YEAR LATER, police/authorities drop request, as it's now way too late to be useful. (damn unfortunate) The courts let this drag on for a year. Had the courts wanted to decide it the day after it came up, they could have done so.
I think Jon should read GURPS, the Generic Universal Rule and Point System, sometimes also known as the Generally UnRecognized Political Statement.
There, he will learn such truths as "All activities can be simulated by 3d6." So you assign Gore the appropriate numbe of points in the Political skill, do the same for Lieberman, roll a Quick Contest of Skills, and BANG! You just predicted the outcome of the election!
With the mass combat rules, you can see if the newly elected president will survive the coming war with Iraq.
You don't allow OTHER people to make copies of your copies. mp3.com did. It's not cut and dried - it's a gray area. mp3.com knew they were on shaky legal ground when they started, and they lost. Sort of...
You can lose a patent by selectivly enforcing it I don't want to be disagreeable, but I have to disagree. You can't lose a patent or copyright by failing to defend it. If I'm wrong, you'll be able to prove it by picking up an introductory textbook for a course on IP law. Email me the title of the book.
So maybe the precious IP they are defending is not XOR, but their business model.
It's IP only if it's patented. Have they patented it? I see no indication of it. While it may be smart to nip competition in the bud if you can, it is completely disingenuous (ie a LIE) to tell people to stop writing code because it breaks the law. Liars who make empty threats about lawyers are no better in my book than thugs who make empty threats about guns.
You don't need a patent to have IP rights. That's correct. You could also have a copyright. Or a trademark. Apart from that, you don't have a whole lot in the way of IP rights. However, the only thing that could possibly be applicable in this situation is a patent. So where's the reference to patent numbers or patents pending? lacking those, they are missing any sort of a case against the driver developers - am I right?
It's the posting of the specs of the protocol used by the hardware for software use.
So you're saying the protocol is protected by IP law? Which one? Is it patented? What's the patent number? Is it copyrighted? I don't think copyright covers protocol implementations. Is their protocol trademarked? Fine, don't call it the CueCat protocol; call it "a protocol compatible with the CueCat (tm)* protocol, or APCWTCCP *CueCat is a registered trademark of whoever owns it."
they *HAVE* to defend it in order to continue to own the product and IP surrounding it. I disagree completely. You can't lose copyrights or patents merely by not defending them.
Their claims are a lot of hot air. I see nothing to back them up, legally.
Under IP law if we don't PROTECT our IP, we loose any remedies under law to PROTECT our IP.
I challenge any attorney out there to support this with case law. I have consulted with IP attorneys on this very matter and have been told that, except for trademarks, this is totally false. IANAL, so I could be wrong, but I doubt it. If you ARE a lawyer, and I'm wrong, please point to freely-available references justifying your opinion.
Given that the above-quoted statement is false, we have two (and ONLY two) choices.
1. Doug Davis is STUPID.
a. He is NAL, and he either makes statements about legal principles without consulting AL, or he consults STUPID L and believes them.
b. He is AL and should know better.
2. Doug Davis is a LIAR. He knows what he says is wrong, and says it anyway.
Again, if I'm wrong about my premise, please correct me in this forum.
I wish the poster had left an email address, but I'll have to settle for this reply which the poster will likely never never see.
AWESOME POST. One of the best I've seen in a LONG time. Gave me food for thoughts WRT Fire, and I've read it several times already. Deeply insightful. I'll have to pick of the rest of Vinge's works now.
Slashdot Mirror
The changes seem fairly harmless, but I don't think it's ethical to change something like this. I don't know much about torts, but could something like this even be considered a breach of contract?
I don't think so. For an ongoing service, if they notify of changes far enough in advance for you to cancel the service, I see nothing wrong with it, particularly as most services I've dealt with (ISPs, credit cards, etc.) include a clause in their terms of service or contract that states that they can change the terms with x days of notice.
Oh and incase you're wondering when alt.2600 took the nosie dive into pure shit, I say summer of 1995. Basically USENET's commuliative quallity halved that summer. Don't know exactly why though.
Windows 95. Dial-up networking. Bundled TCP/IP stack. Everybody and their dog could get on the internet with a few clicks. I don't blame the increase in the signal/noise ratio on Microsoft or Windows per se, merely on the ease of use.
your prior art was not out for use by the public
Does it have to be? If so, then 2.5E8 Americans could each individually develop the same solution, use it only in the privacy of their own homes, then get sued when the last guy patents it...
I am paid the same as the locals
I'm glad you've had a positive experience. However, anecdotal evidence, while not false, does not refute the general case. This is similar to an 103-year-old man who says he's smoked a pack of cigarettes and drunk a quart of whiskey every day since he was 16 - it ignores the lung cancer and licer disease that affects most people who engage in similar behavior.
doing the same tech support jobs for Tandem
Nothing personal, but do you really think your company needed to go outside the US to find workers who were qualified? Do you think it's possible that they could have retained the workers they had that have left? Do you think they could have recruited more people? Do you think they could have trained high school graduates to do the same work? I do; I worked in tech support for three years, and unless you're doing some REALLY high speed stuff, it can be done quickly and easily by anyone with a brain.
No, it does remain unspecified. The algorithm is described in great detail, but the device is usually pretty general. The actual description of the device might be "A device consisting of an electronic microprocessor, a mass storage unit, and volatile electronic memory" or something like that. I've seen such patent applications. They describe the device so vaguely that ANY computer which implements the very detailed algorithm will violate the patent. That's the point.
(Numbers may be approximate as a result of memory errors) Last year Congress authorized the immigration department to pass out 90,000 green cards. They were only able to process the paperwork for 60,000. Over 30,000 qualified applicants did not receive green cards. Holding an H1B visa is no guarantee; there's a good chance that after your six years are up, you'll be shipped home. Of course, you could always stay illegally; the worst thing they'll do is deport you, after imprisoning you without trial or counsel for an indefinite period of time. The immigration system is kinda broken right now...
Of course, this doesn't begin to address the question of whether or not companies should be permitted to import workers. Companies which claim that they need more or better qualified workers should detach themselves from the governmental teats long enough to develop better recruitment, retention, and training programs. Any corporation could have as many trained workers as they liked within two years if they were willing to pay for it. If they don't want to, why should we permit them the post-modern counterpart to slave labor - "Don't want to work 100 hour weeks for $30K/yr? Well, we'll just cancel our sponsorship of your visa and you can go home and live in squalor!"
Moderated up as informative...informative. I guess that means at least one moderator hasn't yet completed his 9th grade civics course...
BTW, it does mean something when the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case. It means the lower court's decision stands. It means the court case is over with, and the lobbying will start - oops, scratch that - the plaintiffs don't own a whole flock of lobbyists, so they can't appeal to Congress. It means that you'd better have a WHOLE lot of money if you want to sue an ISP because they've violated statutes or regulations that govern common carriers.
So, RFC 1925, paragraph 7a rears its head again:
Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two (you can't have all three).
They picked PalmOS because it was fast (zero development time) and cheap (hey, they'd already paid for it). You're suggesting making your own OS, because it would be more good, but developing it would take time, meaning that developing this would be less fast.
Right...so you patent an unspecified device that implements the algorithm. This patents the algorith for all practical purposes, as it prevents anyone else from creating a device that implements the algorithm without your permission. This would also preclude writing software which causes a computer to implement the algorithm.
The word "attorney" means representative. When an attorney takes action, it is on behalf of their clients. In the eyes of the law, the attorneys aren't really there, only the people who hired the lawyers. Attorneys obviously can't do anything illegal, but there is nothing illegal in writing a letter.
...but the vast majority of people don't retire...The problem with working for companies and getting rich off of it is that it eventually becomes the end, not the means to the end.
Yup. I work for a mediumish law firm and there are dozens of rich guys who can't let go. One is taking a week-long vacation to the Bahamas...and he's taking a laptop computer with him, so he can stay in touch with the office.
Attorneys at my firm START at $80K/yr, and it's in a mediumish Midwestern city where the cost of living isn't too high. Attorneys who are fiscally responsible can be millionaires within ten years (compound interest and all that). I don't see any quitting...
Oh my god, I've got a huge pile of money, but I hate my life because all I ever do is work?
None. Anybody I know who has a huge pile of money and who doesn't want to work...doesn't have to.
How many people do you know in ALL fields who wake up at age 40 saying I've got no real cash in the bank, and I hate my life because all I ever do is work? The trick is to amass the huge pile of money so that you CAN stop working when you have the epiphay...
In related news, the student's body was stripped of electrons, after a schoolmate pointed out that it was theoretically possible that he was storing infinite numbers of MP3s in them.
"It was a real tragedy," admitted Everett Eaton, public safety director at OSU. "Fortunately, I was across town at the time, so I wasn't caught in the blast as the resultant plasma explosion wiped out half the campus, leaving the remainder a radioactive wreck that won't be fit for human habitation, let alone study, for about 50,000 years. The boy did not survive the procedure, of course, but do the crime, do the time, I always say."
Everett Eaton, public safety director at OSU,
Thank GOODNESS that this threat to public safety has been removed. We all know that distributing MP3s can lead to date rape in fraternity houses, underage drinking, and alcohol poisoning.
"We're doing some forensic review of the hard drive and determining what is there," Eaton said. "After we finish that review, we will evaluate the amount of substance he was distributing."
Oops! Sorry about that irony up there, Eaton. I didn't realize he was distributing illegal substances. My mistake - good thing you jumped in there!
BTW, am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that state colleges have their own police force? I can see the practical need for policing a large group of people, but I see a real conflict of interest here, from the perspective of the surrounding community (college police are controlled by the college) and the students (police and professors, all working together...)
A couple of things...
Individual uses service to send threat.
Wrong. Individual uses service to send obscene message. Whether or not its a threat is in the mind of the sender. I'll grant, however, that the content of the message warranted further investigation if it disturbed the recipient.
[...]
Police/Authorities ask that proceedings be 'closed' so that investigation can proceed without individual learning of it.
Asking that the details of the proceedings be kept secret is cool. Asking that the existence of the proceedings be kept secret is decidedly uncool. THAT scares me.
ISP/Annoy blockades the proceedings of the investigation and request for disclosure of identity based not upon merits of the investigation, but rather on principle, horribly delaying the investigation into a threat of violence against an individual.
This would be uncool if they were merely blocking the investigation, but my take is that they were blocking the whole "Don't tell anybody we're looking at you" bit.
A YEAR LATER, police/authorities drop request, as it's now way too late to be useful. (damn unfortunate)
The courts let this drag on for a year. Had the courts wanted to decide it the day after it came up, they could have done so.
I think Jon should read GURPS, the Generic Universal Rule and Point System, sometimes also known as the Generally UnRecognized Political Statement.
There, he will learn such truths as "All activities can be simulated by 3d6." So you assign Gore the appropriate numbe of points in the Political skill, do the same for Lieberman, roll a Quick Contest of Skills, and BANG! You just predicted the outcome of the election!
With the mass combat rules, you can see if the newly elected president will survive the coming war with Iraq.
You don't allow OTHER people to make copies of your copies. mp3.com did. It's not cut and dried - it's a gray area. mp3.com knew they were on shaky legal ground when they started, and they lost. Sort of...
You can lose a patent by selectivly enforcing it
I don't want to be disagreeable, but I have to disagree. You can't lose a patent or copyright by failing to defend it. If I'm wrong, you'll be able to prove it by picking up an introductory textbook for a course on IP law. Email me the title of the book.
That's impossible without an agreement signed by the recipients of the hardware. Shrinkwrap licenses don't apply (yet) to hardware.
"Here, take this dinky little free piece of hardware. It's FREE! Just sign here at the bottom of this two-page serice agreement..."
People might do this for something they already knew they needed, like a cellphone, but not for a barcode scanner that they don't know they need.
So maybe the precious IP they are defending is not XOR, but their business model.
It's IP only if it's patented. Have they patented it? I see no indication of it. While it may be smart to nip competition in the bud if you can, it is completely disingenuous (ie a LIE) to tell people to stop writing code because it breaks the law. Liars who make empty threats about lawyers are no better in my book than thugs who make empty threats about guns.
You don't need a patent to have IP rights.
That's correct. You could also have a copyright. Or a trademark. Apart from that, you don't have a whole lot in the way of IP rights. However, the only thing that could possibly be applicable in this situation is a patent. So where's the reference to patent numbers or patents pending? lacking those, they are missing any sort of a case against the driver developers - am I right?
It's the posting of the specs of the protocol used by the hardware for software use.
So you're saying the protocol is protected by IP law? Which one? Is it patented? What's the patent number? Is it copyrighted? I don't think copyright covers protocol implementations. Is their protocol trademarked? Fine, don't call it the CueCat protocol; call it "a protocol compatible with the CueCat (tm)* protocol, or APCWTCCP *CueCat is a registered trademark of whoever owns it."
they *HAVE* to defend it in order to continue to own the product and IP surrounding it.
I disagree completely. You can't lose copyrights or patents merely by not defending them.
Their claims are a lot of hot air. I see nothing to back them up, legally.
Under IP law if we don't PROTECT our IP, we loose any remedies under law to PROTECT our IP.
I challenge any attorney out there to support this with case law. I have consulted with IP attorneys on this very matter and have been told that, except for trademarks, this is totally false. IANAL, so I could be wrong, but I doubt it. If you ARE a lawyer, and I'm wrong, please point to freely-available references justifying your opinion.
Given that the above-quoted statement is false, we have two (and ONLY two) choices.
1. Doug Davis is STUPID.
a. He is NAL, and he either makes statements about legal principles without consulting AL, or he consults STUPID L and believes them.
b. He is AL and should know better.
2. Doug Davis is a LIAR. He knows what he says is wrong, and says it anyway.
Again, if I'm wrong about my premise, please correct me in this forum.
I wish the poster had left an email address, but I'll have to settle for this reply which the poster will likely never never see.
AWESOME POST. One of the best I've seen in a LONG time. Gave me food for thoughts WRT Fire, and I've read it several times already. Deeply insightful. I'll have to pick of the rest of Vinge's works now.
You mean I can't use pay pal to pay you $.01?