Okamoto also gave accolades to conference host Rambus Inc., saying that the memory company was one of the most important contributors to the design and manufacture of the PlayStation 2. "We defined the main application on the PlayStation 2 as MPEG-2 (video) decoding," he said. "The solution was dual-channel RDRAM (Rambus Dynamic RAM) because MPEG-2 decoding for high-definition images is very heavy." Each PlayStation 2 uses 32M bytes of RDRAM.
I must have missed something. RAMBUS actually did something useful other than crank out patents? Somebody illuminate me on this. I was unaware they had anything other than lawyers working for them anymore.
Actually, somebody on/. posted something to the effect that you CAN get punished like this if you wrongfully leverage IP.
And let's not even get into the copyright issue. Under American law, any monopoly which leverages intellectual property to preserve their monopoly has their work turned over to the public domain.
1) Alien & Sedition Act (1798)
The one that started it all. You clearly are unaware of even this one. Start here.
2) Harrison Act (1914)
The start of our "War On Drugs"
3) Anti-Communist Propaganda Law (1941, McCarthy Era)
The start of our "War On Communism"
All three of these have demonstrably unconstitutional provisions in them that still stand today. There was controversy when they were passed, but after all, it was "war" so it was determined that tearing up the Constitution was fine.
Two other current events you are also demonstrably ignorant of:
That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed....
Except what happens when Government manufactures our Consent for us (see also: Noam Chomsky), and only a small minority are aware of it? In Britain's case, this small minority had the fortune to have their own (sizable) chunk of land to flee to.
90% of the population happily sacrifice their freedoms, and have been doing so since the writing of the Constitution.
Take a peek at history; this is nothing new. How many people realize that there was a HUGE debate over the Harrison Act (the start of our war against drugs)? Many people knew it was unconstitional for Federal Law to apply to doctors perscriptions of medicine, and yet the Act (which was the first to list "controlled" substances in the form of herion, opium, and cocaine) passed, and everybody quickly became used to it. If the proponents of the Harrison Act could only see what the long term effects of this disastrous legislation had, I'm sure they would have thought twice.
Sacrificing our freedoms for the sake of Freedom(tm) is an American Tradition(tm). Why stop now?
I'm not one of your constituents, and I very rarely write to my congresscritters (as they seem to be more responsive to lobbyists demands than public good). I just wanted to thank you for your efforts to block the disasterous ATA (anti-terrorism act) and the Bush Administration's drive to completely shred what is left of our Constitution.
Their rush to defend our freedoms by destroying them chills me. I am more afraid of THEIR efforts than the actions of the most black-hearted terrorist, as it is abundantly clear which will have more disasterous long term effects.
Please continue to defend our civil liberties by preventing kneejerk reactionary responses similar to what we saw in the McCarthy Era and the Cold War.
HP's policy regarding RAND may have been mis-interpreted by the public and the press, because the name of an HP attorney appears on the Patent Policy Framework draft. Of the participants in the W3C Patent Policy Working Group, HP has been the most vigorous proponent of the importance of avoiding patent encumbrances on W3C Recommendations.
EEEP sorry. My bad:) You are, of course, correct.
Feel free to moderate me down, I jumped the gun.. don't worry I have karma to burn.
This Version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010 81 6/
Latest Version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-policy/
Editor:
Daniel J. Weitzner, W3C/MIT, djweitzner@w3.org
Authors:
Michele Herman, Microsoft, micheleh@microsoft.com
Scott Peterson, Hewlett-Packard, scott_k_peterson@hp.com
Tony Piotrowski, Philips, tony.piotrowski@philips.com
Barry Rein, Pennie & Edmonds (for W3C), barry@pennie.com
Daniel Weitzner, W3C/MIT, djweitzner@w3.org
Helene Plotka Workman, Apple Computer, plotka@apple.com
This is what buffers and FIFO's are for... to allow transfer of data between two asychronous streams; specifically, when either the consumer or the producer has large amounts of jitter (hint: think PAUSE). All such buffers are circular, because making an infinite size FIFO is impossible. Hence: this patent IS obvious AND has prior art. Just because you think it is clever doesn't mean a damn thing.
Ever wonder WHY MP3s are popular? Ever wonder WHY DivX is popular? Like it or not, the masses have discovered that bits are BITS, and any number of legal wrangling and preaching over the evils of "piracy" aren't going to change that. The public has spoken, and you are clearly not listening. The RIAA and MPAA would like you to think that MP3 and DivX technology are inherently evil by pointing to the number of "illegal" uses they are involved in. But by denying that MP3 and DIVX have utility and by painting the masses who use them (yes, even illegally) as ignorant and immoral for not being good corporate lackeys is just making you look even more elitest than the worst GNU/Linux/*nix/engineer/hacker.
So, your comment appears to be nothing more than standard anti-MS zealotry. I agree, sickening.
You are conveniently forgetting the fact that it is MS's WET DREAM to completely own the codec space. Why WOULDN'T MS want to be the single source for codecs?
step 1: they could easily lock out other OS's from having functional media players
step 2: they could rigidly enforce their own defacto SSSCA
step 3: they could make sure the only online (and offline for that matter) multimedia content is MS/TimeWarner/AOL/MSNBC approved.
I assume you think this is a good thing. How sad.
If not, I am going to guess you are another pathitic MS astroturfer.
HUH? To post here, I have to preference EVERYTHING i say with an 'IMHO'?
Did you just arrive here from AOL or are you just irretrievably stupid?
The author expressed his OPINION. I read it, and understood immediately that this was an OPINION.
He may be right; he may be wrong. Either way, he is allowed to express his opinion. You, as the reader, are supposed to understand that when somebody says something, it is an OPINION.
In fact, the OPINION he presented was a completely valid interpretation of the MS lackey's asinine comment, and I suspect you know this, hence your idiotic "FUD FUD FUD" bleatings.
And let's not even get into the copyright issue. Under American law, any monopoly which leverages intellectual property to preserve their monopoly has their work turned over to the public domain. This isn't something the Feds or the state AGs are pursuing, because they probably think that would kill Microsoft outright, and they don't want to do that. But how long until Sun, or IBM, or someone else, discovers this--I'd be surprised if they didn't know it already--and files a suit in Federal court to get Windows turned over to the public domain, and thus slaughters Microsoft outright?
Holy fuck. I had no idea this was actually IN the law.. do you have a reference? Up until now, I had always used that argument somewhat facetiously ("Want to break MS's monopoly? Refuse to enforce their IP").
This would be an outstanding outcome.
Weaken MS's copyright and patents, specifically those on their streaming media formats (like.asf and.wma) and document formats, and make sure others can always make software that interoperates correctly with MS's stuff. That is the best "legal" and "moral" way of allowing free competition, yet everybody always ignores it in favor of the breakup hype.
If there are any good comments on this, I will personally compile them and send her a response letter.
Some hints on various places to attack:
I have always believed that the protection of intellectual
property rights is as important as the protection of any other
property right. Moreover, the protection of intellectual property is
vital to a flourishing economy -- particularly in California.
America's music, movie, and software industries are second to
none, and we export far more intellectual property than we import.
This is good for employment, and good for consumers.
This paragraph is Feinstein basically saying that $$$ is more important than her constituents freedom. While this comes as no surprise, don't you think its interesting that she has enough cahones to actually come out and say it?
Without strong copyright protections, the incentive to
innovate would be diminished. In fact, this issue was so important
to the Founding Fathers that the ability of Congress to protect
copyrights is actually written into our Constitution itself.
This completely ignores T. Jefferson's many misgivings over IP law (do a search on google, this is quoted plenty by others quite a bit). Not only that, but the wording in the Constitution itself is VERY weak. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Corporations' monetary interests should be protected at all costs with PERMANENT monopoly status (see also Congress' affection for extending copyright/patent durations every few years)
but we must work to prevent the
creation of perfect, digital copies of copyrighted works which can
be illegally distributed throughout the world
This illuminates a fundamental flaw in her understanding of information theory. Bits are bits. They are by definition "perfectly copiable" No amount of wrangling is going to prevent them from being copyable. The only thing that will prevent copying of bits like this is a complete police state, which she seems to think is a small price to pay to protect the California entertainment industry's enormous profits.
While I agree with you in principle, this does tickle something in the back of my brain. If the DMCA causes so many people to wish to remain anonymous when they discover a vulnerability, why not FLOOD the media with bogus exploit reports? Just claim you won't release it due to the DMCA. Eventually, if enough random hackers do this, and enough people buy it, there will be so much paranoia of "hidden" exploits, that eventually somebody will call for mass disclosure. And the only way this can happen is for global DMCA amnesty.. similar to what brought about whistle blower legislation.
If Jim wants to send Carol some information that they BOTH don't want Bob to see, no problem. This is the intent of crypto.
However, as soon as Carol decides that she doesn't mind Bob also getting the information, it is all over. No amout of crypto can prevent that transaction.
Given this quite obvious fact, it suprises me that ANY real crypto guy would even bother touching this problem.
When you patent something, you make its design public knowledge. No one can use that knowledge without your permission. Thus refusing to document an API because it's patented is inherently contradictory.
Very true. But in this PARTICULAR situation, Trident is no doubt in the process of obtaining patent(s). Which means that from their perspective they need to play it safe until the patent has been awarded. I'm not a fan of patents, but this is the way the game is (and always has been) played.
In many cases, API hoarding is done by a CTO or a product manager or two who thinks their technology is so wonderful and original that 1) nobody has done it before 2) nobody is smart enough to do it on their own and 3) exposing the API will allow somebody to "steal" their brilliant idea.
Very rarely does this type of CTO/manager have any academic/scientific background; normally they are MBA types who think every passing clever idea they have is a potential make-money-fast scheme.
Most REAL engineers/scientists realize that most everything has already been done, and most "innovations" are built upon millions of other (much older) ideas.
Unfortunately, most of the population does not belong in this category, and thinks that Salad Shooters(TM) need patent protection.
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't Drink,' which doesn't quite go with item 2,
and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As
far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made
of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from
outer of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon came
from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock
came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know
Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
it because the list says so. That's circular logic. That's no different
than saying 'Hank's right because he says he's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
around to Hank's way of thinking!"
Me: "But... oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary blushes. John says: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's
way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary looks positively stricken. John shouts: "There's no need for such
language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it
would be out of the question?"
Mary sticks her fingers in her ears: "I am not listening to this. La la
la la la la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat
that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary faints. John catches her: "Well, if I'd known you where one of those,
I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you,
I'll be there counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for
you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I
found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
"Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would
I want to kiss his ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars; and if
you don't, he'll kick the shit out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank
owns this town. He can do what ever wants, and what he wants is to give
you a million dollars, but he can't until you kiss his ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million
dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has he given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the
money and he kicks the shit out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the
million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year,
and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think he'll actually give you the money if you've
never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll
get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a
twenty dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And
remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass he'll kick the shit of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to him, get the details straight
from him..."Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss his ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his ass. Other
times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing
Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank,
that Hank wanted you to kiss his ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl's got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining
the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for your self."
John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on "From the desk of
Karl" letterhead. There were eleven items listed:
From the desk of: KARL
1. Kiss Hank's ass and he'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't drink.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's ass or he'll kick the shit out of you.Me: "But 9 says 'Don't Drink,' which doesn't quite go with item 2,
and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As
far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made
of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from
outer of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon came
from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock
came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know
Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
it because the list says so. That's circular logic. That's no different
than saying 'Hank's right because he says he's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
around to Hank's way of thinking!"
Me: "But... oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary blushes. John says: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's
way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary looks positively stricken. John shouts: "There's no need for such
language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it
would be out of the question?"
Mary sticks her fingers in her ears: "I am not listening to this. La la
la la la la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat
that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary faints. John catches her: "Well, if I'd known you where one of those,
I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you,
I'll be there counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for
you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
Me: "This would appear to be written on Karl's Letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's
handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of
philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're
different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough
for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides,
item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and
item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone
knows those things are right, so the rest must be true too."
Slashdot Mirror
.. or has the quality of newbies gone down?
Think "below the magnetosphere" and all will become clear.
Benford's "Artifact"
No, wait.
Wheeler's "The Krone Experiment" (now a major motion picture!)
Ah never mind.. This one's probably been done to death.
Okamoto also gave accolades to conference host Rambus Inc., saying that the memory company was one of the most important contributors to the design and manufacture of the PlayStation 2. "We defined the main application on the PlayStation 2 as MPEG-2 (video) decoding," he said. "The solution was dual-channel RDRAM (Rambus Dynamic RAM) because MPEG-2 decoding for high-definition images is very heavy." Each PlayStation 2 uses 32M bytes of RDRAM.
I must have missed something. RAMBUS actually did something useful other than crank out patents? Somebody illuminate me on this. I was unaware they had anything other than lawyers working for them anymore.
A lesson in IP morality, coming from Disney?
Next thing you know, Nike will feature ads exorting how NOT exploiting foreign workers in sweatshops is anti-American, and Just Plain Wrong(tm).
Actually, somebody on /. posted something to the effect that you CAN get punished like this if you wrongfully leverage IP.
And let's not even get into the copyright issue. Under American law, any monopoly which leverages intellectual property to preserve their monopoly has their work turned over to the public domain.
Anybody else have a solid reference?
Connect the dots:
1) Alien & Sedition Act (1798)
The one that started it all. You clearly are unaware of even this one. Start here.
2) Harrison Act (1914)
The start of our "War On Drugs"
3) Anti-Communist Propaganda Law (1941, McCarthy Era)
The start of our "War On Communism"
All three of these have demonstrably unconstitutional provisions in them that still stand today. There was controversy when they were passed, but after all, it was "war" so it was determined that tearing up the Constitution was fine.
Two other current events you are also demonstrably ignorant of:
CDA - "The War on Pornography"
DMCA/SSSCA - the "War on Piracy"
That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed....
Except what happens when Government manufactures our Consent for us (see also: Noam Chomsky), and only a small minority are aware of it? In Britain's case, this small minority had the fortune to have their own (sizable) chunk of land to flee to.
90% of the population happily sacrifice their freedoms, and have been doing so since the writing of the Constitution.
Take a peek at history; this is nothing new. How many people realize that there was a HUGE debate over the Harrison Act (the start of our war against drugs)? Many people knew it was unconstitional for Federal Law to apply to doctors perscriptions of medicine, and yet the Act (which was the first to list "controlled" substances in the form of herion, opium, and cocaine) passed, and everybody quickly became used to it. If the proponents of the Harrison Act could only see what the long term effects of this disastrous legislation had, I'm sure they would have thought twice.
Sacrificing our freedoms for the sake of Freedom(tm) is an American Tradition(tm). Why stop now?
I'm an American, and ASHAMED of it right now. He's right, and you KNOW it.
I'm not one of your constituents, and I very rarely write to my congresscritters (as they seem to be more responsive to lobbyists demands than public good). I just wanted to thank you for your efforts to block the disasterous ATA (anti-terrorism act) and the Bush Administration's drive to completely shred what is left of our Constitution.
Their rush to defend our freedoms by destroying them chills me. I am more afraid of THEIR efforts than the actions of the most black-hearted terrorist, as it is abundantly clear which will have more disasterous long term effects.
Please continue to defend our civil liberties by preventing kneejerk reactionary responses similar to what we saw in the McCarthy Era and the Cold War.
HP's policy regarding RAND may have been mis-interpreted by the public and the press, because the name of an HP attorney appears on the Patent Policy Framework draft. Of the participants in the W3C Patent Policy Working Group, HP has been the most vigorous proponent of the importance of avoiding patent encumbrances on W3C Recommendations.
:) You are, of course, correct.
EEEP sorry. My bad
Feel free to moderate me down, I jumped the gun.. don't worry I have karma to burn.
From this, i see:
0 81 6/
This Version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-2001
Latest Version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-policy/
Editor:
Daniel J. Weitzner, W3C/MIT, djweitzner@w3.org
Authors:
Michele Herman, Microsoft, micheleh@microsoft.com
Scott Peterson, Hewlett-Packard, scott_k_peterson@hp.com
Tony Piotrowski, Philips, tony.piotrowski@philips.com
Barry Rein, Pennie & Edmonds (for W3C), barry@pennie.com
Daniel Weitzner, W3C/MIT, djweitzner@w3.org
Helene Plotka Workman, Apple Computer, plotka@apple.com
What gives?
This is what buffers and FIFO's are for... to allow transfer of data between two asychronous streams; specifically, when either the consumer or the producer has large amounts of jitter (hint: think PAUSE). All such buffers are circular, because making an infinite size FIFO is impossible. Hence: this patent IS obvious AND has prior art. Just because you think it is clever doesn't mean a damn thing.
.wma, .asf and .ram are also very well documented. Doesn't mean you are allowed to write a program that can read them. So what use are they to me?
Ever wonder WHY MP3s are popular? Ever wonder WHY DivX is popular? Like it or not, the masses have discovered that bits are BITS, and any number of legal wrangling and preaching over the evils of "piracy" aren't going to change that. The public has spoken, and you are clearly not listening. The RIAA and MPAA would like you to think that MP3 and DivX technology are inherently evil by pointing to the number of "illegal" uses they are involved in. But by denying that MP3 and DIVX have utility and by painting the masses who use them (yes, even illegally) as ignorant and immoral for not being good corporate lackeys is just making you look even more elitest than the worst GNU/Linux/*nix/engineer/hacker.
So, your comment appears to be nothing more than standard anti-MS zealotry. I agree, sickening.
You are conveniently forgetting the fact that it is MS's WET DREAM to completely own the codec space. Why WOULDN'T MS want to be the single source for codecs?
step 1: they could easily lock out other OS's from having functional media players
step 2: they could rigidly enforce their own defacto SSSCA
step 3: they could make sure the only online (and offline for that matter) multimedia content is MS/TimeWarner/AOL/MSNBC approved.
I assume you think this is a good thing. How sad.
If not, I am going to guess you are another pathitic MS astroturfer.
Because anything not blessed off by the RIAA/MPAA is automatically copyright infringement. I honestly think this is what they think....
Bold/italic mine.
Try brushing up on your reading comprehension, and maybe take your ritalin before posting.
HUH? To post here, I have to preference EVERYTHING i say with an 'IMHO'?
Did you just arrive here from AOL or are you just irretrievably stupid?
The author expressed his OPINION. I read it, and understood immediately that this was an OPINION.
He may be right; he may be wrong. Either way, he is allowed to express his opinion. You, as the reader, are supposed to understand that when somebody says something, it is an OPINION.
In fact, the OPINION he presented was a completely valid interpretation of the MS lackey's asinine comment, and I suspect you know this, hence your idiotic "FUD FUD FUD" bleatings.
And let's not even get into the copyright issue. Under American law, any monopoly which leverages intellectual property to preserve their monopoly has their work turned over to the public domain. This isn't something the Feds or the state AGs are pursuing, because they probably think that would kill Microsoft outright, and they don't want to do that. But how long until Sun, or IBM, or someone else, discovers this--I'd be surprised if they didn't know it already--and files a suit in Federal court to get Windows turned over to the public domain, and thus slaughters Microsoft outright?
.asf and .wma) and document formats, and make sure others can always make software that interoperates correctly with MS's stuff. That is the best "legal" and "moral" way of allowing free competition, yet everybody always ignores it in favor of the breakup hype.
Holy fuck. I had no idea this was actually IN the law.. do you have a reference? Up until now, I had always used that argument somewhat facetiously ("Want to break MS's monopoly? Refuse to enforce their IP").
This would be an outstanding outcome.
Weaken MS's copyright and patents, specifically those on their streaming media formats (like
If there are any good comments on this, I will personally compile them and send her a response letter.
Some hints on various places to attack:
I have always believed that the protection of intellectual
property rights is as important as the protection of any other
property right. Moreover, the protection of intellectual property is
vital to a flourishing economy -- particularly in California.
America's music, movie, and software industries are second to
none, and we export far more intellectual property than we import.
This is good for employment, and good for consumers.
This paragraph is Feinstein basically saying that $$$ is more important than her constituents freedom. While this comes as no surprise, don't you think its interesting that she has enough cahones to actually come out and say it?
Without strong copyright protections, the incentive to
innovate would be diminished. In fact, this issue was so important
to the Founding Fathers that the ability of Congress to protect
copyrights is actually written into our Constitution itself.
This completely ignores T. Jefferson's many misgivings over IP law (do a search on google, this is quoted plenty by others quite a bit). Not only that, but the wording in the Constitution itself is VERY weak. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Corporations' monetary interests should be protected at all costs with PERMANENT monopoly status (see also Congress' affection for extending copyright/patent durations every few years)
but we must work to prevent the
creation of perfect, digital copies of copyrighted works which can
be illegally distributed throughout the world
This illuminates a fundamental flaw in her understanding of information theory. Bits are bits. They are by definition "perfectly copiable" No amount of wrangling is going to prevent them from being copyable. The only thing that will prevent copying of bits like this is a complete police state, which she seems to think is a small price to pay to protect the California entertainment industry's enormous profits.
While I agree with you in principle, this does tickle something in the back of my brain. If the DMCA causes so many people to wish to remain anonymous when they discover a vulnerability, why not FLOOD the media with bogus exploit reports? Just claim you won't release it due to the DMCA. Eventually, if enough random hackers do this, and enough people buy it, there will be so much paranoia of "hidden" exploits, that eventually somebody will call for mass disclosure. And the only way this can happen is for global DMCA amnesty.. similar to what brought about whistle blower legislation.
Using the Jim/Carol/Bob terminology...
If Jim wants to send Carol some information that they BOTH don't want Bob to see, no problem. This is the intent of crypto.
However, as soon as Carol decides that she doesn't mind Bob also getting the information, it is all over. No amout of crypto can prevent that transaction.
Given this quite obvious fact, it suprises me that ANY real crypto guy would even bother touching this problem.
When you patent something, you make its design public knowledge. No one can use that knowledge without your permission. Thus refusing to document an API because it's patented is inherently contradictory.
Very true. But in this PARTICULAR situation, Trident is no doubt in the process of obtaining patent(s). Which means that from their perspective they need to play it safe until the patent has been awarded. I'm not a fan of patents, but this is the way the game is (and always has been) played.
In many cases, API hoarding is done by a CTO or a product manager or two who thinks their technology is so wonderful and original that 1) nobody has done it before 2) nobody is smart enough to do it on their own and 3) exposing the API will allow somebody to "steal" their brilliant idea.
Very rarely does this type of CTO/manager have any academic/scientific background; normally they are MBA types who think every passing clever idea they have is a potential make-money-fast scheme.
Most REAL engineers/scientists realize that most everything has already been done, and most "innovations" are built upon millions of other (much older) ideas.
Unfortunately, most of the population does not belong in this category, and thinks that Salad Shooters(TM) need patent protection.
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't Drink,' which doesn't quite go with item 2,
and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As
far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made
of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from
outer of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon came
from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock
came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know
Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
it because the list says so. That's circular logic. That's no different
than saying 'Hank's right because he says he's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
around to Hank's way of thinking!"
Me: "But... oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary blushes. John says: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's
way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary looks positively stricken. John shouts: "There's no need for such
language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it
would be out of the question?"
Mary sticks her fingers in her ears: "I am not listening to this. La la
la la la la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat
that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary faints. John catches her: "Well, if I'd known you where one of those,
I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you,
I'll be there counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for
you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I
found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
"Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would
I want to kiss his ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars; and if
you don't, he'll kick the shit out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank
owns this town. He can do what ever wants, and what he wants is to give
you a million dollars, but he can't until you kiss his ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million
dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has he given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the
money and he kicks the shit out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the
million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year,
and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think he'll actually give you the money if you've
never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll
get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a
twenty dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And
remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass he'll kick the shit of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to him, get the details straight
from him..."Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss his ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his ass. Other
times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing
Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank,
that Hank wanted you to kiss his ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl's got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining
the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for your self."
John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on "From the desk of
Karl" letterhead. There were eleven items listed:
From the desk of: KARL
1. Kiss Hank's ass and he'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't drink.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's ass or he'll kick the shit out of you.Me: "But 9 says 'Don't Drink,' which doesn't quite go with item 2,
and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As
far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made
of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from
outer of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon came
from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock
came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know
Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
it because the list says so. That's circular logic. That's no different
than saying 'Hank's right because he says he's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
around to Hank's way of thinking!"
Me: "But... oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary blushes. John says: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's
way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary looks positively stricken. John shouts: "There's no need for such
language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it
would be out of the question?"
Mary sticks her fingers in her ears: "I am not listening to this. La la
la la la la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat
that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary faints. John catches her: "Well, if I'd known you where one of those,
I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you,
I'll be there counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for
you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
Me: "This would appear to be written on Karl's Letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's
handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of
philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're
different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough
for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides,
item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and
item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone
knows those things are right, so the rest must be true too."
I'll waste my extra +1 bonus and a bit of karma if only another moderator sees the parent.