The patent system was "designed" in the 18th century and earlier. I don't think a lot of technological devices were being mass-produced back then. I do think a lot of technological devices were doing the mass-producing of non-patented products. I think the patent system was designed more to encourage disclosure than to "protect" products.
I disagree. The profuseness of malware does not come from Windows boxes being homogeneous. It comes from security design flaws in the Windows operating system and in popular Microsoft applications.
Rather than post a million times about DARPA, why not note that the Mosaic browser (without which the WWW *never* would have become big) was funded by Al Gore's legislation, and that his initiative opened up the Internet to the kind of use it sees today. What we now know as the Internet exists largely thanks to Al Gore.
The context of the quote was his legislative activity. It was obvious in context he was not talking about invention of technology. If you ask the average Joe Internet User for an exhaustive list of everything he does on the Internet, chances are you'll get a list of web sites that could not exist prior to Gore's legislation opening things up beyond the educational institutions, government bodies, and very limited set of companies on the Internet previously. Gore saying he took initiative in creating the Internet is no exaggeration.
No, you don't understand. The supreme court does not think software patents are legal. Yet they are legal. (Law is what happens to you in court, not some legal theory with legislation and the Supreme Court at the top.)
That doesn't particularly bother me. What bothers me is that the US Supreme Court's thinking doesn't make it true either. Software patents are illegal in the US, but there they are!
I fault Microsoft. Microsoft's insecure formats for documents and
spreadsheets have trained users to click "yes" to "Are you sure you
want to open this?" messages. If I had to open 50 such files a day in
the course of my work, as many people do, I probably would have clicked right through the applet
dialog box myself.
There are no elected representatives, and no law allowing for software patents. Lower courts (not the Supreme Court) and/or the USPTO are to blame. Technically, "the law" in the U.S. does not allow software patents. Practically, however, the law is what happens to you in court. Don't take what I'm saying as legal advice.
Congress has never legislated specifically about software patents. The Supreme Court has always ruled that software for general-purpose digital computers is not statutory material for a patent. No "rethinking" is necessary at those levels for software patents to be illegal. It's lower courts and/or the patent office that need to stop thumbing their nose at the law of the land by granting patents on software, or on software plus insignificant post-solution activity.
Seriously, all the alarmist talk around here about "OMGWTFLOLBBQ!!!11one just more evidence that software patents are eilv!" is nothing more than silly if you have half a clue. There are definitely problems with the system, but THIS is not indicative of THAT problem.
The dissent in Diamond v. Diehr (1981) made reference to arguments against software patents, including the fact that it would be very difficult for the patent office to handle the load and process the patent applications properly. If your analysis of this patent is correct, it only lends credibility to that argument against software patents.
As for Apple winning this case so long as they have decent lawyers: Many people think that Microsoft was not infringing the Stac patent. Do you attribute Microsoft's loss in that case to lack of decent lawyers?
I have to admit I've never seen a portability problem with a C#/.NET applet designed to run in web browsers on win32/Linux/BSD/MacOS/Solaris/Irix/HP-UX/AIX/etc.
The blanket "intellectual property" term covering trademarks, copyright and patents causes a lot of confusion, including yours. Its trademarks where you can lose rights in this way. Patents have no such rule. In fact, that's one of the few ways people can make money from software patents. Watch an algorithm work its way into widespread use, then start suing when it it would be difficult for people to turn back.
Like a lot of other right-wingers, you claim that the real problem leading to 9/11 was lack of focus during the Clinton administration, and Clarke is playing politics.
If Clarke wanted to play politics, the obvious thing to do would be to blame Clinton. Then he would have the current administration on his side, thus gaining more political clout. To choose the course of action he chose as a way of "playing politics," Clarke would have to be a complete moron.
I agree that there's too much RMS bashing, and I agree that he makes a valid, lucid point here and explained why software patents are evil. However, unless the CNET interview he referred to has changed since RMS replied to it, Gates did not try to change the subject or confuse things. The question posed to him was a mix of "intellectual property" issues. Gates even said something about patent law needing some adjustment. There are enough real things one can bash Gates on. No need for exaggeration.
Google may have had no chance but to fire this guy. The SEC is very strict about any kind of financial information employees share. Even a vague summary of an internal financial presentation posted to a blog could mean trouble. Any appearance of Google trying to talk up its stock through underhanded means would be investigated.
A lot of us. His kernel didn't just "morph" into a full-featured OS with lots of applications. What we now know as Linux or GNU/Linux was the project of a lot of people.
If the language makes it easy to filter input, and if you teach about filtering input in the same place you teach about accepting input, then security problems from newbies can be dramatically lessened.
Your example shows filtering on output. Which part of "filtered on input" did you not understand? If you accept input, you need to filter input. Telling programmers to work harder if they are not filtering input is the right approach. If PHP had imitated the BRLdefine-input syntax it would be easier. Easy or not, it has to be done.
Fortran is hardly used these days, while SQL is still ubiquitous. In recent years people seem to have stopped predicting SQL's demise. SQL has its weaknesses, but is extremely useful if you know its strengths.
If people would use PostgreSQL instead of DB2 and Jetty/JBoss (or other free alternatives) instead of Websphere they could run their apps on just about any OS. Or if they used a free OS, particularly one supported by IBM, they could run their proprietary IBM software. Or run free software on a free OS and be ready for anything.
Slashdot Mirror
The patent system was "designed" in the 18th century and earlier. I don't think a lot of technological devices were being mass-produced back then. I do think a lot of technological devices were doing the mass-producing of non-patented products. I think the patent system was designed more to encourage disclosure than to "protect" products.
I disagree. The profuseness of malware does not come from Windows boxes being homogeneous. It comes from security design flaws in the Windows operating system and in popular Microsoft applications.
Rather than post a million times about DARPA, why not note that the Mosaic browser (without which the WWW *never* would have become big) was funded by Al Gore's legislation, and that his initiative opened up the Internet to the kind of use it sees today. What we now know as the Internet exists largely thanks to Al Gore.
The context of the quote was his legislative activity. It was obvious in context he was not talking about invention of technology. If you ask the average Joe Internet User for an exhaustive list of everything he does on the Internet, chances are you'll get a list of web sites that could not exist prior to Gore's legislation opening things up beyond the educational institutions, government bodies, and very limited set of companies on the Internet previously. Gore saying he took initiative in creating the Internet is no exaggeration.
No, you don't understand. The supreme court does not think software patents are legal. Yet they are legal. (Law is what happens to you in court, not some legal theory with legislation and the Supreme Court at the top.)
He's astroturfing for the American Angle Brackets Manufacturers Association.
That doesn't particularly bother me. What bothers me is that the US Supreme Court's thinking doesn't make it true either. Software patents are illegal in the US, but there they are!
So what? Software can't be patented either, yet there are tons of software patents. Just go ahead and apply for patents on the disclosed software.
I fault Microsoft. Microsoft's insecure formats for documents and spreadsheets have trained users to click "yes" to "Are you sure you want to open this?" messages. If I had to open 50 such files a day in the course of my work, as many people do, I probably would have clicked right through the applet dialog box myself.
There are no elected representatives, and no law allowing for software patents. Lower courts (not the Supreme Court) and/or the USPTO are to blame. Technically, "the law" in the U.S. does not allow software patents. Practically, however, the law is what happens to you in court. Don't take what I'm saying as legal advice.
Congress has never legislated specifically about software patents. The Supreme Court has always ruled that software for general-purpose digital computers is not statutory material for a patent. No "rethinking" is necessary at those levels for software patents to be illegal. It's lower courts and/or the patent office that need to stop thumbing their nose at the law of the land by granting patents on software, or on software plus insignificant post-solution activity.
The dissent in Diamond v. Diehr (1981) made reference to arguments against software patents, including the fact that it would be very difficult for the patent office to handle the load and process the patent applications properly. If your analysis of this patent is correct, it only lends credibility to that argument against software patents.
As for Apple winning this case so long as they have decent lawyers: Many people think that Microsoft was not infringing the Stac patent. Do you attribute Microsoft's loss in that case to lack of decent lawyers?
I have to admit I've never seen a portability problem with a C#/.NET applet designed to run in web browsers on win32/Linux/BSD/MacOS/Solaris/Irix/HP-UX/AIX/etc.
The blanket "intellectual property" term covering trademarks, copyright and patents causes a lot of confusion, including yours. Its trademarks where you can lose rights in this way. Patents have no such rule. In fact, that's one of the few ways people can make money from software patents. Watch an algorithm work its way into widespread use, then start suing when it it would be difficult for people to turn back.
Like a lot of other right-wingers, you claim that the real problem leading to 9/11 was lack of focus during the Clinton administration, and Clarke is playing politics.
If Clarke wanted to play politics, the obvious thing to do would be to blame Clinton. Then he would have the current administration on his side, thus gaining more political clout. To choose the course of action he chose as a way of "playing politics," Clarke would have to be a complete moron.
Algorithms are abstract ideas, and thus are not part of what can be patented.
I agree that there's too much RMS bashing, and I agree that he makes a valid, lucid point here and explained why software patents are evil. However, unless the CNET interview he referred to has changed since RMS replied to it, Gates did not try to change the subject or confuse things. The question posed to him was a mix of "intellectual property" issues. Gates even said something about patent law needing some adjustment. There are enough real things one can bash Gates on. No need for exaggeration.
Google may have had no chance but to fire this guy. The SEC is very strict about any kind of financial information employees share. Even a vague summary of an internal financial presentation posted to a blog could mean trouble. Any appearance of Google trying to talk up its stock through underhanded means would be investigated.
A lot of us. His kernel didn't just "morph" into a full-featured OS with lots of applications. What we now know as Linux or GNU/Linux was the project of a lot of people.
If the language makes it easy to filter input, and if you teach about filtering input in the same place you teach about accepting input, then security problems from newbies can be dramatically lessened.
Your example shows filtering on output. Which part of "filtered on input" did you not understand? If you accept input, you need to filter input. Telling programmers to work harder if they are not filtering input is the right approach. If PHP had imitated the BRL define-input syntax it would be easier. Easy or not, it has to be done.
Fortran is hardly used these days, while SQL is still ubiquitous. In recent years people seem to have stopped predicting SQL's demise. SQL has its weaknesses, but is extremely useful if you know its strengths.
pool/main/m/mp3c/mp3c_0.29-2_i386.deb
If people would use PostgreSQL instead of DB2 and Jetty/JBoss (or other free alternatives) instead of Websphere they could run their apps on just about any OS. Or if they used a free OS, particularly one supported by IBM, they could run their proprietary IBM software. Or run free software on a free OS and be ready for anything.