The state has jurisdiction over you if you are there. They also have jurisdiction over the shipper, but likely only go after the big fish. Have you noticed how the large online retailers charge state tax for those states that tax such transactions?
I remember hearing a few years back that there is a significant enforcement problem for the states because they don't have access to the records of a company if it is out of state.
This is important. Many online retailers have been hurting since before the stock market collapse. The tax exemption helps offset the shipping costs associated with their business model.
An inventor can only make a living by his invention if by some mechanism he retains exclusive use of it.
Not so. How is it possible to find "prior art" which is not patented? Are all such examples produced by starving idealists? I think not. Educators, hobbyists, and business people have innovated/invented from before the time you were born and will do so long after, without bothering to encumber themselves with patent paperwork.
As a small example, if you work, do you make a living at your job? Have you ever done anything you consider original and not obvious? Did you patent all such things?
History is very clear on this point - prior to the development and refinement of intellectual property laws many innovators were undercut and made destitute by competitors that freely copied their innovations but were not saddled with the development costs
When did this stop happening?
Had the US not provided protections to inventors we would not have been marked by the unprecedented degree of scientific and technical advances that we have in fact enjoyed but by a medieval rate of scientific progress
I cannot agree with that statement. How big was Einstein's patent portfolio? Are we marginalizing anyone that does not patent what they do? Think about that one.
One of the most recognizable signors of the Declaration of Independence comes to mind: Benjamin Franklin. He was 100% against the slippery notion of intellectual monopoly.
This opinion coming from a man that was not only a patriot and intellectual; he was also an inventor.
His rational voice, and that of others that shared his opinion, was not enough to at the time and thus we have article 1, section 8.
Why should any company have the law enforcement backed authority to shakedown individuals for cash for any concept or idea? Don't tell me the founding fathers of the US thought it was a good idea. All of them did not.
Running around like squirrels looking for prior art whenever the specter of an intellectual monopoly threatens the free and open use of a key technology is missing the real point here.
Uhhh, not in the USA. You, me, and most small towns don't have the money to defend themselves in court for the years it takes to resolve an IP dispute with a large company like IBM. A lawsuite from them or any giant company is the end of the battle even when they are wrong. That is the real world. Learn to recognize it. You are in it.
There are movies every now and then that I would like to watch with my under-8-year-old kids, but the few spots with fu*k type words and/or scenes with excessive gore nix that option.
In my opinion, you can pull these things out many times without affecting the plot in any way. I'll buy this box as soon as it shows up at Walmart.
And what about all those times you hit "refresh" because a graphic or two got garbled on the way to your browser? I hit refresh alot (maybe more than I need to.) I hit refresh on the Slashdot URL a few times an hour just to see what is new.
Absolutely charging $.01 per page is a bad idea. My mom might look at a few pages per week, but I have two machines on all the time each with one or 2 browser windows open.
If there is a charge per page, something on the order of $.00001 may be more reasonable than $.01 per page.
The welcome mat has been placed for the legal community to rile up intellectual property litigation on campus between students and staff. Hurray!
Intellectual monopoly rights issues just keep popping up everywhere. Take that as evidence that there must be something fundamentally natural and right about the concept.
If you could get an patent on a method for doing something by using LEGO bricks, you could likewise get a patent on a method for doing the same thing using software.
The big deal is where we draw the line. Do we draw it anywhere or is everything patentable? Do you think patents benefit small inventors and society, or have you been told this. Knowing and being told are very different things.
Faster on a fast machine
on
Java IDEs?
·
· Score: 2
I've used ForteCE (SUN) and VisualAge (IBM) and liked things about both of them. They both have quirks, but the quirks are overshadowed by the price (FREE).
Something both of these products have in common is that they are resource hogs that bog your machine down and require very fast CPUs to be usable. If you have a fast machine, try them.
Ask a sharp programmer to estimate the time to develop a software solution and he might shrug and look irritated. Ask him if 2 weeks will be enough time, and there is an 80% chance he will say "of course" no matter what the task!
Gung-ho programmers are optimists. Couple optimism with the ennumerable factors involved in programming a non trivial application and you will get what we have today.
By the way. I am a programmer and I have little to no confidence in my time-estimation abilities, or anyone elses. It has taken me 14 years to come to grips with that.
Phil Katz (creator of Pkzip) is an aberation in the world of patent filers. Perhaps because he was altruistic (or drunk), he spent a few thousand $ to patent the algorithm then let everyone use it. Most patent filers extend a hand only for you to put money into it.
(a) There is evidence that in other technology arenas RAND standards work perfectly well. For example, CD players, TVs, phones, all come with significant patent royalty obligations for their producers, but these devices are nevertheless widely available at seemingly affordable prices.
My CD player is manufactured by a large company. Little guys cannot afford to build these things, so royalty payments are a non issue there.
In stark contrast, much of the software innovation we have all benefited from has come from small players. These inventors and innovators sometimes create their masterpeices at night, in the basement, in the garage, in the den, in the dormroom and then release their wares to the world through web-pages. Most of these folks cannot afford the legal staff to research patent infringement liability risks and pay royalty fees for the right to sell the fruit of their labors.
I suspect that if today's software patent mass-acceptance had started in the 70's, there would be no Linux (Unix would have been patented by AT&T and Linus would have received a nasty letter to cease and desist), No Pkzip -> Winzip, no dBase clones, no SQL clones. Heck, I'm thinking half the algorithms in my computer science text books would be unavailable for general use.
500 more examiners just means we will see more patents coming out of the mill, not better ones.
The problem we face is not that we do not have enough examiner staff to properly consider submissions. Rather, the fundamental problem is that we give monopoly rights to software at all.
Software patents do not serve the public interest. Instead, they constitute at the best roadblocks -- useful ideas off limits to the public, and at the worst, landmines
Absolutely.
The best way expose the faults of the software patent system is to expose the damage it does, not just talk about it. Kudos to W3C if they make a policy of "no standard for royalty burdened patents. It may take a few years but eventually the comfortable computer community will notice that the available standards suck and are missing obvious and necessary solutions.
If W3C makes a practice of including patented technology, they become a money-making tool for opportunists and big businesses. You don't think smart execs see the $ in getting their patented stuff in a W3C standard?
There may be something here, but only if we consider intent.
I'm not so sure it is *okay* to blame microsoft when a radical group targets our technology to create caos, no matter how open and configurable, or insecure, the affected software is. It is not in our best interest to act that way.
If a kid releases a computer virus because he thinks it is cool or fun; maybe we treat that like kids at school dumping white powder on a teacher's desk.
Summary --- Punishment should match the intent and the damage done.
Make sure the tech team at your local French hospital apply all patches to the communication software or else you might get operated on by a script kiddie from China.
I don't care what internet this runs through, I want a real doctor in the room with me.
For USA callers: If you try calling long distance and get "all circuits are busy", you can try a different long distance company no matter who you use normally. Type the following numbers to get the listed provider: 10333 - Sprint 10222 - MCI 10288 - ATT
Sometimes you can get through this way. Good luck.
Uhhh, wouldn't MS just stop selling "Windows" and start selling a derived product with a new name? Isn't that what any smart businessman would do under the punishment you describe?
Think C# after the courts said they could no longer enhance their J++ offering.
At any point in time a $20 bill is worth $20 in those day's dollars. That is of course, until the US government goes bankrupt.
Until then, you can decompose a bill into its constituent atoms and price each one, but that is missing the point. It is worth $20 because the US government guarantees to pay the amount printed on the face.
This is not gold we are talking about here dudes.
Gold is more like the commodities being sold in these games. There is no value printed on them backed up by an institution. Commodities, unlike currency, are worth whatever people are willing to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
The state has jurisdiction over you if you are there. They also have jurisdiction over the shipper, but likely only go after the big fish. Have you noticed how the large online retailers charge state tax for those states that tax such transactions?
I remember hearing a few years back that there is a significant enforcement problem for the states because they don't have access to the records of a company if it is out of state.
This is important. Many online retailers have been hurting since before the stock market collapse. The tax exemption helps offset the shipping costs associated with their business model.
An inventor can only make a living by his invention if by some mechanism he retains exclusive use of it.
Not so. How is it possible to find "prior art" which is not patented? Are all such examples produced by starving idealists? I think not. Educators, hobbyists, and business people have innovated/invented from before the time you were born and will do so long after, without bothering to encumber themselves with patent paperwork.
As a small example, if you work, do you make a living at your job? Have you ever done anything you consider original and not obvious? Did you patent all such things?
History is very clear on this point - prior to the development and refinement of intellectual property laws many innovators were undercut and made destitute by competitors that freely copied their innovations but were not saddled with the development costs
When did this stop happening?
Had the US not provided protections to inventors we would not have been marked by the unprecedented degree of scientific and technical advances that we have in fact enjoyed but by a medieval rate of scientific progress
I cannot agree with that statement. How big was Einstein's patent portfolio? Are we marginalizing anyone that does not patent what they do? Think about that one.
One of the most recognizable signors of the Declaration of Independence comes to mind: Benjamin Franklin. He was 100% against the slippery notion of intellectual monopoly.
This opinion coming from a man that was not only a patriot and intellectual; he was also an inventor.
His rational voice, and that of others that shared his opinion, was not enough to at the time and thus we have article 1, section 8.
Why should any company have the law enforcement backed authority to shakedown individuals for cash for any concept or idea? Don't tell me the founding fathers of the US thought it was a good idea. All of them did not.
Running around like squirrels looking for prior art whenever the specter of an intellectual monopoly threatens the free and open use of a key technology is missing the real point here.
When IBM sue you, they lose
Uhhh, not in the USA. You, me, and most small towns don't have the money to defend themselves in court for the years it takes to resolve an IP dispute with a large company like IBM. A lawsuite from them or any giant company is the end of the battle even when they are wrong. That is the real world. Learn to recognize it. You are in it.
I hit refresh on the Slashdot URL a few times an hour just to see what is new.
Read & Think before you post. It's only polite.
There are movies every now and then that I would like to watch with my under-8-year-old kids, but the few spots with fu*k type words and/or scenes with excessive gore nix that option.
In my opinion, you can pull these things out many times without affecting the plot in any way. I'll buy this box as soon as it shows up at Walmart.
And what about all those times you hit "refresh" because a graphic or two got garbled on the way to your browser? I hit refresh alot (maybe more than I need to.) I hit refresh on the Slashdot URL a few times an hour just to see what is new.
Absolutely charging $.01 per page is a bad idea. My mom might look at a few pages per week, but I have two machines on all the time each with one or 2 browser windows open.
If there is a charge per page, something on the order of $.00001 may be more reasonable than $.01 per page.
The welcome mat has been placed for the legal community to rile up intellectual property litigation on campus between students and staff. Hurray!
Intellectual monopoly rights issues just keep popping up everywhere. Take that as evidence that there must be something fundamentally natural and right about the concept.
If you could get an patent on a method for doing something by using LEGO bricks, you could likewise get a patent on a method for doing the same thing using software.
The big deal is where we draw the line. Do we draw it anywhere or is everything patentable? Do you think patents benefit small inventors and society, or have you been told this. Knowing and being told are very different things.
I've used ForteCE (SUN) and VisualAge (IBM) and liked things about both of them. They both have quirks, but the quirks are overshadowed by the price (FREE).
Something both of these products have in common is that they are resource hogs that bog your machine down and require very fast CPUs to be usable. If you have a fast machine, try them.
Ask a sharp programmer to estimate the time to develop a software solution and he might shrug and look irritated. Ask him if 2 weeks will be enough time, and there is an 80% chance he will say "of course" no matter what the task!
Gung-ho programmers are optimists. Couple optimism with the ennumerable factors involved in programming a non trivial application and you will get what we have today.
By the way. I am a programmer and I have little to no confidence in my time-estimation abilities, or anyone elses. It has taken me 14 years to come to grips with that.
Phil Katz (creator of Pkzip) is an aberation in the world of patent filers. Perhaps because he was altruistic (or drunk), he spent a few thousand $ to patent the algorithm then let everyone use it. Most patent filers extend a hand only for you to put money into it.
(a) There is evidence that in other technology arenas RAND standards work perfectly well. For example, CD players, TVs, phones, all come with significant patent royalty obligations for their producers, but these devices are nevertheless widely available at seemingly affordable prices.
My CD player is manufactured by a large company. Little guys cannot afford to build these things, so royalty payments are a non issue there.
In stark contrast, much of the software innovation we have all benefited from has come from small players. These inventors and innovators sometimes create their masterpeices at night, in the basement, in the garage, in the den, in the dormroom and then release their wares to the world through web-pages. Most of these folks cannot afford the legal staff to research patent infringement liability risks and pay royalty fees for the right to sell the fruit of their labors.
I suspect that if today's software patent mass-acceptance had started in the 70's, there would be no Linux (Unix would have been patented by AT&T and Linus would have received a nasty letter to cease and desist), No Pkzip -> Winzip, no dBase clones, no SQL clones. Heck, I'm thinking half the algorithms in my computer science text books would be unavailable for general use.
Who's interests are we serving?
500 more examiners just means we will see more patents coming out of the mill, not better ones.
The problem we face is not that we do not have enough examiner staff to properly consider submissions. Rather, the fundamental problem is that we give monopoly rights to software at all.
Money drowns out common sense any day.
Software patents do not serve the public interest. Instead, they constitute at the best roadblocks -- useful ideas off limits to the public, and at the worst, landmines
Absolutely.
The best way expose the faults of the software patent system is to expose the damage it does, not just talk about it. Kudos to W3C if they make a policy of "no standard for royalty burdened patents. It may take a few years but eventually the comfortable computer community will notice that the available standards suck and are missing obvious and necessary solutions.
If W3C makes a practice of including patented technology, they become a money-making tool for opportunists and big businesses. You don't think smart execs see the $ in getting their patented stuff in a W3C standard?
There may be something here, but only if we consider intent.
I'm not so sure it is *okay* to blame microsoft when a radical group targets our technology to create caos, no matter how open and configurable, or insecure, the affected software is. It is not in our best interest to act that way.
If a kid releases a computer virus because he thinks it is cool or fun; maybe we treat that like kids at school dumping white powder on a teacher's desk.
Summary --- Punishment should match the intent and the damage done.
And space invaders.
For some reason Lego masterpieces look better. Maybe it is because they have smooth sides and toys like this, teknic, and construct don't.
Make sure the tech team at your local French hospital apply all patches to the communication software or else you might get operated on by a script kiddie from China.
I don't care what internet this runs through, I want a real doctor in the room with me.
For USA callers: If you try calling long distance and get "all circuits are busy", you can try a different long distance company no matter who you use normally. Type the following numbers to get the listed provider:
10333 - Sprint
10222 - MCI
10288 - ATT
Sometimes you can get through this way. Good luck.
http://kinya.com/view.html
Very black day around the world.
Uhhh, wouldn't MS just stop selling "Windows" and start selling a derived product with a new name? Isn't that what any smart businessman would do under the punishment you describe?
Think C# after the courts said they could no longer enhance their J++ offering.
At any point in time a $20 bill is worth $20 in those day's dollars. That is of course, until the US government goes bankrupt.
Until then, you can decompose a bill into its constituent atoms and price each one, but that is missing the point. It is worth $20 because the US government guarantees to pay the amount printed on the face.
This is not gold we are talking about here dudes.
Gold is more like the commodities being sold in these games. There is no value printed on them backed up by an institution. Commodities, unlike currency, are worth whatever people are willing to pay.