It could be argued now that the first BIOS clone made by compaq violated a copyright, as it duplicated the functionality exactly.
And this was Sony's arguement when they went against Connectix and lost (one judge had half a clue)
However, the extent of copyright/trademark infringement depends on what is being infringed. IANAL, (and you should find an _informed_ lawyer) but gameplay is not copyrightable. Similar trademarks probably infringes on their tademark, and they should try to defend that. The graphics are copyrightable, but if they are significantly different and have the same gameplay, then that's ok.
My guess is that these companies that were sued by Hasbro got a "sweetheart deal" to cease and decist (maybe even Hasbro said "we will ask for just $1.00 for infringement, but you gotta keep this secret). The companies, even though they made valid "non infringing clones" probably said to themselves "you know, we would lose more money in a protracted legal battle with these guys than we would earn off the game themselves, so it's a better business decision to fold".
I believe this is the scenario that played out. Because look at what Hasbro got back in return - the ability to strike fear into every "clone" maker, whether this fear is justified or not, which is worth far more than the peanuts they would have gotten from these guys. (They got peanuts anyway!). Look at the confusion in all the different posts here. Fine example of FUD purchased.
But it's not just Slashdotters who are confused about copyright - everybody is. Including, which is very depressing to say, our lower courts. So we are in good (bad!) company. The erosion of our public "copyright" has reached the point where we have been put in a "virtual prison", and have by illusion have lost all our rights given to us by our constitution. I say by "illusion", because companies want us to believe that we don't own the work that they sell us, that we just "rent it".
The startling fact of the matter is, and some of you are going to have a hard time believing this is - but it's true- that copyright owners do not "own" the work that they have a copyright for. They own the right to copy only, not the work that they have a copyright for. See the link below to understand this (and before you email me in a huff). So the notion of "intellectual property" is not constitutional. Only the "right to copy" is constitutional.
Congress has sold us down the river Big Time. So even if you go to a lawyer now, you may not even get the "right story" about what your rights are under copyright law. If anybody wants to have _any_ right to fair use in the future, we have to get organized. Whatever shreds of public access to the works of authors, both past, present and future - we _must_ protect. It's so bad that nobody knows what those rights are any more, and especially what they should be. You must read this to appreciate fully what's going on here. And to understand that Congress has enacted unconstitutional laws at the bequest of companies, and nobody has noticed until now. Please email me if you are interested in organizing to reclaim our public rights, and that goes for anybody reading this post. It's going to be long, hard, and boring work. But it has to be done. I'm looking for coders (Java and C) and non-coders.
If you really love this game, then this is what I would do. Purchase a "legal copy" of the game. If its an arcade game, purchase the machine, even if it's non-working (look on ebay - alot of the old ones show up). Then you have a right to "fair use", meaning that you have a _right_ to copy it for personal reasons. Don't let anybody tell you FUD to the otherwise, even a lawyer. Then, make your "exact" clone.
When you got the game to be exact, change _all_ the graphics and sounds, and give it an _entirely_ different name (something that these guys being sued by Hasbro failed to do). Then post _that_ result to your website for good gaming among friends (and happy strangers who pass by!). And most importantly, post with a clean conscience, because that's what you should have.
There is more than one way to improve the performance of the system, and I would encourage the overclocking community to continue on finding those tweaks and optimizations. This isn't the end of the road, they just need to broaden their horizon.
Good points on the bar code scanner being programmed by itself reading in the codes. Having worked in a large SMT assembly plant, we programmed cards and tested them one at a time, even though we did thousands.
I believe that they use an industry standard 93lc46 serial EEPROM - see the link on parent. The old ones had one too.
I think that if they could program the serial number in advance, they would in a heartbeat. They would just incorporate it into the microcontrollers PROM and dispense with eeprom all together. But real life is not so easy.
During manufacturing there are always fall out (rejects) that sometimes don't get attended to until the end of the production run. Meanwhile they have to ship and invoice the units that they built, and bill whoever for making them. When they do so, it's _far_ easier to have sequential numbers than to have "holes" where the rejects would have been. In fact, with such a large quantity like this, that's they way it _has_ to be, because the work of keeping track of non-sequential serial numbers exceeds that of the work to program them on the line.
I am also positive that they test each unit. There's a little pot on the board that's there because the gain might need adjusting. Also the liability would be to great for killing somebody's motherboard because there was a short on the PS2 line somewhere. Plus, it is _always_ more expensive to haul a unit back in to repair it if it doesn't work, so testing pays for itself. When dealing in this kid of quantty, there will be failures with _every_ component used guaranteed, not to mention building errors. This unit uses a through hole capacitor, that is probably soldered in by hand, along with the phototransistor, and led plus connector. There are large lines of people that do this specifically (now you know why they do it in China!). Because humans are involved, they're bound to ge something wrong. If they unitentionally reverse the filter tantulum, they have a nasty habit of exploding like a firecracker (somebody reverse the cap to their Cuecat and let me know what happens!). Can you imagine that happening to somebody as they power up their PC??:-))) Even the SMT machine will place the part the wrong way, or somebody will load the microcontroller into the tube wrong and it will end up backwards. And then theres the league of bad parts, and no component is exempt from this.
So what they do is the plug it in (they probably have rows of PCs to do this simultaneously, and their made in China where labor is quite cheap). They probably have a program that spits out numbers off from a floppy (or something so they can keep track of the numbers dispensed) and sends them to the unit. Then they read the unit to make sure that the number was programmed ok.
There is probably a special bar code that they can scan to put it into "program mode", but because the numbers change from one unit to the next, those have to come from the computer (keyboard/maybe special interface). Then after they read the number they run a test to see that it scans codes ok, since it is already hooked up to program anyway. If the unit fails anywhere along the way, the computer takes back its serial number, and the unit is tagged and thrown into the bone pile to be repaired.
If somebody wanted to reverse engineer the serial id, they could lift the chip in there, put it in a programmer, and see what codes match the serial number. Then they could replace it with anything they wanted, reprogramm the chip, and stick it back in. (one way). Sure, working with SMT can be hard, but this chip is the easiest of the bunch. Plus, having a Metcal would make it infinitely easier. (It taks practice, and working an SMT plant you do get practice!)
There's no problem with a single company tracking purchases so they can target ad you. It's when all these companies take all this information, sell it to each other (tell Amazon what dark place they can stick their books BTW) and combine it - that's where the problem is.
Because they know what you have bought at all the stores, what you are reading, and what services you have ordered they can create a detailed profile of you. Then, by "data mining" they know what income you have, what possesions you own, what problems you have, what illnesses you have had in the past or might have in the future, what kind of employee you are, what kind of relationships you have, whether you should get insurance or not, wheteher you should get a house loan or not, do I need to go on???
Steve Ciarcia of Circuit Cellar fame said that "software is more expensive than hardware" and he was right. It would be easier to feed the raw output to your PC and decode it there rather than trying to stick it all into the microcontroller.
This is the same as my cue cat. And here I thought I was going to do well by the play by play of the circuit!!
I got delayed because from the description it became apparent that we are talking about two different cuecat internals.
Post #43 talks about it being a toshiba CPU. Specifically, this cpu belongs to TLCS 870 family of microcontrollers. It is register rich and C code compiles to it very easily. You use this kind of core if you want to do a lot of math on your data (so yeah, you could do a linux port!)
My Cuecat, like the one pictured in the above link, has a Hyundai 90c54 which is an 8051 knock off. Everybody and their dogs makes a souped up 8051 which this probably is. The memory is 8k byte wide (64k) which is a lot for a little microntroller. So, they must write their code in C, and do alot of processing on what it reads. My guess is that they switched to the 8051 core for cost reasons, as there is a bit of loss lead taking place. While the first response of some would be "I would have used a pic" I have found that in a manufacturing enviroment that 8051 can be more cost effective, just because there are so many of them available. Pics are good for small scale manufacturing.
Notice that the inside of the cuecat is black, and the top part of the housing has some black carboard material, black plastic piece cover, and the sensor had black tape around it. That's alot of effort to keep out extraneous light. They probably don't want _any_ extraneous reads (work first time). Nice touch to improve product acceptance.
The chip next to the photodiode is probably an OTA, (i.e. transconductance current amplifier), and the opamp next to it probably is used as an amplifier/comparator combination that feeds into the microcontroller.
From the description, it looks like that optics have been simplified also to remove the IR module and replace it with a photodiode/led light pipe combination. Again, cheaper to make. Notice that the photodiode sits an inch hehind a lens, and the diode has a pinhole covering. I think that achieves a camera obscura effect that probably means that it is very sensitive, can read at different angles and no miss reads. So it can probably read other barcodes where other readers might fail. Very cost effective design. I think that this optical systen is probably covered by patent "4,816,659 Bar code reader head".
Metrologic has three patents on barcode input going to browsers and the World Wide Web. So I would worry about them before I would worry about Cuecat.
On the serial id number, there has to be a way to program the device once it is assembled, so that means that it is probably done with a special sequence through the connector. Maybe even by typing in a special code!. So you 31337 types can get busy. Myself, I'd rather think about a more cost effective/easier to manufacture design. It is easier to design something anyway than to reverse engineer the whole thing. A great place to start is h ere, thanks to Mr. 1010011010 and his post #52 below:-)). I would use a pic in this, because it would be quick and easy. I also looked through the expired patents and got some good ideas how this design could be simplified.
The Cuecat does reflect alot of engineering that results in a robust design to achieve high performance. This is probably necessary to ensure consumer acceptance. I do not think it is the most efficient design though. For somebody who wants to make a cheap barcode reader for their own CD/book inventory, there are cheaper and easier ways to make their own, and achieve the same result (outside of obtaining more Cuecats/other bar code readers).
It's like the 'great and wonderful OZ' telling Dorothy "Don't look at that man behind the curtain"!!!!
Meanwhile, 'let the mists of legal stupor descend and do what we say, otherwise the entire world is going to rip us off into the poorhouse.'.
What's really ridiculous is their notion of 'first sale' applies only to the medium (the librarians covered this well) and not what's on the disc. So, gee, when you have your next garage sale, you can't sell your software, but you're welcome to sell a bunch of shiny coasters.
What a bunch of pricks.
I'm sorry for being vulgar, but traditional adjectives aren't adequate.
Yes, it's true. I am very grateful that a few individuals took the time to make very succinct and very clear arguements on what the corporations are trying to do and the problems with the DMCA. I thought that the comments made by the Digital Media Association were particularly sublime. They covered the problems of the shrinkrap license excellently.
I, for one, was not aware that the library of congress was accepting comments on the DMCA. I do remember a mention of it, but forgot. I think that these comments are reply comments from people who originally submitted comments, and not open to just everybody. I don't know though, and I wish I could have been better informed. It is a justifiable fear that congress will see the companies show up on the doorstep and take their word as informed knowledge, and assume that there really is only a couple of fanatics and some out of touch librarians to oppose them. Maybe because they manage to submit pages of 'informed' legal opinion makes them better too.
I really think that the majority of Slashdotters really do care. But we really are nerds dealing in the realm of technology, and not IP law. And honestly, we shouldn't have to get our hands dirty with this nonsense. It's because we see what is happening to the folks around us that we have to pay attention. Because we know what they are going through is wrong.
The problem is we need better organization outside of slashdot. Don't get me wrong, I love slashdot. But we need a few of us to keep others informed about where and when to send mail, who to contact and how to participate. We need to support each other to reclaim our rights, in what is an uphill battle dealing with many technically illiterate people in government and the judicial system.
So as enjoyable as it is to participate in the great KDE/Gnome flamewar, or discussing what is in RMS' beard, or playing with the trolls, maybe we need to make a couple of posts at someplace like eactivism.org and discuss how we can organize ourselves in an effective manner. Hopefully we can inform the general population that there are a few large companies that want to remove the notion of 'property' from their lives, and make them pay handsomely for whatever little they do get.
And maybe with a bit of luck, we can sound as eloquent as "those few" who took the time to sit down and make their careful and precious arguements as to why the DMCA, MPAA and pals are wrong.
I bet AOL thinks nothing will come of this because they are dealing with a 16 year old, and minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. So all those agreements that he had to 'click thru' to originally obtain the domain are probably null and void also. He'll be hard pressed to find an attorney.
Those were the "old-school" trolls. They're pretty rare these days. The only ones that are left are the new style "lamers". I would suggest to CmdrTaco to change the ability to have a mod option of "Lamer (-2)", as this new crop of lamers are dirtying the good name of "Troll" that they do not deserve to wear.
You (unitentionally) bring up some very interesting questions.
First, even though software carries a copyright notice, that's not really what manufacturers want to use to enforce protection to their product, is it??? They want to be able to use that EULA, or license thrown in with the shrinkwrap (or both) and force a revised contract (the copyright on the package being the first contract already given to them automatically by congress) between themselves and the enduser. Even though technically the software (by the license) just 'rents' the software to somebody, who even reads those EULA's anyway??? They don't have a choice on the software. There's not a store in the world that gives a refund for an open box of software. And look at windows refund day, did Microsoft ever hand out refunds (they probably didn't want to set a precedent anyway)??? The average person doesn't think twice about selling a used software, and even I pick up stuff at the thrift store. My point is this - you have a good business - and haven't been relying on the strength of copyright to do so, or restricting the end user in how they use your end product. So why do software companies feel the need to?? Are they looking for more revenue by making a contract (EULA) more restrictive than what ordinary copyright protection provides?? Look at the protection Universal Music Group has gotten with ordinary copyright (no EULA). I think the new EULA with windows 2000 requiring people to by an additional license if they "ghost" their hardrives is an example of this.
Second, as programmers, many of us in reality are "content producers" and artists in our own right. Why don't we get a royalty. Is it because we are nice guys, pushovers, or nobody has given it thought? I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong to get royalties, or even economically possible to even ask/get one. Just that I think it hasn't been thought about too much.
Third, many of us have seen the heat that large scale content producers can put on a few to protect their "IP" rights. If we are so 31337, why don't we find a way to charge them a royalty for using our networks and our technology to distribute their content for them. Right now they don't give a rat's ass and don't want to have any of their content on the web, but someday they will. And the will want it bad. So let's incorporate some "embrace and extend" technology that wraps around their content, and charge them for it. Let's give the money to the Electronic Frontier Foundation to help defend somebody when they get pissy.
The problem is with the concept of 'ownership'. Most commercial licenses never give you 'ownership', but yet they use a copyright to protect their work. If you use a copyright, theoretically you have a 'first sale' right, which allows you to resale what you have purchased to whoever you want. The EULA and click-on agreements attempt to strip all that away and more, including reverse engineer and free speech (i.e. you can't make disparaging comments about software-even if you're honest).
At least with the GPL in spite of all its zealots and religion (which I don't adhere to) places the source code in plain view, and doesn't restrict your speech/work product of the software.
So yeah, on the surface it does seem ridiculous and touchy to refer to software not under the GPL as a 'black hole'. But the whole reason why we are here talking about it anyway is because some of these EULAs and click-agreements are themselves very ridiculous - unfair, dishonest, and the work of crooks.
Actually, you'll probably will see a profusion of "dual licenses", like the MPL/GPL, giving (or 'defining' depending on your point of view) the creator more rights than somebody who works exclusively in the realm of "GPL" only. (Granted there may be the occasional fork, but that can happen anywhere).
what are known as eco pencils. They are made from processed recycled newspaper. The newspaper is pressed into a wood-shingle like substance with glue/heat. There are other kinds made from recycled blue jeans too.
The pencil is a relatively new device (compared to the thousands of years man has been making a mark). It has a fascinating history, and the book The Pencil is definitive. It shows how the technology evolves in such a 'low tech' device. This is a must read if you're the least bit interested. Buy from Barnes and Noble because they respect your privacy. If you want more about technological evolution in everyday things, the Zipper is also good.
The sad fact of the matter is that the vast majority of pencils come from overseas, which in turn comes from a rainforest. The culture of ecological sensitivity is just not present in someplace like China. Unless it says that it comes from a renewable source on the box, it is tropical wood. Worse, they are alot cheaper than an eco pencil (thats the way it is with any natural resource until it's gone). You may think that it doesn't matter because the amount of wood in a single pencil is small, but the amount of wood that is used to supply the 2 billion pencils we use each year is staggerring.
I myself am partial to the old-tech fountain pen with all its messy implications. Because that's what the nuns taught me to write with, as ballpoints weren't "proper" (don't laugh too hard - the fountain pen does produce a nicer line).
I am continually amazed by the constant improvements in everyday 'low tech' things. There was a day that you needed to use a tool to take off a bottlecap. Somewhere along the way the rifinement was made so that they could be screwed off. Same with the pull top on aluminum cans. The pull top used to litter the landscape, until it was improved with a tab. See Scientific American September 1994 for an excellent article on the aluminum beverage container.
The best 'tech' is not 'high tech' or 'low tech', but 'usability tech'. Technology should not be seen as a means to an end, but as a tool to make lives better.
I know that many are familiar with these arguements made by "prudes" like myself. And maybe I am a wet blanket, in the minority. So be it.
After listening to the history of the "great war" (WWI) on PBS, I really got a sense of the immensity of lost life and human suffering. It was really 'hell' on earth for for those fighting it. 'Hell' is not a playground.
The problem I have with Diablo is that it trivializes murder and mayhem. Maybe it is a morality play between 'good' and end 'evil', but it doesn't place battle in the right perspective - something that could (and likely) have an ultimate finality. In real war there are no 'spells', 'magic potions', or reincarnation for a second life.
Maybe they could make a game that if you character dies, then your computer kills you. Maybe there could be a wrist/leg strap that you need to put on before you can play the game. Then, if your character dies, your computer sends 1000 volts of high amperage current through you. Do you think that they would sell a lot of titles?
There will always be war and rumors of war. But there needs to be reflection on the values that are taking place in a game like 'Diablo'. Maybe if there was more respect for human life, we could improve the 'real world' relationships we have around us. And live in peace with our enemies. Now that's something to be valued.
Nah, at $95 a page and $240 for a subscription, I'll pass on it. Furthermore, it's not searchable (as far as I know). I should also qualify my request with affordable. For about the same amount of money I could use something like this, and submit it to the patent office.
you by posting a story about it on the main page. The computing lab at his school will call him in the front office for clogging up the lines. His site will be down for good! Sounds like a plan to me!
The only thing they got was protection for their garbage can icon. Somehow ironic. That's why windows has a 'recycle bin'. Other OS have something different there to - dumpster, wastebasket. Only apple gets to have the garbage can. That has to be the most expensive garbage can ever!
I personally feel like under today's law and the prevailing "plaintiff is right (or defendant is guilty until proven innocent) attitude that IP laws have now (DMCA), the outcome would be entirely different. For starters, MS probably would have been required to pull all their copies of windows off the shelf until they could show that it wasn't infringing.
someones idea the same way that the US patent office does, and then publishes it. That way it would be easy for others to search.
Also, alot could be done if the patent office were able to keep ALL the fees they collect for patent services. As it stands now, congress takes about half for non-related programs outside the patent office. Maybe then they could lower the fee for individual filings making it more accessible.
The discussion of an "anti-patent" reflects the increasing inaccessibility of the patent office to the average individual, with the average cost of a lawyer produced patent at around $10,000+.
Does anybody know of a lawyer/law firm that does it cheaper if you do some of the leg work?
(like in the $2000 to $3000 range).
This is the rather naive and complacent attitude of the general populus that the MPAA is counting on. In reality it really is a "slippery slope" kind of proposition that you have bought off on.
First, you can not figure what kind of enhancements can be made by knowing the encryption scheme. That is akin to what a patent examiner said at the turn of the century - "that everything that will be invented has been invented". Needless to say he was dead wrong. It is presumptuous to say that there can't be enhancements because you can't think of any off hand.
Secondly, why do we have to buy DVD players from select manufacturers in the first place? Maybe that's why you can't afford one. Why is the MPAA even involved in hardware anyway??? They make movies, they shouldn't have control over the devices that play them. If you doubt this, the government already bitched slapped them in the fifties. The U.S. Department of Justice' antitrust division filed suit against the eight major studios, accusing them of 'monopolizing the distribution of their films.' Gee, I guess history does repeat itself. They were forced to give up control of the theatre chains.
Third, the MPAA would rather dismantle the internet rather than lose their 'precious' encryption scheme. I take it you like to use the net now? How about when they come after slashdot because they might find DeCSS here? AKA Microsoft and the Kerberos scam (do a search if you don't know). The real croak is that in Taiwan there are so called 'legit' dvd disc makers by day and pirate houses by night stamping out bit by bit copies (it's far easier than hassling with DeCSS)
See here.
Fourth, government has already bowed to companies. That's how they were able to pass the DMCA in the dead of night with no debate and a voice vote (so nobody would be on record). That's why my own congressman (senator Hatch) tried to attach anonymously (at the request of a company, because their drug patent is about to expire) a bill to extend the length of drug patents. He had to do it anonymously because he knows voting seniors who can't afford drugs as it is would be really pissed. They are.
It's an academic excercise that is best left up to people who actually will explain it better for people like me.
Fifth, you don't mind that other people control what you can and cannot see. I do. This is a constitutional excercise. Otherwise you have other people explain better to you what may and may not do/see/read. It's called freedom.
Sixth, everybody knows that the best random numbers comes from shot noise generated from a reversed biased zener diode. See here.
I could go on, but I believe I have dismantled your post sufficiently.
arrested for DeCSS even though he was a "foreign nationsl", or suing others under California Law even though they are not even in California. I think that it is safe to say that some companies (i.g. Sony/MPAA) will spare no expense to enforce what their 'idea' of the law should be wherever they can buy off somebody to do so.
So, to end, the GPL is a unenforcable farce, because breaking a license is not illigal?
Overly restrictive EULA's that take away free speech and fair use rights are in reality the unenforcable farces. Unfortunately companies like Sony and the MPAA have access to the best lawyers that sex/money/crack can buy to enforce their farces.
All the bought off judges and politicians are only too happy to oblidge in the effort.
So the golden rule that applies here is "whoever has all the gold makes the rules".
Another statement that might apply is "If you outlaw fair use, only outlaws will be able to use fairly".
Slashdot Mirror
It could be argued now that the first BIOS clone made by compaq violated a copyright, as it duplicated the functionality exactly.
And this was Sony's arguement when they went against Connectix and lost (one judge had half a clue)
However, the extent of copyright/trademark infringement depends on what is being infringed. IANAL, (and you should find an _informed_ lawyer) but gameplay is not copyrightable. Similar trademarks probably infringes on their tademark, and they should try to defend that. The graphics are copyrightable, but if they are significantly different and have the same gameplay, then that's ok.
My guess is that these companies that were sued by Hasbro got a "sweetheart deal" to cease and decist (maybe even Hasbro said "we will ask for just $1.00 for infringement, but you gotta keep this secret). The companies, even though they made valid "non infringing clones" probably said to themselves "you know, we would lose more money in a protracted legal battle with these guys than we would earn off the game themselves, so it's a better business decision to fold".
I believe this is the scenario that played out. Because look at what Hasbro got back in return - the ability to strike fear into every "clone" maker, whether this fear is justified or not, which is worth far more than the peanuts they would have gotten from these guys. (They got peanuts anyway!). Look at the confusion in all the different posts here. Fine example of FUD purchased.
But it's not just Slashdotters who are confused about copyright - everybody is. Including, which is very depressing to say, our lower courts. So we are in good (bad!) company. The erosion of our public "copyright" has reached the point where we have been put in a "virtual prison", and have by illusion have lost all our rights given to us by our constitution. I say by "illusion", because companies want us to believe that we don't own the work that they sell us, that we just "rent it".
The startling fact of the matter is, and some of you are going to have a hard time believing this is - but it's true- that copyright owners do not "own" the work that they have a copyright for. They own the right to copy only, not the work that they have a copyright for. See the link below to understand this (and before you email me in a huff). So the notion of "intellectual property" is not constitutional. Only the "right to copy" is constitutional.
Congress has sold us down the river Big Time. So even if you go to a lawyer now, you may not even get the "right story" about what your rights are under copyright law. If anybody wants to have _any_ right to fair use in the future, we have to get organized. Whatever shreds of public access to the works of authors, both past, present and future - we _must_ protect. It's so bad that nobody knows what those rights are any more, and especially what they should be . You must read this to appreciate fully what's going on here. And to understand that Congress has enacted unconstitutional laws at the bequest of companies, and nobody has noticed until now. Please email me if you are interested in organizing to reclaim our public rights, and that goes for anybody reading this post. It's going to be long, hard, and boring work. But it has to be done. I'm looking for coders (Java and C) and non-coders.
If you really love this game, then this is what I would do. Purchase a "legal copy" of the game. If its an arcade game, purchase the machine, even if it's non-working (look on ebay - alot of the old ones show up). Then you have a right to "fair use", meaning that you have a _right_ to copy it for personal reasons. Don't let anybody tell you FUD to the otherwise, even a lawyer. Then, make your "exact" clone.
When you got the game to be exact, change _all_ the graphics and sounds, and give it an _entirely_ different name (something that these guys being sued by Hasbro failed to do). Then post _that_ result to your website for good gaming among friends (and happy strangers who pass by!). And most importantly, post with a clean conscience, because that's what you should have.
And one more thing, send me a copy.
you don't sniff the glue as you put them together.
There is more than one way to improve the performance of the system, and I would encourage the overclocking community to continue on finding those tweaks and optimizations. This isn't the end of the road, they just need to broaden their horizon.
Good points on the bar code scanner being programmed by itself reading in the codes. Having worked in a large SMT assembly plant, we programmed cards and tested them one at a time, even though we did thousands.
:-))) Even the SMT machine will place the part the wrong way, or somebody will load the microcontroller into the tube wrong and it will end up backwards. And then theres the league of bad parts, and no component is exempt from this.
I believe that they use an industry standard 93lc46 serial EEPROM - see the link on parent. The old ones had one too.
I think that if they could program the serial number in advance, they would in a heartbeat. They would just incorporate it into the microcontrollers PROM and dispense with eeprom all together. But real life is not so easy.
During manufacturing there are always fall out (rejects) that sometimes don't get attended to until the end of the production run. Meanwhile they have to ship and invoice the units that they built, and bill whoever for making them. When they do so, it's _far_ easier to have sequential numbers than to have "holes" where the rejects would have been. In fact, with such a large quantity like this, that's they way it _has_ to be, because the work of keeping track of non-sequential serial numbers exceeds that of the work to program them on the line.
I am also positive that they test each unit. There's a little pot on the board that's there because the gain might need adjusting. Also the liability would be to great for killing somebody's motherboard because there was a short on the PS2 line somewhere. Plus, it is _always_ more expensive to haul a unit back in to repair it if it doesn't work, so testing pays for itself. When dealing in this kid of quantty, there will be failures with _every_ component used guaranteed, not to mention building errors. This unit uses a through hole capacitor, that is probably soldered in by hand, along with the phototransistor, and led plus connector. There are large lines of people that do this specifically (now you know why they do it in China!). Because humans are involved, they're bound to ge something wrong. If they unitentionally reverse the filter tantulum, they have a nasty habit of exploding like a firecracker (somebody reverse the cap to their Cuecat and let me know what happens!). Can you imagine that happening to somebody as they power up their PC??
So what they do is the plug it in (they probably have rows of PCs to do this simultaneously, and their made in China where labor is quite cheap). They probably have a program that spits out numbers off from a floppy (or something so they can keep track of the numbers dispensed) and sends them to the unit. Then they read the unit to make sure that the number was programmed ok.
There is probably a special bar code that they can scan to put it into "program mode", but because the numbers change from one unit to the next, those have to come from the computer (keyboard/maybe special interface). Then after they read the number they run a test to see that it scans codes ok, since it is already hooked up to program anyway. If the unit fails anywhere along the way, the computer takes back its serial number, and the unit is tagged and thrown into the bone pile to be repaired.
If somebody wanted to reverse engineer the serial id, they could lift the chip in there, put it in a programmer, and see what codes match the serial number. Then they could replace it with anything they wanted, reprogramm the chip, and stick it back in. (one way). Sure, working with SMT can be hard, but this chip is the easiest of the bunch. Plus, having a Metcal would make it infinitely easier. (It taks practice, and working an SMT plant you do get practice!)
There's no problem with a single company tracking purchases so they can target ad you. It's when all these companies take all this information, sell it to each other (tell Amazon what dark place they can stick their books BTW) and combine it - that's where the problem is.
Because they know what you have bought at all the stores, what you are reading, and what services you have ordered they can create a detailed profile of you. Then, by "data mining" they know what income you have, what possesions you own, what problems you have, what illnesses you have had in the past or might have in the future, what kind of employee you are, what kind of relationships you have, whether you should get insurance or not, wheteher you should get a house loan or not, do I need to go on???
Steve Ciarcia of Circuit Cellar fame said that "software is more expensive than hardware" and he was right. It would be easier to feed the raw output to your PC and decode it there rather than trying to stick it all into the microcontroller.
This is the same as my cue cat. And here I thought I was going to do well by the play by play of the circuit!!
:-)). I would use a pic in this, because it would be quick and easy. I also looked through the expired patents and got some good ideas how this design could be simplified.
I got delayed because from the description it became apparent that we are talking about two different cuecat internals.
Post #43 talks about it being a toshiba CPU. Specifically, this cpu belongs to TLCS 870 family of microcontrollers. It is register rich and C code compiles to it very easily. You use this kind of core if you want to do a lot of math on your data (so yeah, you could do a linux port!)
My Cuecat, like the one pictured in the above link, has a Hyundai 90c54 which is an 8051 knock off. Everybody and their dogs makes a souped up 8051 which this probably is. The memory is 8k byte wide (64k) which is a lot for a little microntroller. So, they must write their code in C, and do alot of processing on what it reads. My guess is that they switched to the 8051 core for cost reasons, as there is a bit of loss lead taking place. While the first response of some would be "I would have used a pic" I have found that in a manufacturing enviroment that 8051 can be more cost effective, just because there are so many of them available. Pics are good for small scale manufacturing.
Notice that the inside of the cuecat is black, and the top part of the housing has some black carboard material, black plastic piece cover, and the sensor had black tape around it. That's alot of effort to keep out extraneous light. They probably don't want _any_ extraneous reads (work first time). Nice touch to improve product acceptance.
The chip next to the photodiode is probably an OTA, (i.e. transconductance current amplifier), and the opamp next to it probably is used as an amplifier/comparator combination that feeds into the microcontroller.
From the description, it looks like that optics have been simplified also to remove the IR module and replace it with a photodiode/led light pipe combination. Again, cheaper to make. Notice that the photodiode sits an inch hehind a lens, and the diode has a pinhole covering. I think that achieves a camera obscura effect that probably means that it is very sensitive, can read at different angles and no miss reads. So it can probably read other barcodes where other readers might fail. Very cost effective design. I think that this optical systen is probably covered by patent "4,816,659 Bar code reader head".
Metrologic has three patents on barcode input going to browsers and the World Wide Web. So I would worry about them before I would worry about Cuecat.
On the serial id number, there has to be a way to program the device once it is assembled, so that means that it is probably done with a special sequence through the connector. Maybe even by typing in a special code!. So you 31337 types can get busy. Myself, I'd rather think about a more cost effective/easier to manufacture design. It is easier to design something anyway than to reverse engineer the whole thing. A great place to start is h ere, thanks to Mr. 1010011010 and his post #52 below
The Cuecat does reflect alot of engineering that results in a robust design to achieve high performance. This is probably necessary to ensure consumer acceptance. I do not think it is the most efficient design though. For somebody who wants to make a cheap barcode reader for their own CD/book inventory, there are cheaper and easier ways to make their own, and achieve the same result (outside of obtaining more Cuecats/other bar code readers).
It's like the 'great and wonderful OZ' telling Dorothy "Don't look at that man behind the curtain"!!!!
Meanwhile, 'let the mists of legal stupor descend and do what we say, otherwise the entire world is going to rip us off into the poorhouse.'.
What's really ridiculous is their notion of 'first sale' applies only to the medium (the librarians covered this well) and not what's on the disc. So, gee, when you have your next garage sale, you can't sell your software, but you're welcome to sell a bunch of shiny coasters.
What a bunch of pricks.
I'm sorry for being vulgar, but traditional adjectives aren't adequate.
Yes, it's true. I am very grateful that a few individuals took the time to make very succinct and very clear arguements on what the corporations are trying to do and the problems with the DMCA. I thought that the comments made by the Digital Media Association were particularly sublime. They covered the problems of the shrinkrap license excellently.
I, for one, was not aware that the library of congress was accepting comments on the DMCA. I do remember a mention of it, but forgot. I think that these comments are reply comments from people who originally submitted comments, and not open to just everybody. I don't know though, and I wish I could have been better informed. It is a justifiable fear that congress will see the companies show up on the doorstep and take their word as informed knowledge, and assume that there really is only a couple of fanatics and some out of touch librarians to oppose them. Maybe because they manage to submit pages of 'informed' legal opinion makes them better too.
I really think that the majority of Slashdotters really do care. But we really are nerds dealing in the realm of technology, and not IP law. And honestly, we shouldn't have to get our hands dirty with this nonsense. It's because we see what is happening to the folks around us that we have to pay attention. Because we know what they are going through is wrong.
The problem is we need better organization outside of slashdot. Don't get me wrong, I love slashdot. But we need a few of us to keep others informed about where and when to send mail, who to contact and how to participate. We need to support each other to reclaim our rights, in what is an uphill battle dealing with many technically illiterate people in government and the judicial system.
So as enjoyable as it is to participate in the great KDE/Gnome flamewar, or discussing what is in RMS' beard, or playing with the trolls, maybe we need to make a couple of posts at someplace like eactivism.org and discuss how we can organize ourselves in an effective manner. Hopefully we can inform the general population that there are a few large companies that want to remove the notion of 'property' from their lives, and make them pay handsomely for whatever little they do get.
And maybe with a bit of luck, we can sound as eloquent as "those few" who took the time to sit down and make their careful and precious arguements as to why the DMCA, MPAA and pals are wrong.
I bet AOL thinks nothing will come of this because they are dealing with a 16 year old, and minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. So all those agreements that he had to 'click thru' to originally obtain the domain are probably null and void also. He'll be hard pressed to find an attorney.
Those were the "old-school" trolls. They're pretty rare these days. The only ones that are left are the new style "lamers". I would suggest to CmdrTaco to change the ability to have a mod option of "Lamer (-2)", as this new crop of lamers are dirtying the good name of "Troll" that they do not deserve to wear.
You (unitentionally) bring up some very interesting questions.
First, even though software carries a copyright notice, that's not really what manufacturers want to use to enforce protection to their product, is it??? They want to be able to use that EULA, or license thrown in with the shrinkwrap (or both) and force a revised contract (the copyright on the package being the first contract already given to them automatically by congress) between themselves and the enduser. Even though technically the software (by the license) just 'rents' the software to somebody, who even reads those EULA's anyway??? They don't have a choice on the software. There's not a store in the world that gives a refund for an open box of software. And look at windows refund day, did Microsoft ever hand out refunds (they probably didn't want to set a precedent anyway)??? The average person doesn't think twice about selling a used software, and even I pick up stuff at the thrift store. My point is this - you have a good business - and haven't been relying on the strength of copyright to do so, or restricting the end user in how they use your end product. So why do software companies feel the need to?? Are they looking for more revenue by making a contract (EULA) more restrictive than what ordinary copyright protection provides?? Look at the protection Universal Music Group has gotten with ordinary copyright (no EULA). I think the new EULA with windows 2000 requiring people to by an additional license if they "ghost" their hardrives is an example of this.
Second, as programmers, many of us in reality are "content producers" and artists in our own right. Why don't we get a royalty. Is it because we are nice guys, pushovers, or nobody has given it thought? I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong to get royalties, or even economically possible to even ask/get one. Just that I think it hasn't been thought about too much.
Third, many of us have seen the heat that large scale content producers can put on a few to protect their "IP" rights. If we are so 31337, why don't we find a way to charge them a royalty for using our networks and our technology to distribute their content for them. Right now they don't give a rat's ass and don't want to have any of their content on the web, but someday they will. And the will want it bad. So let's incorporate some "embrace and extend" technology that wraps around their content, and charge them for it. Let's give the money to the Electronic Frontier Foundation to help defend somebody when they get pissy.
The problem is with the concept of 'ownership'. Most commercial licenses never give you 'ownership', but yet they use a copyright to protect their work. If you use a copyright, theoretically you have a 'first sale' right, which allows you to resale what you have purchased to whoever you want. The EULA and click-on agreements attempt to strip all that away and more, including reverse engineer and free speech (i.e. you can't make disparaging comments about software-even if you're honest).
At least with the GPL in spite of all its zealots and religion (which I don't adhere to) places the source code in plain view, and doesn't restrict your speech/work product of the software.
So yeah, on the surface it does seem ridiculous and touchy to refer to software not under the GPL as a 'black hole'. But the whole reason why we are here talking about it anyway is because some of these EULAs and click-agreements are themselves very ridiculous - unfair, dishonest, and the work of crooks.
Actually, you'll probably will see a profusion of "dual licenses", like the MPL/GPL, giving (or 'defining' depending on your point of view) the creator more rights than somebody who works exclusively in the realm of "GPL" only. (Granted there may be the occasional fork, but that can happen anywhere).
what are known as eco pencils. They are made from processed recycled newspaper. The newspaper is pressed into a wood-shingle like substance with glue/heat. There are other kinds made from recycled blue jeans too.
The pencil is a relatively new device (compared to the thousands of years man has been making a mark). It has a fascinating history, and the book The Pencil is definitive. It shows how the technology evolves in such a 'low tech' device. This is a must read if you're the least bit interested. Buy from Barnes and Noble because they respect your privacy. If you want more about technological evolution in everyday things, the Zipper is also good.
The sad fact of the matter is that the vast majority of pencils come from overseas, which in turn comes from a rainforest. The culture of ecological sensitivity is just not present in someplace like China. Unless it says that it comes from a renewable source on the box, it is tropical wood. Worse, they are alot cheaper than an eco pencil (thats the way it is with any natural resource until it's gone). You may think that it doesn't matter because the amount of wood in a single pencil is small, but the amount of wood that is used to supply the 2 billion pencils we use each year is staggerring.
I myself am partial to the old-tech fountain pen with all its messy implications. Because that's what the nuns taught me to write with, as ballpoints weren't "proper" (don't laugh too hard - the fountain pen does produce a nicer line).
I am continually amazed by the constant improvements in everyday 'low tech' things. There was a day that you needed to use a tool to take off a bottlecap. Somewhere along the way the rifinement was made so that they could be screwed off. Same with the pull top on aluminum cans. The pull top used to litter the landscape, until it was improved with a tab. See Scientific American September 1994 for an excellent article on the aluminum beverage container.
The best 'tech' is not 'high tech' or 'low tech', but 'usability tech'. Technology should not be seen as a means to an end, but as a tool to make lives better.
I know that many are familiar with these arguements made by "prudes" like myself. And maybe I am a wet blanket, in the minority. So be it.
After listening to the history of the "great war" (WWI) on PBS, I really got a sense of the immensity of lost life and human suffering. It was really 'hell' on earth for for those fighting it. 'Hell' is not a playground.
The problem I have with Diablo is that it trivializes murder and mayhem. Maybe it is a morality play between 'good' and end 'evil', but it doesn't place battle in the right perspective - something that could (and likely) have an ultimate finality. In real war there are no 'spells', 'magic potions', or reincarnation for a second life.
Maybe they could make a game that if you character dies, then your computer kills you. Maybe there could be a wrist/leg strap that you need to put on before you can play the game. Then, if your character dies, your computer sends 1000 volts of high amperage current through you. Do you think that they would sell a lot of titles?
There will always be war and rumors of war. But there needs to be reflection on the values that are taking place in a game like 'Diablo'. Maybe if there was more respect for human life, we could improve the 'real world' relationships we have around us. And live in peace with our enemies. Now that's something to be valued.
and something goes wrong, you get the blue screen of death instead of your show???
just wondering.
Nah, at $95 a page and $240 for a subscription, I'll pass on it. Furthermore, it's not searchable (as far as I know). I should also qualify my request with affordable. For about the same amount of money I could use something like this, and submit it to the patent office.
interestingly, the performance of a device is not a requirement for patentability. That's why there's weird patents, like for antigravity devices.
you by posting a story about it on the main page. The computing lab at his school will call him in the front office for clogging up the lines. His site will be down for good! Sounds like a plan to me!
:-))
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist
The only thing they got was protection for their garbage can icon. Somehow ironic. That's why windows has a 'recycle bin'. Other OS have something different there to - dumpster, wastebasket. Only apple gets to have the garbage can. That has to be the most expensive garbage can ever!
I personally feel like under today's law and the prevailing "plaintiff is right (or defendant is guilty until proven innocent) attitude that IP laws have now (DMCA), the outcome would be entirely different. For starters, MS probably would have been required to pull all their copies of windows off the shelf until they could show that it wasn't infringing.
someones idea the same way that the US patent office does, and then publishes it. That way it would be easy for others to search.
Also, alot could be done if the patent office were able to keep ALL the fees they collect for patent services. As it stands now, congress takes about half for non-related programs outside the patent office. Maybe then they could lower the fee for individual filings making it more accessible.
The discussion of an "anti-patent" reflects the increasing inaccessibility of the patent office to the average individual, with the average cost of a lawyer produced patent at around $10,000+.
Does anybody know of a lawyer/law firm that does it cheaper if you do some of the leg work?
(like in the $2000 to $3000 range).
This is the rather naive and complacent attitude of the general populus that the MPAA is counting on. In reality it really is a "slippery slope" kind of proposition that you have bought off on.
First, you can not figure what kind of enhancements can be made by knowing the encryption scheme. That is akin to what a patent examiner said at the turn of the century - "that everything that will be invented has been invented". Needless to say he was dead wrong. It is presumptuous to say that there can't be enhancements because you can't think of any off hand.
Secondly, why do we have to buy DVD players from select manufacturers in the first place? Maybe that's why you can't afford one. Why is the MPAA even involved in hardware anyway??? They make movies, they shouldn't have control over the devices that play them. If you doubt this, the government already bitched slapped them in the fifties. The U.S. Department of Justice' antitrust division filed suit against the eight major studios, accusing them of 'monopolizing the distribution of their films.' Gee, I guess history does repeat itself. They were forced to give up control of the theatre chains.
Third, the MPAA would rather dismantle the internet rather than lose their 'precious' encryption scheme. I take it you like to use the net now? How about when they come after slashdot because they might find DeCSS here? AKA Microsoft and the Kerberos scam (do a search if you don't know). The real croak is that in Taiwan there are so called 'legit' dvd disc makers by day and pirate houses by night stamping out bit by bit copies (it's far easier than hassling with DeCSS)
See here.
Fourth, government has already bowed to companies. That's how they were able to pass the DMCA in the dead of night with no debate and a voice vote (so nobody would be on record). That's why my own congressman (senator Hatch) tried to attach anonymously (at the request of a company, because their drug patent is about to expire) a bill to extend the length of drug patents. He had to do it anonymously because he knows voting seniors who can't afford drugs as it is would be really pissed. They are.
It's an academic excercise that is best left up to people who actually will explain it better for people like me.
Fifth, you don't mind that other people control what you can and cannot see. I do. This is a constitutional excercise. Otherwise you have other people explain better to you what may and may not do/see/read. It's called freedom.
Sixth, everybody knows that the best random numbers comes from shot noise generated from a reversed biased zener diode. See here.
I could go on, but I believe I have dismantled your post sufficiently.
arrested for DeCSS even though he was a "foreign nationsl", or suing others under California Law even though they are not even in California. I think that it is safe to say that some companies (i.g. Sony/MPAA) will spare no expense to enforce what their 'idea' of the law should be wherever they can buy off somebody to do so.
So, to end, the GPL is a unenforcable farce, because breaking a license is not illigal?
Overly restrictive EULA's that take away free speech and fair use rights are in reality the unenforcable farces. Unfortunately companies like Sony and the MPAA have access to the best lawyers that sex/money/crack can buy to enforce their farces.
All the bought off judges and politicians are only too happy to oblidge in the effort.
So the golden rule that applies here is "whoever has all the gold makes the rules".
Another statement that might apply is "If you outlaw fair use, only outlaws will be able to use fairly".