"circumvention device". The DeCSS is not a device until it is compiled and executed until then, DeCSS is nothing more than a bunch of symbols on a piece of paper or t-shirt. You publish code.
However, the MPAA does not say this. They tell website operators to "remove the circumvention device from your website." IANAL, but what kind of language is this??? See the letter that the MPAA sent cryptome.org today for an example of this.
They cannot say "please remove the code that you have published on your website" because publishing involves speech, which the DeCSS is. When it is compiled and executed, your computer becomes a decryption device, placing it under patent laws. Is the DeCSS patented? If it is, then the US patent office has already published it. Then it follows that it is your computer that is the circumvention device not the DeCSS code by itself. Another thing that gets me is the mishmash of copyrights and patents. Two different things, or two different temporary "granted monopolies". People should not be allowed to use one "monopoly" to increase the power of the other (i.g. dealing in software patents), because that power has not been granted by the constitution. The constitution separates the two because they were intended to deal separately with two different things, not act together. For many years, they had about the same amount of power until "copyright creep" started taking place, continually increasing its power until now you have the DMCA controlling "devices" overtaking the power of patents. Software should either have a copyright or a patent, but not both. If it can be copyrighted, then I should be able to have rights like "first sale" and "fair use" that have been argued the century before last when a publisher put a EULA on the first page of a book. If the software is a patent (i.g. a device that configures a computer), then I expect to be able to copy it in twenty years when the patent expires (and I mean the actual software created by the company using the patent). Just because you flash a contract in front of somebody's face or toss it in with the shinkrap doesn't mean you can usurp somebody's constitutional rights, and I consider having patents and copyrights acting as two separate entities as one of those rights. What we see now is the result of abuse of these two constitutionally "granted" temporary monopolies (making it greater than the freedom of speech). Taking a power that was niether "implied" nor "granted", they shaft the public out of their due - the very reason why the constitution grants patents and copyrights in the first place.
What the MPAA is trying to do is extend copyright privilege to devices (even they have to refer to DeCSS as a "device", otherwise their arguement gets flushed down the toilet where it belongs) all the while basking in the newfound powers of the copyright law/DMCA.
"circumvention device". The DeCSS is not a device until it is compiled and executed until then, DeCSS is nothing more than a bunch of symbols on a piece of paper or t-shirt. You publish code.
However, the MPAA does not say this. They tell website operators to "remove the circumvention device from your website." IANAL, but what kind of language is this??? See the letter that the MPAA sent cryptome.org today for an example of this.
They cannot say "please remove the code that you have published on your website" because publishing involves speech, which the DeCSS is. When it is compiled and executed, your computer becomes a decryption device, placing it under patent laws. Is the DeCSS patented? If it is, then the US patent office has already published it. Then it follows that it is your computer that is the circumvention device not the DeCSS code by itself. Another thing that gets me is the mishmash of copyrights and patents. Two different things, or two different temporary "granted monopolies". People should not be allowed to use one "monopoly" to increase the power of the other (i.g. dealing in software patents), because that power has not been granted by the constitution. The constitution separates the two because they were intended to deal separately with two different things, not act together. For many years, they had about the same amount of power until "copyright creep" started taking place, continually increasing its power until now you have the DMCA controlling "devices" overtaking the power of patents. Software should either have a copyright or a patent, but not both. If it can be copyrighted, then I should be able to have rights like "first sale" and "fair use" that have been argued the century before last when a publisher put a EULA on the first page of a book. If the software is a patent (i.g. a device that configures a computer), then I expect to be able to copy it in twenty years when the patent expires (and I mean the actual software created by the company using the patent). Just because you flash a contract in front of somebody's face or toss it in with the shinkrap doesn't mean you can usurp somebody's constitutional rights, and I consider having patents and copyrights acting as two separate entities as one of those rights. What we see now is the result of abuse of these two constitutionally "granted" temporary monopolies. Taking a power that was niether "implied" nor "granted", they shaft the public out of their due - the very reason why the constitution grants patents and copyrights in the first place.
What the MPAA is trying to do is extend copyright privilege to devices (even they have to refer to the refer to DeCSS as a "device", otherwise their arguement gets flushed down the toilet where it belongs) all the while basking in the newfound powers of the copyright law/DMCA.
"upgrades" everybody has to buy that are actually bug fixes:
Or it may be an exaggeration based on the fact that many software programs go through multiple versions during their life spans. Or maybe it's all the obselete software everybody has laying around?
programmers. They have an archive CDROM archive that goes back to January 1988 for $99.95. If you need issues before that try a local university library. That way you can see what products were offered to programmers/articles about X windows and thin clients. I'd be willing to bet that when it was first done that there was probably was a mention of it there in an article.
Dr. Dobbs has been around since the very beginning of personal computing, and was the programmers resource before the internet.
Another area to look is the FORTH interest group, or FIG. Some FORTHs are actually databases, and had/have provisions for multiple terminals/multitasking and GUIs on top. This is one feature that made it particularly attractive. FORTHers are die hards to their language no doubt about it, and justifiably so. It became an ANSI standard a few years back, and itself became the basis for the IEEE 1275 open firmware standard. It also goes back to the begining personal computing. A vintage 70's computer language, Charles Moore invented it on one of the first personal computers. Thank heavens because of all this patent frenzy now. It has and still finds a place in many embedded systems.
I digress. There have been conferences every year in Rochester. The theme for the 1982 was database and control, see here. There is more links/info about FORTH here.
So that's as much as I know. We see stupid patents come down the pike every once in a while, but never hear the end to the story (if there is one). If you manage to snuff out this patent, how about letting us other Slashdotters know about it?
The 'junior' patent attorney I talked to wanted $175 an hour to do searching. He suggested I hire a special firm or do it myself. Maybe thats why a lot of patents get through - no searching for prior art is done (or its not tractable to do a complete search - still no excuse).
stop them from using their own technology that they happened to create. They are afraid of overly broad "submarine patents" that come into play at a later date.
The Comptons interactive cdrom patent comes to mind when a few years back when they tried to collect a royalty on all cdroms, even though cdroms were already commonplace. This could be a similar situation to this database patent.
Eventually the head patent examiner had to step in to review the patent, and he cut it off at the knees.
Slashdot Mirror
"circumvention device". The DeCSS is not a device until it is compiled and executed until then, DeCSS is nothing more than a bunch of symbols on a piece of paper or t-shirt. You publish code.
However, the MPAA does not say this. They tell website operators to "remove the circumvention device from your website." IANAL, but what kind of language is this??? See the letter that the MPAA sent cryptome.org today for an example of this.
They cannot say "please remove the code that you have published on your website" because publishing involves speech, which the DeCSS is. When it is compiled and executed, your computer becomes a decryption device , placing it under patent laws. Is the DeCSS patented? If it is, then the US patent office has already published it. Then it follows that it is your computer that is the circumvention device not the DeCSS code by itself.
Another thing that gets me is the mishmash of copyrights and patents. Two different things, or two different temporary "granted monopolies". People should not be allowed to use one "monopoly" to increase the power of the other (i.g. dealing in software patents), because that power has not been granted by the constitution. The constitution separates the two because they were intended to deal separately with two different things, not act together. For many years, they had about the same amount of power until "copyright creep" started taking place, continually increasing its power until now you have the DMCA controlling "devices" overtaking the power of patents. Software should either have a copyright or a patent, but not both. If it can be copyrighted, then I should be able to have rights like "first sale" and "fair use" that have been argued the century before last when a publisher put a EULA on the first page of a book. If the software is a patent (i.g. a device that configures a computer), then I expect to be able to copy it in twenty years when the patent expires (and I mean the actual software created by the company using the patent). Just because you flash a contract in front of somebody's face or toss it in with the shinkrap doesn't mean you can usurp somebody's constitutional rights, and I consider having patents and copyrights acting as two separate entities as one of those rights. What we see now is the result of abuse of these two constitutionally "granted" temporary monopolies (making it greater than the freedom of speech). Taking a power that was niether "implied" nor "granted", they shaft the public out of their due - the very reason why the constitution grants patents and copyrights in the first place.
What the MPAA is trying to do is extend copyright privilege to devices (even they have to refer to DeCSS as a "device", otherwise their arguement gets flushed down the toilet where it belongs) all the while basking in the newfound powers of the copyright law/DMCA.
"circumvention device". The DeCSS is not a device until it is compiled and executed until then, DeCSS is nothing more than a bunch of symbols on a piece of paper or t-shirt. You publish code.
However, the MPAA does not say this. They tell website operators to "remove the circumvention device from your website." IANAL, but what kind of language is this??? See the letter that the MPAA sent cryptome.org today for an example of this.
They cannot say "please remove the code that you have published on your website" because publishing involves speech, which the DeCSS is. When it is compiled and executed, your computer becomes a decryption device , placing it under patent laws. Is the DeCSS patented? If it is, then the US patent office has already published it. Then it follows that it is your computer that is the circumvention device not the DeCSS code by itself.
Another thing that gets me is the mishmash of copyrights and patents. Two different things, or two different temporary "granted monopolies". People should not be allowed to use one "monopoly" to increase the power of the other (i.g. dealing in software patents), because that power has not been granted by the constitution. The constitution separates the two because they were intended to deal separately with two different things, not act together. For many years, they had about the same amount of power until "copyright creep" started taking place, continually increasing its power until now you have the DMCA controlling "devices" overtaking the power of patents. Software should either have a copyright or a patent, but not both. If it can be copyrighted, then I should be able to have rights like "first sale" and "fair use" that have been argued the century before last when a publisher put a EULA on the first page of a book. If the software is a patent (i.g. a device that configures a computer), then I expect to be able to copy it in twenty years when the patent expires (and I mean the actual software created by the company using the patent). Just because you flash a contract in front of somebody's face or toss it in with the shinkrap doesn't mean you can usurp somebody's constitutional rights, and I consider having patents and copyrights acting as two separate entities as one of those rights. What we see now is the result of abuse of these two constitutionally "granted" temporary monopolies. Taking a power that was niether "implied" nor "granted", they shaft the public out of their due - the very reason why the constitution grants patents and copyrights in the first place.
What the MPAA is trying to do is extend copyright privilege to devices (even they have to refer to the refer to DeCSS as a "device", otherwise their arguement gets flushed down the toilet where it belongs) all the while basking in the newfound powers of the copyright law/DMCA.
"upgrades" everybody has to buy that are actually bug fixes:
Or it may be an exaggeration based on the fact that many software programs go through multiple versions during their life spans. Or maybe it's all the obselete software everybody has laying around?
say that Kenney was canned then, huh???
programmers. They have an archive CDROM archive that goes back to January 1988 for $99.95. If you need issues before that try a local university library. That way you can see what products were offered to programmers/articles about X windows and thin clients. I'd be willing to bet that when it was first done that there was probably was a mention of it there in an article.
Dr. Dobbs has been around since the very beginning of personal computing, and was the programmers resource before the internet.
Another area to look is the FORTH interest group, or FIG. Some FORTHs are actually databases, and had/have provisions for multiple terminals/multitasking and GUIs on top. This is one feature that made it particularly attractive. FORTHers are die hards to their language no doubt about it, and justifiably so. It became an ANSI standard a few years back, and itself became the basis for the IEEE 1275 open firmware standard. It also goes back to the begining personal computing. A vintage 70's computer language, Charles Moore invented it on one of the first personal computers. Thank heavens because of all this patent frenzy now. It has and still finds a place in many embedded systems.
I digress. There have been conferences every year in Rochester. The theme for the 1982 was database and control, see here. There is more links/info about FORTH here.
So that's as much as I know. We see stupid patents come down the pike every once in a while, but never hear the end to the story (if there is one). If you manage to snuff out this patent, how about letting us other Slashdotters know about it?
The 'junior' patent attorney I talked to wanted $175 an hour to do searching. He suggested I hire a special firm or do it myself. Maybe thats why a lot of patents get through - no searching for prior art is done (or its not tractable to do a complete search - still no excuse).
stop them from using their own technology that they happened to create. They are afraid of overly broad "submarine patents" that come into play at a later date.
The Comptons interactive cdrom patent comes to mind when a few years back when they tried to collect a royalty on all cdroms, even though cdroms were already commonplace. This could be a similar situation to this database patent.
Eventually the head patent examiner had to step in to review the patent, and he cut it off at the knees.
internet per se, but the ability to use radio direction finding to pinpoint the location of spammers.