The patent is not a business-model patent for time-based licensing, its a technology patent for a specific scheme of enforcing time-based licensing rules.
No, it isn't. The claims of the patent are so ridiculously vague they would cover any such technology. Here's claim 1:
"1. A machine-implemented method for licensing a software product, the machine-implemented method comprising:generating a time-based license from among a plurality of types of time-based licenses in response to receiving a request for the time-based license, each of the plurality of types of time-based licenses having a plurality of configurable parameters, a combination of the plurality of types of time-based licenses and the plurality of configurable parameters being capable of accommodating a plurality of licensing business models; andsending the time-based license to an originating processing device of the request for the time-based license."
This patent would cover any automated software licensing business offering multiple types of limited time licenses, and is therefore a business model patent, not a technology one.
The more specific claims don't add much, either:
2 - some licenses are renewable 3 - supports a restriction on how many times the software can be reactivated 4 - product keys that can be used on a specified number of computers 5 - system for switching to a permanent license after a certain number of limited ones 6 - (I don't understand this claim; can somebody translate for me?) 7 - some licenses might not start immediately 8 - computer with the above scheme in memory 9-14 - covers a management user interface, really boring stuff 15 - above scheme stored on machine-readable media 16 - a command line interface to license management 17 - displaying a warning when the license is about to expire 18 - making the software stop working when the license expires 19 - informing the user how long the software will continue working for 20 - an api whereby a program can query whether it is licensed or not
Seriously. This is all _basic_ stuff, and covers just about every possible implementation, not just a single implementation of the idea.
I implemented this system in it's entirety with another engineer back about 6 years ago. Complete with the license server and the multiple parameters of the license. Is there a way to protest this being patented? It's still in daily use for my wife's company.
Yes. It's still in the application phase, so you can make a representation to the patent office as to why you believe it shouldn't be granted. You need some legal advice on how best to provide such a representation. There are several people who may be able to give you such advice; it may be worth contacting either the EFF or the Public Patent Foundation, both of whom have a lot of experience in this field.
A license is a contract. A contract is an exchange of enforceable promises. Patenting a contractual idea would deprive other people of the freedom to contract in a certain manner (because Microsoft has patented it). Freedom to contract is an idea that a lot of judges groove with--it has a lot to do with liberty, freedom, and other cool ideas like that.
The argument doesn't work, though, because they're not patenting a type of contract, but a method of producing product keys as an antipiracy measure in conjunction with such a contract.
Obviously this is nothing new, and MS's patent application iw way too general and thus falls down on a huge quantity of prior art. I imagine some of the more specific claims may survive (e.g. one of their claims is for a 'valid from' field to allow postdated licenses, which may be new).
Name's also Cadence, who had a system to issue time-based licenses automatically based on customer request. EDACard, I think they called it. While not exactly the same, I think that everything describes is obvious based on waht Cadence did with their EDACard program and FlexLM.
Really? Cadence software I have here is using flexlm... have they changed recently?
Note: I do not agree with the German governments staunch policy against symbols but they're free to govern as they see fit (pending the EU's approval).
Actually, they're signatories to the ECHR, so theoretically they have guaranteed freedom of expression in a way that trumps their own government of it. This law is quite clearly a violation of free expression, and is therefore probably unconstituational.
Also: here's a question... do german history books not have pictures of swastikas in them? Does this law not also make any such book illegal? It's interesting to note that the German wikipedia is clearly not following any such proscription.
Re:Some would call X3 the successor...
on
Elite Turns 25
·
· Score: 1
Increase forward velocity to maximum. At this point you can take full advantage of the space-skip facility (J). Inter- space jumping does not function (because of interference patterns) if there is another ship, a planet or a sun in the immediate vicinity.
Re:Some would call X3 the successor...
on
Elite Turns 25
·
· Score: 1
because something going past at nearly 600km/hr[1] is too hard to hit with a laser controlled by your mouse...
[1] the relative velocity you get if two ships with 20g thrusters fire their engine for one second each while facing each other
This exposes two issues with the game design, not with the principle of newtonian space sims:
1. 20g is way too high a thrust for the sizes of ships involved. 600km/hr wouldn't be a problem if the ships were bigger, and wouldn't happen as much if the thrust were lower.
2. If aiming is too hard then some kind of targetting assistance should be provided... but *not* by engaging the autopilot, which negates the most fun part of flying a newtonian space combat sim, i.e. trying to control your ship with 3 complete degrees of freedom while keeping your weapons on target and avoiding your enemy getting a good lock on you.
It also exposes an issue with how you were playing the game, but that could also be seen as a game mechanic failure: there was no tutorial that taught you how to fight properly. In Frontier, the *best* method of combat was to turn your ship into free flight mode, stick the retro-thrusters on and try to keep the enemy in front of you. That way, the enemy's acceleration towards you is reduced and you can keep firing at them for longer, long enough to be able to (hopefully) get several hits in each run.
Re:You just described EVE Online...
on
Elite Turns 25
·
· Score: 1
...except that it is fun, but EVE is about politics more than Newtonian physics simulation.
You as the pilot simply set destination and targets and when to fire, but you'd be amazed at the complexity of the game.
You often find yourself engaging and killing enemies at ranges greater than 50km but there are other techniques to have close range combat, but since you don't directly control the flight of the craft that doesn't matter that much either.
Overall, I have a hunch if we were to have space combat in the future, it would be like EVE in which you engage your opponent at vast distances with smart weaponry.
Trust me... Its a blast.
Funny. I did the EVE 14 day trial about a month or so ago, and found it one of the most tedious games I'd ever played. And it's decidedly non-newtonian physics really annoyed me, especially because with the computer controlled movement and combat there's essentially no reason *not* to use newtonian physics.
Re:Some would call X3 the successor...
on
Elite Turns 25
·
· Score: 1
the shuttle after all is still landed manually.
Maybe, but only after its navigation computer has aerobraked it down to a speed where it's controllable by humans. Plus, it is _capable_ of entirely automatic landing; the only reason they doesn't usually do this is basically down to paranoia.
He should be held liable for his actions, and for the crimes he committed
Absolutely. Of course, what most Americans haven't stopped to consider is that because he was in the UK at the time he committed his crime, the crime he committed was a violation of the UK's Computer Misuse Act, not the equivalent US law. I see no reason a British citizen who is not in the US should have to comply with US law.
That being the case, he should be liable for 5 years imprisonment (of which, in the normal course of events, he would only serve half), not the 70 years he faces under US law.
If he existed, I'm willing to bet he drank something from a cup at some point before his death.
Yes, but the basic point of the holy grail is the notion that he performed the first eucharist with it, thus creating the core ceremony of the Christian church. If this didn't happen (and the evidence that we have that it did is pretty damned sketchy; nobody bothered mentioning it in writing until around 20 years after he died) then no holy grail ever existed, at least not in the sense that most Christians would imagine such an artifact.
It wasn't a delusion, it was just a cup that a guy who is still remembered 2000 years later drank from before he was tortured to death. It most likely no longer exists, but it did at one time. Its existance was documented.
Any documentation that exists was put together at least 10-20 years after the event, much of it much longer than that. It would be quite hard to be sure that any details in such documentation are accurate. For all we know, the entire event of the Last Supper may be a myth. The notion that Jesus showed his disciples the ritual of the eucharist and told them to do it in his memory is quite likely to be an after-the-event invention by the church. If that's the case, no holy grail, at least not in the commonly-imagined sense, ever existed.
A little offtopic, but I was looking into running a service based on transactions under $1 but I simlpy couldn't make the numbers work. All the services I looked at that would accept credit cards took at least $.20 of any transaction which would just trash any margins we would have. Any ideas?
The only field where microtransactions appear to be having any traction at all, MMORPGs, have come up with the idea of congregating a number of games together under a single site, then having you buy credits on that site in minimum transaction sizes of about $3-5, which you can divide as you see fit between the games running there.
Actually, looking at this Morgan Stanley presentation, it seems that $25 for today's CPM is overly optimistic. They're quoting a figure of $18 for 2008's, and the trend has been ever-downwards.
Is there a reason why advertising doesn't pay for the content? What am I missing here?
This _was_ viable a while ago. It's starting to look less so, for a number of reasons:
1. Global recession. Most businesses have reduced their advertising budget, and are concentrating on their core marketplace. Internet advertising is suffering more than most because it is perceived by most advertisers as less targeted and less successful than other types of advertising.
2. Meanwhile, the amount of content being produced and published is increasing, so the number of ad impressions available to purchase is actually increasing. Google Adwords has opened up the ad-supported business model to amateurs who would never have been considered by the ad networks before it opened up (consider, for example, doubleclick.net, which had a minimum number of impressions that was, IIRC, in excess of 10,000 per month), drastically increasing the number of ads served every day. This combined with the last point means that the price per impression is dropping drastically. Typical cost these days is around $25 per thousand impressions. When I was last selling ad space on a site, some time around 2004, it was $40 per thousand. Inflation adjusted, that's closer to $45 in today's money. That's a nearly 50% drop in revenue per page served, even assuming you can fill all your ad space, which many of the sites with large numbers of visitors struggle to achieve.
3. Increased competition for readers. A few years ago, only a few of the major newspapers put all their content online for free. Now, they almost all do. And the number of people who have shifted to getting their news from blogs and forums that have links to the interesting stories (much like slashdot, for example) is ever-increasing. This has diluted the number of visitors to each site, resulting in a reduction of the number of impressions served.
The BBC is the left-wing propaganda arm of the British state; the only sense in which it's 'politically independent' is that it doesn't drop its left-wing slant even when a right-wing government is in power, though it does tone down a little.
The character of The Journal doesn't change from one day to the next.
Neither does Fox News.
Yes, but each has good articles and bad articles, only the relative frequency of each differs... the problem is, the site owners (especially News Corp, which happens to own both Fox and WSJ, but some others as well) want to charge us _for each article we view_.
Which, to my mind, would put web-based news back to being less convenient than buying a newspaper. I don't want to have to make a decision before starting to read an article about whether I think it's likely to be worth the money I'm paying for it, even if that money is only pennies...
Sometimes its funny how much US is lacking behind on some things.
Not just the US, there's no services like this in most of western Europe either. The reason? It looks to our governments like a money laundering scheme.
Which, to be fair, my understanding is that it is quite frequently used as a money laundering scheme (e.g. 1, 2)... it's just that the Russian government doesn't particularly care. At some point, though, I suspect they'll start caring, and you'll be in pretty-much the same boat we are.
Where do you get that from the legislation? The section you quote starts out:
In the case of any work other than a work made for hire...
It seems works for hire are not subject to transfer, which makes sense since you purchased the work, not licensed the rights to it.
Yeah, sorry, terminology slip due to the fact that the OP was using the term loosely. This wasn't work for hire; Kirby was a freelancer who sold the rights to Marvel.
Re:Some would call X3 the successor...
on
Elite Turns 25
·
· Score: 1
I wrote: For Isp here
Ahem. What I meant to write was:
For Isp < 2.55e8 (ie 85% of the speed of light) this is actually unattainable (the mass of the non-fuel portions of the ship would need to be negative).
There's a handy table of Isp for some thruster technologies, both real and proposed, here.
Re:Some would call X3 the successor...
on
Elite Turns 25
·
· Score: 1
Even then, accelerating at 100g for 6 days is implausible, due to the fuel mass requirements
Isn't that a matter of the type of energy conversion?
IANARS (I am not a rocket scientist), but I do know a little about the field, so take this with a small pinch of salt:
Energy balancing is the wrong approach here, as you can quite easily violate fundamental limits without noticing it when performing the calculation in this fashion. It comes more down to the requirement that the acceleration of the ship be produced by ejecting mass from the ship in the opposite direction. Newtonian mechanics suggests there is no viable alternative method of moving the ship[1], so this is what we have. When M kg of mass leaves the ship travelling at v m/s, the ship gains Mv momentum (conservation of momentum). The theoretical limit of v is c, approximately 3e+8 m/s.
Our acceleration of 100g for 6 days results in a change of velocity (delta v) of around 5.1 e+8 m/s (yes, I know this results in a velocity that exceeds the speed of light, but of course the acceleration will be in one direction for half the trip and the other for the remainder, so no actual fundamental physical limits are violated...).
Now, if we are accelerating uniformly (as the original post suggested, and is how things work in the Frontier series of games), this means that the average momentum imparted to our reaction mass is going to be equal to half of its total mass times our delta v (because, on average, we are carrying half of it with us at any given time).
So, with reaction mass Mr and ship mass Ms and total impulse I we have:
I = (0.5*Mr + Ms) * deltav [units will be kg m/s]
We also know from the first paragraph of this reply that:
Isp = 3e8 (kg m/s) / kg (which are strange units but it works out best below...)
So, even with this fundamentally implausible drive method, we still need to carry nearly 7 times as much fuel as mass of the rest of the ship. Note that, in general, for any exhaust velocity Isp:
For Isp here. The only one that meets the requirement is the photon drive, i.e. direct translation of reaction mass into photons at the speed of light, which we have no idea how to do. The highest that we have any inkling of being possible is the antimatter beam thruster, which is estimated at about 1e8.
[1]: Obviously, there are potential methods of doing so that aren't Newtonian, but as per the discussion above that is explicity _not_ what we're discussing here; the only alternative Newtonian method would rely on harvesting momentum from the environment somehow, which obviously cannot reach such accelerations as 100g in the kind of environments we're discussing.
Wikipedia disagrees with you. Kirby was certainly involved in the development of the character, although the extent of his contribution is somewhat disputed. Ditko is quoted as saying that even he isn't sure who exactly designed the character.
Slashdot Mirror
The patent is not a business-model patent for time-based licensing, its a technology patent for a specific scheme of enforcing time-based licensing rules.
No, it isn't. The claims of the patent are so ridiculously vague they would cover any such technology. Here's claim 1:
"1. A machine-implemented method for licensing a software product, the machine-implemented method comprising:generating a time-based license from among a plurality of types of time-based licenses in response to receiving a request for the time-based license, each of the plurality of types of time-based licenses having a plurality of configurable parameters, a combination of the plurality of types of time-based licenses and the plurality of configurable parameters being capable of accommodating a plurality of licensing business models; andsending the time-based license to an originating processing device of the request for the time-based license."
This patent would cover any automated software licensing business offering multiple types of limited time licenses, and is therefore a business model patent, not a technology one.
The more specific claims don't add much, either:
2 - some licenses are renewable
3 - supports a restriction on how many times the software can be reactivated
4 - product keys that can be used on a specified number of computers
5 - system for switching to a permanent license after a certain number of limited ones
6 - (I don't understand this claim; can somebody translate for me?)
7 - some licenses might not start immediately
8 - computer with the above scheme in memory
9-14 - covers a management user interface, really boring stuff
15 - above scheme stored on machine-readable media
16 - a command line interface to license management
17 - displaying a warning when the license is about to expire
18 - making the software stop working when the license expires
19 - informing the user how long the software will continue working for
20 - an api whereby a program can query whether it is licensed or not
Seriously. This is all _basic_ stuff, and covers just about every possible implementation, not just a single implementation of the idea.
I implemented this system in it's entirety with another engineer back about 6 years ago. Complete with the license server and the multiple parameters of the license. Is there a way to protest this being patented? It's still in daily use for my wife's company.
Yes. It's still in the application phase, so you can make a representation to the patent office as to why you believe it shouldn't be granted. You need some legal advice on how best to provide such a representation. There are several people who may be able to give you such advice; it may be worth contacting either the EFF or the Public Patent Foundation, both of whom have a lot of experience in this field.
A license is a contract. A contract is an exchange of enforceable promises. Patenting a contractual idea would deprive other people of the freedom to contract in a certain manner (because Microsoft has patented it). Freedom to contract is an idea that a lot of judges groove with--it has a lot to do with liberty, freedom, and other cool ideas like that.
The argument doesn't work, though, because they're not patenting a type of contract, but a method of producing product keys as an antipiracy measure in conjunction with such a contract.
Obviously this is nothing new, and MS's patent application iw way too general and thus falls down on a huge quantity of prior art. I imagine some of the more specific claims may survive (e.g. one of their claims is for a 'valid from' field to allow postdated licenses, which may be new).
Name's also Cadence, who had a system to issue time-based licenses automatically based on customer request. EDACard, I think they called it. While not exactly the same, I think that everything describes is obvious based on waht Cadence did with their EDACard program and FlexLM.
Really? Cadence software I have here is using flexlm... have they changed recently?
Yeah, it's almost like Germany never ratified the United States Bill of Rights...
They may not have done. But they have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, which has stuff to say about things like this...
Note: I do not agree with the German governments staunch policy against symbols but they're free to govern as they see fit (pending the EU's approval).
Actually, they're signatories to the ECHR, so theoretically they have guaranteed freedom of expression in a way that trumps their own government of it. This law is quite clearly a violation of free expression, and is therefore probably unconstituational.
Also: here's a question... do german history books not have pictures of swastikas in them? Does this law not also make any such book illegal? It's interesting to note that the German wikipedia is clearly not following any such proscription.
The Elite manual describes it thus:
because something going past at nearly 600km/hr[1] is too hard to hit with a laser controlled by your mouse ...
[1] the relative velocity you get if two ships with 20g thrusters fire their engine for one second each while facing each other
This exposes two issues with the game design, not with the principle of newtonian space sims:
1. 20g is way too high a thrust for the sizes of ships involved. 600km/hr wouldn't be a problem if the ships were bigger, and wouldn't happen as much if the thrust were lower.
2. If aiming is too hard then some kind of targetting assistance should be provided... but *not* by engaging the autopilot, which negates the most fun part of flying a newtonian space combat sim, i.e. trying to control your ship with 3 complete degrees of freedom while keeping your weapons on target and avoiding your enemy getting a good lock on you.
It also exposes an issue with how you were playing the game, but that could also be seen as a game mechanic failure: there was no tutorial that taught you how to fight properly. In Frontier, the *best* method of combat was to turn your ship into free flight mode, stick the retro-thrusters on and try to keep the enemy in front of you. That way, the enemy's acceleration towards you is reduced and you can keep firing at them for longer, long enough to be able to (hopefully) get several hits in each run.
...except that it is fun, but EVE is about politics more than Newtonian physics simulation.
You as the pilot simply set destination and targets and when to fire, but you'd be amazed at the complexity of the game.
You often find yourself engaging and killing enemies at ranges greater than 50km but there are other techniques to have close range combat, but since you don't directly control the flight of the craft that doesn't matter that much either.
Overall, I have a hunch if we were to have space combat in the future, it would be like EVE in which you engage your opponent at vast distances with smart weaponry.
Trust me... Its a blast.
Funny. I did the EVE 14 day trial about a month or so ago, and found it one of the most tedious games I'd ever played. And it's decidedly non-newtonian physics really annoyed me, especially because with the computer controlled movement and combat there's essentially no reason *not* to use newtonian physics.
the shuttle after all is still landed manually.
Maybe, but only after its navigation computer has aerobraked it down to a speed where it's controllable by humans. Plus, it is _capable_ of entirely automatic landing; the only reason they doesn't usually do this is basically down to paranoia.
He should be held liable for his actions, and for the crimes he committed
Absolutely. Of course, what most Americans haven't stopped to consider is that because he was in the UK at the time he committed his crime, the crime he committed was a violation of the UK's Computer Misuse Act, not the equivalent US law. I see no reason a British citizen who is not in the US should have to comply with US law.
That being the case, he should be liable for 5 years imprisonment (of which, in the normal course of events, he would only serve half), not the 70 years he faces under US law.
If he existed, I'm willing to bet he drank something from a cup at some point before his death.
Yes, but the basic point of the holy grail is the notion that he performed the first eucharist with it, thus creating the core ceremony of the Christian church. If this didn't happen (and the evidence that we have that it did is pretty damned sketchy; nobody bothered mentioning it in writing until around 20 years after he died) then no holy grail ever existed, at least not in the sense that most Christians would imagine such an artifact.
It wasn't a delusion, it was just a cup that a guy who is still remembered 2000 years later drank from before he was tortured to death. It most likely no longer exists, but it did at one time. Its existance was documented.
Any documentation that exists was put together at least 10-20 years after the event, much of it much longer than that. It would be quite hard to be sure that any details in such documentation are accurate. For all we know, the entire event of the Last Supper may be a myth. The notion that Jesus showed his disciples the ritual of the eucharist and told them to do it in his memory is quite likely to be an after-the-event invention by the church. If that's the case, no holy grail, at least not in the commonly-imagined sense, ever existed.
A little offtopic, but I was looking into running a service based on transactions under $1 but I simlpy couldn't make the numbers work. All the services I looked at that would accept credit cards took at least $.20 of any transaction which would just trash any margins we would have. Any ideas?
The only field where microtransactions appear to be having any traction at all, MMORPGs, have come up with the idea of congregating a number of games together under a single site, then having you buy credits on that site in minimum transaction sizes of about $3-5, which you can divide as you see fit between the games running there.
Could you adapt this idea for your business plan?
Actually, looking at this Morgan Stanley presentation, it seems that $25 for today's CPM is overly optimistic. They're quoting a figure of $18 for 2008's, and the trend has been ever-downwards.
Is there a reason why advertising doesn't pay for the content? What am I missing here?
This _was_ viable a while ago. It's starting to look less so, for a number of reasons:
1. Global recession. Most businesses have reduced their advertising budget, and are concentrating on their core marketplace. Internet advertising is suffering more than most because it is perceived by most advertisers as less targeted and less successful than other types of advertising.
2. Meanwhile, the amount of content being produced and published is increasing, so the number of ad impressions available to purchase is actually increasing. Google Adwords has opened up the ad-supported business model to amateurs who would never have been considered by the ad networks before it opened up (consider, for example, doubleclick.net, which had a minimum number of impressions that was, IIRC, in excess of 10,000 per month), drastically increasing the number of ads served every day. This combined with the last point means that the price per impression is dropping drastically. Typical cost these days is around $25 per thousand impressions. When I was last selling ad space on a site, some time around 2004, it was $40 per thousand. Inflation adjusted, that's closer to $45 in today's money. That's a nearly 50% drop in revenue per page served, even assuming you can fill all your ad space, which many of the sites with large numbers of visitors struggle to achieve.
3. Increased competition for readers. A few years ago, only a few of the major newspapers put all their content online for free. Now, they almost all do. And the number of people who have shifted to getting their news from blogs and forums that have links to the interesting stories (much like slashdot, for example) is ever-increasing. This has diluted the number of visitors to each site, resulting in a reduction of the number of impressions served.
The BBC is the left-wing propaganda arm of the British state; the only sense in which it's 'politically independent' is that it doesn't drop its left-wing slant even when a right-wing government is in power, though it does tone down a little.
ROTFLMAO.
Really? Have you ever actually _watched_ the BBC?
The character of The Journal doesn't change from one day to the next.
Neither does Fox News.
Yes, but each has good articles and bad articles, only the relative frequency of each differs... the problem is, the site owners (especially News Corp, which happens to own both Fox and WSJ, but some others as well) want to charge us _for each article we view_.
Which, to my mind, would put web-based news back to being less convenient than buying a newspaper. I don't want to have to make a decision before starting to read an article about whether I think it's likely to be worth the money I'm paying for it, even if that money is only pennies...
Sometimes its funny how much US is lacking behind on some things.
Not just the US, there's no services like this in most of western Europe either. The reason? It looks to our governments like a money laundering scheme.
Which, to be fair, my understanding is that it is quite frequently used as a money laundering scheme (e.g. 1, 2)... it's just that the Russian government doesn't particularly care. At some point, though, I suspect they'll start caring, and you'll be in pretty-much the same boat we are.
A DRM scheme that doesn't work? That's totally amazing.
Took me about 9 months to reach Elite. I dont remember any special screen or anything.
IIRC, it pops up a message that says "Congratulations, Commander" across the bottom of the screen.
Where do you get that from the legislation? The section you quote starts out:
In the case of any work other than a work made for hire...
It seems works for hire are not subject to transfer, which makes sense since you purchased the work, not licensed the rights to it.
Yeah, sorry, terminology slip due to the fact that the OP was using the term loosely. This wasn't work for hire; Kirby was a freelancer who sold the rights to Marvel.
I wrote: For Isp here
Ahem. What I meant to write was:
For Isp < 2.55e8 (ie 85% of the speed of light) this is actually unattainable (the mass of the non-fuel portions of the ship would need to be negative).
There's a handy table of Isp for some thruster technologies, both real and proposed, here.
Even then, accelerating at 100g for 6 days is implausible, due to the fuel mass requirements
Isn't that a matter of the type of energy conversion?
IANARS (I am not a rocket scientist), but I do know a little about the field, so take this with a small pinch of salt:
Energy balancing is the wrong approach here, as you can quite easily violate fundamental limits without noticing it when performing the calculation in this fashion. It comes more down to the requirement that the acceleration of the ship be produced by ejecting mass from the ship in the opposite direction. Newtonian mechanics suggests there is no viable alternative method of moving the ship[1], so this is what we have. When M kg of mass leaves the ship travelling at v m/s, the ship gains Mv momentum (conservation of momentum). The theoretical limit of v is c, approximately 3e+8 m/s.
Our acceleration of 100g for 6 days results in a change of velocity (delta v) of around 5.1 e+8 m/s (yes, I know this results in a velocity that exceeds the speed of light, but of course the acceleration will be in one direction for half the trip and the other for the remainder, so no actual fundamental physical limits are violated...).
Now, if we are accelerating uniformly (as the original post suggested, and is how things work in the Frontier series of games), this means that the average momentum imparted to our reaction mass is going to be equal to half of its total mass times our delta v (because, on average, we are carrying half of it with us at any given time).
So, with reaction mass Mr and ship mass Ms and total impulse I we have:
I = (0.5*Mr + Ms) * deltav [units will be kg m/s]
We also know from the first paragraph of this reply that:
Isp = 3e8 (kg m/s) / kg (which are strange units but it works out best below...)
so:
I = Isp*Mr = 3e8*Mr kg m/s
3e8*Mr = (0.5*Mr + Ms)5.1e8 .15Mr = Ms
Mr = 1.7(0.5*Mr + Ms)
Mr = 0.85Mr + Ms
So, even with this fundamentally implausible drive method, we still need to carry nearly 7 times as much fuel as mass of the rest of the ship. Note that, in general, for any exhaust velocity Isp:
Isp*Mr = (0.5*Mr + Ms)5.1e8
Mr = (5.1e8/Isp) (0.5*Mr + Ms)
(1 - 2.55e8/Isp) Mr = Ms
For Isp here. The only one that meets the requirement is the photon drive, i.e. direct translation of reaction mass into photons at the speed of light, which we have no idea how to do. The highest that we have any inkling of being possible is the antimatter beam thruster, which is estimated at about 1e8.
[1]: Obviously, there are potential methods of doing so that aren't Newtonian, but as per the discussion above that is explicity _not_ what we're discussing here; the only alternative Newtonian method would rely on harvesting momentum from the environment somehow, which obviously cannot reach such accelerations as 100g in the kind of environments we're discussing.
That was Stan Lee and Steve Ditko.
Wikipedia disagrees with you. Kirby was certainly involved in the development of the character, although the extent of his contribution is somewhat disputed. Ditko is quoted as saying that even he isn't sure who exactly designed the character.