Not quite. It will prove prior art, if documented properly. I mean, it's the same as just having logbooks detailing your work from the period, except that you get it notarized before putting it in the envelope and then have the registered mail logs to prove the date it was mailed.
Then if you need proof of prior art, you've got it.
But, the problem with patents is that simultaneous (provable) independant invention doesn't invalidate the patent, like it should. (If two people can come up with it at the same time, how worthy of protection as unique, can the idea possibly be?)
Anyways, this method isn't a specific defense against anything patent related, but can really help, because it makes what is otherwise an easily fakeable log book into fairly convincing evidence.
But, Amazon was able to patent 1-click even though it's a very logical extension of cookies and GUI design. Streamlining involves asking for less confirmation, especially if it's not fatal (formatting HD or something) and cookies let you know who the user is.
Amazon really shouldn't have been allowed to patent this, it's not a technology, it's a use of an existing technology. Like patenting the use of a car in delivering pizzas.
So, anyways, often a company will patent an idea just so they can show they have the right to use it, because even if they just documented their use of it, another company could still get a temporary restraining order against them which as we've seen in the EToys case (and MPAA, etc) is trivially easy to get and geared just to break the other party by running them out of money. And who cares who would eventually win, if the victim goes bankrupt long before that point?
I'm in this boycott until Amazon promises in writing to *never* use patents except for defensive use, in *any* case. Anything less is just useless posturing. That Bezos cares enough to answer is proof that the boycott is working, a bit at least.
I made a backup of my Ultima 4 disk and then sector edited it... If you play enough you get to recognize the landscape even when it's hex codes instead of graphics.
Luckily the 16x16 chunks they saved it in mapped nicely to the 256B sectors on Apple 2 5.25s so my hex editor (Copy//+) showed the data in roughly the same format as it was in the game.
I then went through the sector putting all byte values in and when I played the game, writing down what each value was. Some values were for things like horses and ships. But what was really cool was that you could 'B'oard the horse/ship and ride/sail it away and there was still one there. So I went through the map editing horses and ships near all the towns, so no matter where I wanted to go I'd have the proper transport easily available.
This was in '88 or so, on my Apple//gs (not my first Apple// by 6 years or so) with Ultima 4 and 5...
And I did something similar recently, with some shareware adventure game. Now of course, with a multitasking OS, it's easier to just snoop on the process's memory and make edits that way.
While I empathize with Amazon, and anyone in the role of a startup trying to remain independant, even if they're worth billions, I can't condone their practices.
Patenting 1-click is like patenting giving change instead of requiring the exact ammount, in retail. You'd be laughed at for trying to patent being open on Sunday's.
So why is it okay to patent an obvious form of customer service?
It's not like there's *any* new technology in it, it's all old stuff (cookies, CGI, etc) used in exactly the way it was intended. Amazon didn't invent anything, hell, they didn't even *discover* anything, they simply were the first to use an obvious tool.
It's a blatant abuse of what the law was meant for and "They're doing it too" isn't a valid excuse. If the only way your company can survive is by abusing the spirit of the law, then maybe you shouldn't be in business.
Presumably it'd use MD5 or something, to determine the signature, each time a file is written, then use some decent database algorithm with a binary search, to look for identical signatures, then it'd mark the second file as a copy and use a link. So it'd only fingerprint a file once and when saving it'd just be a ram-based searching algorithm.
The most inefficient way to achieve redundancy is to simply make a second copy.
Better would be to a decent redundancy algorithm so you store enough to correct any N-byte errors. With a low N you'd get better efficiency that 100% duplication, or better protection. You could distribute the data throughout the backup multiple times so if the same spot had an error in the backup as in the original, the extra copies would be enough to fix it.
I think Reed-Solomon codes are what you'd use.
Anyways, multiple copies of a file would be better off stored as one + distributed redundancy than two copies.
But if the 99,900 of them are script kiddies who can only use known exploits, they aren't hard to fight off. The 100 knowledgable and motivated ones are the problem either way.
Script kiddies are a problem, but mainly to the 95% of sites that aren't maintained, the ones that have admins who read bugtraq, etc, are fine.
If you're on the ball as an admin, you shouldn't have many script kiddy problems.
But, if it was shown that MS had used GPLed code intentionally, I think it could be shown that all the profit from the sales of the products that used the code were appropriate damages. Plus legal fees and all.
If it was enough, the FSF might decide to settle for Windows simply being GPLed.
You only need to follow the GPL if you distribute a program based on the GPL (or source for such, etc, but that's automatically following the GPL, so...)
If you use the GPLed derivative yourself, or (I believe) in your own company, you're fine.
By this logic, any contract or license is assumed to be completely unenforceable until specifically upheld? The GPL is a pretty straight forward application of copyright law, it doesn't assume any other laws, or constitutional rights, or anything. I'd give it the benefit of the doubt.
It might not be upheld completely by a court in the case where MS accidentally (by the act of one programmer) included some GPLed code, the court might allow them to make financial reperations and rewrite the code instead of open sourcing all of Windows... But that'd only be likely is MS could show (without doctored evidence, this time) that the programmer acted without company authorization.
But then there's enlightened self interest. If the best way to serve yourself is to also serve the community, you'd be crazy not to.
And if the QuakeLives thing gives the GPL teeth once Carmack has put his foot down, then we'll be able to attack developers who do steal GPLed source.
I doubt the AC actualy did this, because/. logs IPs and a confession of this, along with/. passing his IP on to the FSF, could lead to a nasty legal problem. Anonymous Cowards are only anonymous to the other users. (If you don't think/. logs, if only to stop trivial attacks, then you're very naive.)
But, I'm sure a lot of companies do steal GPLed code, whenever a large block of code is useful (personally I always end up rewriting code I borrow anyways, to make it fit properly). If we get any proof, like perhaps an unstripped binary with the same symbols as similar GPLed code, then we could get nasty. And, just think. If MS (for instance) used GPLed TCP/IP code they'd have just made the whole basic OS open source, if it was proved. That'd be hilarious.
I almost want to get a job there and leave useful GPLed tidbits (obviously marked as GPLed) around, to tempt their programmers to steal them.
Ugh! The whole idea of digital video for a lot of people is being able to get clear stills and to single-frame through things.
The bit about not being able to skip ads really pisses me off, I'll *never* buy a DVD with it, even if I end up with a player that doesn't enforce it. The Mummy does this too.
Other people may want DeCSS for piracy, I want it to get rid of all the bullshit they impose.
You know, the DeCSS code is what they have an injunction against, not all publishing of the method used. That was legally obtained. It shouldn't be long until a big hardware company without media links (Sony owns a studio, so will toe the MPAA line) produces a player than simple bypasses CSS. Then we'll not only get cheaper players but also ones that don't include all the corporate baggage.
Re:CmdrTaco Forgot one thing
on
A New DeCSS
·
· Score: 2
This is a little beyond what is really needed, and I think wouldn't be protected. If the DeCSS source code isn't deemed to be a 'creative' work, then simply reading it won't be either.
What we need to do is strip out just the important bits, not the part that copies the.VOB file or anything, just the CSS authentication parts. Then discuss this, maybe in a teaching metaphor, describing the method and so on, in enough detail that anyone could implement it.
Then we can distribute the non-CSS part of DeCSS, the big long part, that actually copies the files, etc. Like it used to be legal to distribute Pine, even if a 2k patch could integrate PGP encryption into it, creating an encryption product that would have been undistributable.
The idea is to make the 'illegal' part a creative work, by presenting it in human language, as a discussion of the security systems. This lets anyone past 'script kiddie' level implement the program, but should make it legal to distribute. Especially if the parts of DeCSS that it would be linked to (the non CSS-authenticating parts) could do something other than just copy protected DVD.VOBs... maybe if it was a generalized util to pull files from a DVD, or something.
Yes, patents aren't free, unlike copyrights. (Nor are they automatic.)
But, the upfront costs are usually the low costs. The big $$ comes in when you defend the patent (or use it offensively.)
And, if you (author) used a product that had a GPL-ish licensed patent, it wouldn't force you to patent something, it'd just require that any patented procedure in that program was also licensed in the same way.
And yeah, the RT patent could be worth a few bucks. I haven't looked at it so I don't know how obvious it is. If it's a 'good' patent then he deserves a few bucks. And a company that wants to use RT Linux for a specific application could probably afford to shell out a few $$ for the privellage.
Where I'm not happy with this is that the GPL doesn't forbid patent encumberance, or bundling the GPLed code and patented algorithms (non distributable and non freely usuable because of the patent). IMHO if you use GPLed code, it should be mandatory that it leave your hands as unencumbered as when you got it.
(By which I mean, if RSA released the an RSA module which they GPLed, it would be patent encumbered, but if they created it from scratch, that would be fine. But if they took the existing network code or GPG code and made it dependant on patented algorithms, they should be in effect granting free use of that patent in any way, as might be derived from that code.) (ie, if someone took that theoretical GPG code and turned it into an encrypted file system, that should be allowed, the same as using any GPL code in your code, no matter the insignificance, turns your code GPL...)
Hey RMS, if you read/. and this message... What are you doing wrt patents? Is the FSF working on a GPL-type license for this?
They did so send thugs. The thugs they sent were wearing police uniforms, with search warrants, but what does that matter? If they get obviously illegal search warrants, and pursue it in that matter, it's still a thug pounding on the door, demanding compliance under pain of injury or death, no matter what uniform they wear.
Any big company can toss around enough money to get the government to look the other way, which is what Northwest did. They had no good legal leg to stand on, but that didn't seem to hurt their ability to get a search warrant. Wonder if that judge has a new car, or free flights, or something...
A thug by any other name will still beat you senseless for not complying.
Depends on the agreement. If you were given the computer for work, then they could do this, and have all the rights that they would on computers at the workplace.
But... It would be hard to say that they gave their employees families computers for work. It's obviously a gift, as an employment incentive. Gift can't be taken back, so they would have no more luck than if you bought the computer yourself.
But... as we've seen from the Northwest (spit spit) incident, a large corp can get thugs to do their bidding even with no legal leg to stand on.
So in the end, it really doesn't matter. If the matter ever reaches a judge who isn't bribed, there are limits to what they can see. I doubt they could demand your spouses encryption key for even if the data was on a work computer. But, companies like this have a real tendency to just skip all this problematic fair trial stuff and send in the goons.
So, if Ford wants, it'll send thugs to get the data, no matter what the employee's sign. But, because it's obviously a gift, they don't have the right to.
But the GPL isn't a free license (as in BSD). The GPL has restrictions... A patent will be that free as long as the only restrictions are GPL-ish, as in derivative patents and copyrighted materials have to carry a similar license.
The GPL is free in that it makes no restrictions as to who can use the material, or for what. A company is just as free to sell GPLed code as an end user is to use it (provided they follow the free distro rules, etc.) As long as the patents are similar, such that any use in an open-source, open-patent project is allowed, then I fully support it.
I would like to see a standard license developed for this sort of thing. Maybe the FSF can develop one.
Side note: I see patents being used to protect your business against competitors, not against anyone using the idea. As such, eventually having all patents free (as in, companies decide that being able to use the GPLed patent portfolio is more useful than keeping their patents secret) would still serve to prevent a hostile company from stealing research, because it would have to open all of its patents to use the free ones, but it would serve to advance knowledge more rapidly, ala open source.
Patents are a defensive measure, which really, is what the GPL is. If we could trust everyone to look out for the best interests of the community, or to at least not hurt the community, the GPL would be pointless, people would keep code open simply for the benefits to everyone. We've seen though that this doesn't happen, something like the GPL is needed to keep people 'honest'.
We've seen companies use patents in incredibly hostile ways. Amazon's 1-click patent, that company with the patent on selling any digital information over a network, etc. And they immediately lashed out with these, seeking exorbitant licensing fees or to put competitors out of business.
We need a GPL-type license for patents, something where any company using the GPLed patent in any product has to similarly GPL all the code and patents in the product.
Then a company could patent something, to keep anyone else from using it against them, but by releasing it under the GPL, prevent any fears that they're trying to dominate the industry.
Note though that the article said that Linux users would be granted a royalty free license... nothing about home users, or free users, etc. If this is applied to any open source OS, then it's good in my opinion.
But I would like to see RMS and the FSF come up with a GPL-like license for use with patents.
If there was a standard GPL-type license, and it only forced other people to GPL their patents and code, then it would have the same effect as the GPL does on code, and couldn't be applied selectively. But commercial users who didn't like that provision could still negotiate other licenses. The best of both worlds.
Your post makes perfect sense. Copyrights are granted because they're good for society and for the owner of the IP. They protect against mass copying and so make the owner more likely to release their IP for everyone's use.
If that material isn't usable by people, then it shouldn't be granted copyright.
No, but there are a lot fewer magazines and emags than customers in general. It is feasible to sue magazines who publish these articles.
The DMCA is the result of illegal bribes, plain and simple. Ditto with similar laws, like the retroactive copyright length extension. And I say this not just as a user, but as an author.
I'll never shop at Amazon again, nor EToys, nor, now, any corporation who exercises their illegally gained rights from the DMCA.
(You can't just boycott a company while they have an active lawsuit, and stop when they're done, because like EToys recent exercise in judge bribing, they'll simply stop when they achieved what they needed, like kicking etoy off the net during the christmas season. If you boycott them, *never* go back, there are always alternatives.)
It'll never happen. I won't buy a device or program that watermarks the files I produce, or if I do, I'll crack it to remove that 'feature'. My computer serves me, only. I refuse to participate in any copy protection schemes.
Ditto for the US Gov's idea of making printers write the serial number on everything they print. I'll buy imported models that don't do that, or disable it, one way or another.
Nah, no new laws needed, especially since those wouldn't affect ISPs outside of the USA (if the US gov passed them.)
We basically need to get all backbone providers and ISPs to include allowing spoofed packets, harbouring spammers, and other offenses on their no-no list, so that the backbone provider can shut down sites that allow this. We saw how effective the UDP was on @home, and being on the RBL makes ISPs comply PDQ. Something similar where allowing DOS attacks simply got the whole network blacklisted until the attack stopped or the bugs were fixed would be good.
If it was part of the standard agreement then it wouldn't require government intervention and would be applicable worldwide, not just in some countries.
So hang camouflage netting over the yard. If need be, tie scraps of cloth to it that are died in shades of green. That'll interfere with anyone seeing clearly enough to make a naked eye identification.
This saves on using hydroponics and sunlamps, which chew through so much power (for a decent sized crop) that your power bill skyrockets, and they often catch growers by watching power bill fluctuations.
Growing with sunlight gets around that problem, and reduces the ammount of work you have to do.
But, if you want to grow it, why not trek up into government land, find a clearing, and plant there? Find a place with adequate (lots) rainfall, and stop by every few weeks to fertilize.
That would strike me as the best way to grow, and to avoid being caught.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite. It will prove prior art, if documented properly. I mean, it's the same as just having logbooks detailing your work from the period, except that you get it notarized before putting it in the envelope and then have the registered mail logs to prove the date it was mailed.
Then if you need proof of prior art, you've got it.
But, the problem with patents is that simultaneous (provable) independant invention doesn't invalidate the patent, like it should. (If two people can come up with it at the same time, how worthy of protection as unique, can the idea possibly be?)
Anyways, this method isn't a specific defense against anything patent related, but can really help, because it makes what is otherwise an easily fakeable log book into fairly convincing evidence.
Well, this would be true in an ideal system.
But, Amazon was able to patent 1-click even though it's a very logical extension of cookies and GUI design. Streamlining involves asking for less confirmation, especially if it's not fatal (formatting HD or something) and cookies let you know who the user is.
Amazon really shouldn't have been allowed to patent this, it's not a technology, it's a use of an existing technology. Like patenting the use of a car in delivering pizzas.
So, anyways, often a company will patent an idea just so they can show they have the right to use it, because even if they just documented their use of it, another company could still get a temporary restraining order against them which as we've seen in the EToys case (and MPAA, etc) is trivially easy to get and geared just to break the other party by running them out of money. And who cares who would eventually win, if the victim goes bankrupt long before that point?
I'm in this boycott until Amazon promises in writing to *never* use patents except for defensive use, in *any* case. Anything less is just useless posturing. That Bezos cares enough to answer is proof that the boycott is working, a bit at least.
I made a backup of my Ultima 4 disk and then sector edited it... If you play enough you get to recognize the landscape even when it's hex codes instead of graphics.
//+) showed the data in roughly the same format as it was in the game.
//gs (not my first Apple // by 6 years or so) with Ultima 4 and 5...
Luckily the 16x16 chunks they saved it in mapped nicely to the 256B sectors on Apple 2 5.25s so my hex editor (Copy
I then went through the sector putting all byte values in and when I played the game, writing down what each value was. Some values were for things like horses and ships. But what was really cool was that you could 'B'oard the horse/ship and ride/sail it away and there was still one there. So I went through the map editing horses and ships near all the towns, so no matter where I wanted to go I'd have the proper transport easily available.
This was in '88 or so, on my Apple
And I did something similar recently, with some shareware adventure game. Now of course, with a multitasking OS, it's easier to just snoop on the process's memory and make edits that way.
Hi Alan.
:)
Fancy finding you here.
I remember the realtor story, but from what I remember, it didn't stop with edlin problems.
ttul
While I empathize with Amazon, and anyone in the role of a startup trying to remain independant, even if they're worth billions, I can't condone their practices.
Patenting 1-click is like patenting giving change instead of requiring the exact ammount, in retail. You'd be laughed at for trying to patent being open on Sunday's.
So why is it okay to patent an obvious form of customer service?
It's not like there's *any* new technology in it, it's all old stuff (cookies, CGI, etc) used in exactly the way it was intended. Amazon didn't invent anything, hell, they didn't even *discover* anything, they simply were the first to use an obvious tool.
It's a blatant abuse of what the law was meant for and "They're doing it too" isn't a valid excuse. If the only way your company can survive is by abusing the spirit of the law, then maybe you shouldn't be in business.
Presumably it'd use MD5 or something, to determine the signature, each time a file is written, then use some decent database algorithm with a binary search, to look for identical signatures, then it'd mark the second file as a copy and use a link. So it'd only fingerprint a file once and when saving it'd just be a ram-based searching algorithm.
The most inefficient way to achieve redundancy is to simply make a second copy.
Better would be to a decent redundancy algorithm so you store enough to correct any N-byte errors. With a low N you'd get better efficiency that 100% duplication, or better protection. You could distribute the data throughout the backup multiple times so if the same spot had an error in the backup as in the original, the extra copies would be enough to fix it.
I think Reed-Solomon codes are what you'd use.
Anyways, multiple copies of a file would be better off stored as one + distributed redundancy than two copies.
But if the 99,900 of them are script kiddies who can only use known exploits, they aren't hard to fight off. The 100 knowledgable and motivated ones are the problem either way.
Script kiddies are a problem, but mainly to the 95% of sites that aren't maintained, the ones that have admins who read bugtraq, etc, are fine.
If you're on the ball as an admin, you shouldn't have many script kiddy problems.
Wouldn't doubt it. They'd be crazy not to. Even if it wasn't good code, it would still have different ideas which they might find useful.
But unless they actually copy code from it, they're fine. Copyrights only covering the particular expression, not the ideas.
Sure, I was simplifying.
But, if it was shown that MS had used GPLed code intentionally, I think it could be shown that all the profit from the sales of the products that used the code were appropriate damages. Plus legal fees and all.
If it was enough, the FSF might decide to settle for Windows simply being GPLed.
Either way, it'd be cool to see.
You only need to follow the GPL if you distribute a program based on the GPL (or source for such, etc, but that's automatically following the GPL, so...)
If you use the GPLed derivative yourself, or (I believe) in your own company, you're fine.
By this logic, any contract or license is assumed to be completely unenforceable until specifically upheld? The GPL is a pretty straight forward application of copyright law, it doesn't assume any other laws, or constitutional rights, or anything. I'd give it the benefit of the doubt.
It might not be upheld completely by a court in the case where MS accidentally (by the act of one programmer) included some GPLed code, the court might allow them to make financial reperations and rewrite the code instead of open sourcing all of Windows... But that'd only be likely is MS could show (without doctored evidence, this time) that the programmer acted without company authorization.
But then there's enlightened self interest. If the best way to serve yourself is to also serve the community, you'd be crazy not to.
/. logs IPs and a confession of this, along with /. passing his IP on to the FSF, could lead to a nasty legal problem. Anonymous Cowards are only anonymous to the other users. (If you don't think /. logs, if only to stop trivial attacks, then you're very naive.)
And if the QuakeLives thing gives the GPL teeth once Carmack has put his foot down, then we'll be able to attack developers who do steal GPLed source.
I doubt the AC actualy did this, because
But, I'm sure a lot of companies do steal GPLed code, whenever a large block of code is useful (personally I always end up rewriting code I borrow anyways, to make it fit properly). If we get any proof, like perhaps an unstripped binary with the same symbols as similar GPLed code, then we could get nasty. And, just think. If MS (for instance) used GPLed TCP/IP code they'd have just made the whole basic OS open source, if it was proved. That'd be hilarious.
I almost want to get a job there and leave useful GPLed tidbits (obviously marked as GPLed) around, to tempt their programmers to steal them.
heheh.
What? You mean there are scenes you can't pause?
Ugh! The whole idea of digital video for a lot of people is being able to get clear stills and to single-frame through things.
The bit about not being able to skip ads really pisses me off, I'll *never* buy a DVD with it, even if I end up with a player that doesn't enforce it. The Mummy does this too.
Other people may want DeCSS for piracy, I want it to get rid of all the bullshit they impose.
You know, the DeCSS code is what they have an injunction against, not all publishing of the method used. That was legally obtained. It shouldn't be long until a big hardware company without media links (Sony owns a studio, so will toe the MPAA line) produces a player than simple bypasses CSS. Then we'll not only get cheaper players but also ones that don't include all the corporate baggage.
This is a little beyond what is really needed, and I think wouldn't be protected. If the DeCSS source code isn't deemed to be a 'creative' work, then simply reading it won't be either.
.VOB file or anything, just the CSS authentication parts. Then discuss this, maybe in a teaching metaphor, describing the method and so on, in enough detail that anyone could implement it.
.VOBs... maybe if it was a generalized util to pull files from a DVD, or something.
What we need to do is strip out just the important bits, not the part that copies the
Then we can distribute the non-CSS part of DeCSS, the big long part, that actually copies the files, etc. Like it used to be legal to distribute Pine, even if a 2k patch could integrate PGP encryption into it, creating an encryption product that would have been undistributable.
The idea is to make the 'illegal' part a creative work, by presenting it in human language, as a discussion of the security systems. This lets anyone past 'script kiddie' level implement the program, but should make it legal to distribute. Especially if the parts of DeCSS that it would be linked to (the non CSS-authenticating parts) could do something other than just copy protected DVD
Yes, patents aren't free, unlike copyrights. (Nor are they automatic.)
/. and this message... What are you doing wrt patents? Is the FSF working on a GPL-type license for this?
But, the upfront costs are usually the low costs. The big $$ comes in when you defend the patent (or use it offensively.)
And, if you (author) used a product that had a GPL-ish licensed patent, it wouldn't force you to patent something, it'd just require that any patented procedure in that program was also licensed in the same way.
And yeah, the RT patent could be worth a few bucks. I haven't looked at it so I don't know how obvious it is. If it's a 'good' patent then he deserves a few bucks. And a company that wants to use RT Linux for a specific application could probably afford to shell out a few $$ for the privellage.
Where I'm not happy with this is that the GPL doesn't forbid patent encumberance, or bundling the GPLed code and patented algorithms (non distributable and non freely usuable because of the patent). IMHO if you use GPLed code, it should be mandatory that it leave your hands as unencumbered as when you got it.
(By which I mean, if RSA released the an RSA module which they GPLed, it would be patent encumbered, but if they created it from scratch, that would be fine. But if they took the existing network code or GPG code and made it dependant on patented algorithms, they should be in effect granting free use of that patent in any way, as might be derived from that code.) (ie, if someone took that theoretical GPG code and turned it into an encrypted file system, that should be allowed, the same as using any GPL code in your code, no matter the insignificance, turns your code GPL...)
Hey RMS, if you read
They did so send thugs. The thugs they sent were wearing police uniforms, with search warrants, but what does that matter? If they get obviously illegal search warrants, and pursue it in that matter, it's still a thug pounding on the door, demanding compliance under pain of injury or death, no matter what uniform they wear.
Any big company can toss around enough money to get the government to look the other way, which is what Northwest did. They had no good legal leg to stand on, but that didn't seem to hurt their ability to get a search warrant. Wonder if that judge has a new car, or free flights, or something...
A thug by any other name will still beat you senseless for not complying.
Depends on the agreement. If you were given the computer for work, then they could do this, and have all the rights that they would on computers at the workplace.
But... It would be hard to say that they gave their employees families computers for work. It's obviously a gift, as an employment incentive. Gift can't be taken back, so they would have no more luck than if you bought the computer yourself.
But... as we've seen from the Northwest (spit spit) incident, a large corp can get thugs to do their bidding even with no legal leg to stand on.
So in the end, it really doesn't matter. If the matter ever reaches a judge who isn't bribed, there are limits to what they can see. I doubt they could demand your spouses encryption key for even if the data was on a work computer. But, companies like this have a real tendency to just skip all this problematic fair trial stuff and send in the goons.
So, if Ford wants, it'll send thugs to get the data, no matter what the employee's sign. But, because it's obviously a gift, they don't have the right to.
But the GPL isn't a free license (as in BSD). The GPL has restrictions... A patent will be that free as long as the only restrictions are GPL-ish, as in derivative patents and copyrighted materials have to carry a similar license.
The GPL is free in that it makes no restrictions as to who can use the material, or for what. A company is just as free to sell GPLed code as an end user is to use it (provided they follow the free distro rules, etc.) As long as the patents are similar, such that any use in an open-source, open-patent project is allowed, then I fully support it.
I would like to see a standard license developed for this sort of thing. Maybe the FSF can develop one.
Side note: I see patents being used to protect your business against competitors, not against anyone using the idea. As such, eventually having all patents free (as in, companies decide that being able to use the GPLed patent portfolio is more useful than keeping their patents secret) would still serve to prevent a hostile company from stealing research, because it would have to open all of its patents to use the free ones, but it would serve to advance knowledge more rapidly, ala open source.
Patents are a defensive measure, which really, is what the GPL is. If we could trust everyone to look out for the best interests of the community, or to at least not hurt the community, the GPL would be pointless, people would keep code open simply for the benefits to everyone. We've seen though that this doesn't happen, something like the GPL is needed to keep people 'honest'.
We've seen companies use patents in incredibly hostile ways. Amazon's 1-click patent, that company with the patent on selling any digital information over a network, etc. And they immediately lashed out with these, seeking exorbitant licensing fees or to put competitors out of business.
We need a GPL-type license for patents, something where any company using the GPLed patent in any product has to similarly GPL all the code and patents in the product.
Then a company could patent something, to keep anyone else from using it against them, but by releasing it under the GPL, prevent any fears that they're trying to dominate the industry.
Note though that the article said that Linux users would be granted a royalty free license... nothing about home users, or free users, etc. If this is applied to any open source OS, then it's good in my opinion.
But I would like to see RMS and the FSF come up with a GPL-like license for use with patents.
If there was a standard GPL-type license, and it only forced other people to GPL their patents and code, then it would have the same effect as the GPL does on code, and couldn't be applied selectively. But commercial users who didn't like that provision could still negotiate other licenses. The best of both worlds.
Your post makes perfect sense. Copyrights are granted because they're good for society and for the owner of the IP. They protect against mass copying and so make the owner more likely to release their IP for everyone's use.
If that material isn't usable by people, then it shouldn't be granted copyright.
No, but there are a lot fewer magazines and emags than customers in general. It is feasible to sue magazines who publish these articles.
The DMCA is the result of illegal bribes, plain and simple. Ditto with similar laws, like the retroactive copyright length extension. And I say this not just as a user, but as an author.
I'll never shop at Amazon again, nor EToys, nor, now, any corporation who exercises their illegally gained rights from the DMCA.
(You can't just boycott a company while they have an active lawsuit, and stop when they're done, because like EToys recent exercise in judge bribing, they'll simply stop when they achieved what they needed, like kicking etoy off the net during the christmas season. If you boycott them, *never* go back, there are always alternatives.)
It'll never happen. I won't buy a device or program that watermarks the files I produce, or if I do, I'll crack it to remove that 'feature'. My computer serves me, only. I refuse to participate in any copy protection schemes.
Ditto for the US Gov's idea of making printers write the serial number on everything they print. I'll buy imported models that don't do that, or disable it, one way or another.
Nah, no new laws needed, especially since those wouldn't affect ISPs outside of the USA (if the US gov passed them.)
We basically need to get all backbone providers and ISPs to include allowing spoofed packets, harbouring spammers, and other offenses on their no-no list, so that the backbone provider can shut down sites that allow this. We saw how effective the UDP was on @home, and being on the RBL makes ISPs comply PDQ. Something similar where allowing DOS attacks simply got the whole network blacklisted until the attack stopped or the bugs were fixed would be good.
If it was part of the standard agreement then it wouldn't require government intervention and would be applicable worldwide, not just in some countries.
So hang camouflage netting over the yard. If need be, tie scraps of cloth to it that are died in shades of green. That'll interfere with anyone seeing clearly enough to make a naked eye identification.
This saves on using hydroponics and sunlamps, which chew through so much power (for a decent sized crop) that your power bill skyrockets, and they often catch growers by watching power bill fluctuations.
Growing with sunlight gets around that problem, and reduces the ammount of work you have to do.
But, if you want to grow it, why not trek up into government land, find a clearing, and plant there? Find a place with adequate (lots) rainfall, and stop by every few weeks to fertilize.
That would strike me as the best way to grow, and to avoid being caught.