I don't think that you have a counter to my argument that by repeatedly stating as the courts have that there is a 'presumption of validity' that there must by implication be a range of opinions.
Suppose the courts argued that there is a presumption of 'invalidity', if the patent office is there to determined an absolute as specified by the court then the presumption of invalidity and presumption of validity would be the same test.
i.e. if documented dated prior evidence covering all claims is prior art, then NOT[documented dated prior evidence covering all claims is prior art] means patent must be issued.
Yet here we have a case where its so common as to be not documented and time stamped and is clearly in existing use.
" define obviousness anyway it chooses" They have free range between water marks by choosing the high water mark they are choosing one result.
"Because of the presumption of validity, 35 U.S.C. 282 (1994), a defendant must show invalidity by facts supported by clear and convincing evidence. Dana Corp. v. Am. Axle & Mfg., 279 F.3d 1372, 1375, 61 USPQ2d 1609, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Invalidity often entails evidence that prior art renders the patent either anticipated or obvious. "Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102 means lack of novelty, and is a question of fact. To anticipate, every . . . limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Moreover, "[w]hen a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Id."
----------------
You can't have a presumption of validaty unless the patent office is entitled to make a subjective judgement, otherwise there would be nothing to presume. The presumption of validaty would be the same as the presumption of invalidity!
"The simplest way to state this is that the patent office falls under the executive branch of the government which does not have the power to interpret the law as it pleases"
The court sets the high water and low water marks, they are free to interpret between these marks in accordance with the law. They *must* be taking a position when they choose the high water mark, yet they are equally free to choose the low water mark.
"he same test of X Y Z used by the courts to overrule a patent is used by the patent examiners when they try to reject patents."
Why? The patent officers job is to issue patents not to try to reject them. The case law you quote doesn't refute that. It sets the conditions to overturn a patent not to accept it.
In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974). also Wilson is the same. "If a claim is subject to more than one interpretation, at least one of which would render the claim unpatentable over the prior art, the examiner should reject the claim as indefinite"
i.e. if a claim can be objectively determined to be vague (more than one interpretation) then its objectively faulty. It says nothing about the subjective terms.
Deere simply excludes commerical success as an argument.
Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co is the same: "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference."
Again it says nothing about the subjective terms.
"Therefore, unless it can be proven by the standards layed out by the courts that the patent appplication is either non-novel or obvious, the patent must be granted."
No, a subjective judgement must by definition include a range of opinions. The courts dealing with a challenge presume that the patent is valid unless proved invalid so they deal with the 'high water mark' of proof, the case law you quoted gives a low water mark of proof. There must be a range of opinions between those.
Put it this way, if the high water mark and the low water mark were the same, the courts would not have to presume the patent is valid unless proved otherwise because the level of proof would be the same (whether they presumed or not) as if they were originally granting it.
I don't believe that addresses my point. For example, the link you gave is the USPTO opinion of a judgement that I've put to you is fault. For example you quoted "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element..." I refer you to this discussion of that judgement:
"This court requires that a party seeking to invalidate a patent under 102 show that the allegedly invalidating prior art contains "each and every element of [the] claimed invention.""
Notice that the court requires THAT THE PARTY SEEKING TO INVALIDATE A PATENT required to show this higher level.
This judgement is guidance on how to set the bar for an invalidating party (setting a very high bar), not to the patent officer making the original judgement. If you accept that the patent officer is the person positioned to make the initial subjective judgement, the court is setting a high bar for changing that judgement. Further it says:
"The law imposes this high burden because Unocal's patent, like any issued patent, enjoys a presumption of validity"
Here, the PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY presupposes the patent officer made his subjective decision correctly! The court is saying that by default the patent officer's opinion prevails, not that he isn't entitled to an opinion.
The second quote you gave backs my point not yours. He doesn't specify HOW he says "PATENT EXAMINERS CARRY THE RESPONSIBILITY". i.e. he firmly gives the patent officer the judgement not the courts!
Let me put to you a reasoning why when the courts determine high burdens of proof in patent challenges that they are actually strengthening the patent officers right to make a judgement call.
1) The patent law includes subjective elements and objective elements. 2) The patent officer decides on those subjective elements. 3) He decides to issue the patent based on his judgement. 4) Someone challenges the patent. 5) The courts decides that to overrule the patent officers judgement you need that high level of proof of X Y Z.
It's not that the court decided that patent officer needed that high level of proof X Y Z to refuse to issue the patent. It's that the courts have backed his judgement by default unless a high burden of proof is provided to overturn it!
The stricter the conditions X Y Z, the more the court is strengthening the right of the patent officer to make that initial judgement!
Again, if you disagree, can you bring me a case law example where the courts IN THE CONTEXT THE PATENT EXAMINER FACES have ruled that to refuse the patent that same high burden of proof of prior art and non obviousness. Either a court challenge to a refused patent, or where the Judge specifically references an incorrect judgement call on behalf of the patent officer would do it.
But I have to put it to you that its just the US patent office refusing to do its job. That 'invention' is clearly already *known* and *used* so he should not have been given the patent.
"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless-- (a) he invention WAS KNOWN OR USED by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or"
"A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically DISCLOSED OR DESCRIBED a"
These are subjective things 'known' 'used' 'disclosed' 'described' determined first by a patent examiner. The judicial branch only becomes involved later, when they are faced with the situation where the patent officer has already effectively accepted that it is not "KNOWN OR USED" or "DISCLOSED OR DESCRIBED " and are taking a challenge.
So the Judicial branch make their interpretation in the context that the patent officer has done his job.
If I'm wrong then please point me to US case law where the patent office has refused a patent because it is 'known' or 'used' and the courts have then set an interpretation that overrules them.
"Unfortunatley the courts have set the burden of proving obviousness so high that it becomes difficult to reject something as being obvious."
Except it only gets to court *after* the patent office has already passed it according to its own rules and its being challenged in court.
The patent office could define obviousness anyway it chooses that fits the necessary criteria of 'invention' (i.e. something new) and 'not obvious to a practictioner in the field'.
" This dictates the amount of investment he can afford to put into his work."
Doesn't the cost of creating a work relate to the cost of creating the work? i.e. its not that a song costs $1000 to write if copyright is 14 years and $6500 to write if copyright is 90 years. The cost is related to the cost of making it.
That musicians and directors etc. get much more than the actual cost is surely just a side effect of over generous copyright.
Movie costs for example, they pay $200 to the director of Lord of the Rings trilogy. Would he have done it for $50 million? I bet he would. $10 millions? Yep. His reward is so much greater than the cost, so its not the *cost* of creating the work thats the limiting factor.
This is Microsoft we're talking about, so its most likely done to attack its competitors rather than any useful purpose. (Who would pay silly money for something they don't want?!).
The only thing I could find that might be it is Relevancyrank (patent pending) which might allow Microsoft to attack Google and Yahoo for personalised search (I haven't studied the patent application yet).
"Is every file looked through to make sure it's not copyrighted? "
All content is copyrighted by default. Doesn't your comment just reflect the tyrany that copyright has become? Aren't you suggesting Google becomes judge jury and pre-censors all to avoid the risk of a copyright infringement?
So? One of my sites doesn't work so well on IE, a moving progress bar doesn't update if you use IE but does work if you use Firefox.
(Its just an animated GIF I set to visible before a slow page switch, for some reason it didn't work on IE).
Because I used FF for the better Javascript console to develop it with, the site works slightly better with FF and I only noticed it when I came to test it on other browsers at the end.
The way I figure it, Firefox is increasingly being used by the tech savvy people and so we'll see lots of things like this, sites that work slightly better on Firefox because thats what they were developed on, and no so well on Internet Explorer.
I can't ignore IE, but its a pain to cope with its quirks and 'good enough' is 'good enough'.
IE users won't miss the little animated bar.
"Last weekend I heard him interviewed on NPR's On the Media, talking about why the RIAA and MPAA don't have a clue in hell about remix culture."
I beg to differ with Lessig and the rest on the benefits of public domain. Let me suggest to you the biggest benefit is not some vague cultural gain when an item goes into public domain. The big benefit is MORE JOBS MAKING NEW STUFF.
How much public domain stuff is on television, radio, books? Almost none. It doesn't make sense to promote a public domain work because anyone could come along and release the same item, leeching off your marketing and undercutting you on price.
So public domain works are available to use, but not worth marketing because you can't get an exclusive on them.
Now consider the other extreme: infinite copyright & perfect DRM. Sony/BMG/Vivendi etc. simply sells music recorded centuries earlier by long dead musicians, endless re-releases from one generation to the next. For the next gazillion years. No work is done, computers send out the files, and take the money -> no jobs.
You have to let works expire into the public domain (free from DRM) to force companies to make new stuff because 'new stuff' = jobs.
"The threat to economic confidence is a lot more significant than "a recession"."
So you're suggesting you can have a recession *AND* have economic confidence at the same time? If thats so why aren't people investing during a recession? You write as though they're unlinked.
"Personally I've lived through 3 recessions in the UK in my lifetime, none were much fun and all of them killed people."
And I've seen people kill themselves over a tax bill.
I believe lack of economic confidence is a tiny thing, and *temporary* loss of economic confidence caused by misstaken words on a website is a *microscopic* thing. Much less damage for example than wasting millions on a quango and taxing people to pay for that quango.
" it's still an attack against critical infrastructure; it's targetted,"
But its not targetted, its the normal scatter gun password sniffer backdoor stuff. If you read the webmaster boards they're all discussing the upserge in this stuff recently.
Surely critical infrastructure is stuff thats critical! i.e. Indispensable.
So intangible things, economic confidence etc. aren't critical because you can live without them. (and given the state of the US$ you ARE living without economic confidence right now!).
Knock a bank off the Internet, what happens? Nothing, Citibank website was down recently, I used the telephone banking instead!
"The business model, and hence attack strategy, adopted by the present attackers is significantly differnt,"
Except it isn't, nothing NISCC describes is anyway different from a normal trojan attack. Everything from the social engineering to the customized variants of backdoors, to the delivery via attachment or website, *everything* is exactly as it is normally with these attacks. You say they are targetting critical infrastructure, no they're not, I'm seeing it right across all my non-critical websites!
" if you're in the UK and you recklon you see this stuff perhaps you should get in touch with the NISCC"
That NISCC advisory exactly describes exactly what I'm seeing. Even down to the 'newspaper article' reference, e.g. the one I shows as an example was from uniontrib.com = San Diego Union Tribune.
I don't see the difference, what they describe is exactly what is normal for this sort of attack, custom backdoor variants, social engineering, website or attachment delivery, sender spoofed, IP address typically Asian.
What exactly is this 'critical infrastructure' thats connected to the NET and why exactly is it connected to the NET when these sorts of things are so common?
---------------------- "Rejected mail, The original message was received at Fri, 17 Jun 2005 08:05:12 +0800 from uniontrib.com [121.206.16.100]." Actually its a trojan (a.COM) in a zip file. Comes from 222.136.55.64 = China -----------------------
"RETURNED MAIL: SEE TRANSCRIPT FOR DETAILS" Another from 222.136.55.64....
I think they're just paranoid, we have nothing to do with security or government, yet we get these trojans all the time too.
The abstract is a little misleading, the patent covers logistics of delivering the orders based on whats in stock etc..
Basically you and I thought that online ordering logistics was a field in itself, with many many companies specialising in it (both doing it and advising on it), and countless books on the subject, but no, apparently it was all in our minds and the subject was invented by Amazon in 2003.
The file cache thread *could* be active, file caching is only done during idle time to let the main thread run better, a simple OS tweak could overlap that better.
Same with the network, it *could* be overlapped better its only not done now to avoid impacting the front thread.
I assume the same is true through all the drivers and OS subsystems.
So yes you may have 1 thread mainly running now, but it doesn't mean you can't gain from this.
But all this misses the point, Sun make servers, the exact sort of boxes that run hundreds of active threads running the same code serving to multiple users. The perfect thing to benefit from this.
"A 1000-cycle task switch is NOTHING compared to the 2.2 million cycles a process has " Fair comment.
"Sure the two cars let you do independent things but when you're working on one task [getting to work] you're not ahead."
But you're not, you never are working on only 1 task.
Look at the threads running on a PC and its hundreds, you have file cache threads, communications threads, all kinds of stuff running.
A whole convoy of cars all sitting in one lane waiting for the car in front. You keep the speed limit the same, make the highway 8 lane and 8 times the cars can pass through.
Also you would save the thread state store/recall overhead, as the processor needs prepped for each thread switch. You have only 1/8th of those happening if the chip can run 8 threads at a time.
I was always horrified that future generations would be listening to their crappy new music instead of Elvis Presley and the Beetles.
I wanted to freeze time so that when music reached its peak in the 60's everyone after that would be made to listen to nothing but cover version of these classic songs.
Now finally the UK and EU have found a solution! Extend copyright, keep the record companies selling the same old excellent shit over and over and over and over and over and over again! That way that new annoying music from those youngsters won't have room in the market place!
Britney can do her "I love rock and roll" and Britney Junior can do her cover version of "I love rock and roll" in another 25 years! Brilliant! A perfect way to prevent new music from being made.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that you have a counter to my argument that by repeatedly stating as the courts have that there is a 'presumption of validity' that there must by implication be a range of opinions.
Suppose the courts argued that there is a presumption of 'invalidity', if the patent office is there to determined an absolute as specified by the court then the presumption of invalidity and presumption of validity would be the same test.
i.e. if documented dated prior evidence covering all claims is prior art, then NOT[documented dated prior evidence covering all claims is prior art] means patent must be issued.
Yet here we have a case where its so common as to be not documented and time stamped and is clearly in existing use.
" define obviousness anyway it chooses"
They have free range between water marks by choosing the high water mark they are choosing one result.
Knock yourself out:
c ourt=Fed&navby=case&no=011301
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?
"Because of the presumption of validity, 35 U.S.C. 282 (1994), a defendant must show invalidity by facts supported by clear and convincing evidence. Dana Corp. v. Am. Axle & Mfg., 279 F.3d 1372, 1375, 61 USPQ2d 1609, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Invalidity often entails evidence that prior art renders the patent either anticipated or obvious. "Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102 means lack of novelty, and is a question of fact. To anticipate, every . . . limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Moreover, "[w]hen a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Id."
----------------
You can't have a presumption of validaty unless the patent office is entitled to make a subjective judgement, otherwise there would be nothing to presume. The presumption of validaty would be the same as the presumption of invalidity!
"The simplest way to state this is that the patent office falls under the executive branch of the government which does not have the power to interpret the law as it pleases"
The court sets the high water and low water marks, they are free to interpret between these marks in accordance with the law.
They *must* be taking a position when they choose the high water mark, yet they are equally free to choose the low water mark.
"he same test of X Y Z used by the courts to overrule a patent is used by the patent examiners when they try to reject patents."
Why? The patent officers job is to issue patents not to try to reject them. The case law you quote doesn't refute that. It sets the conditions to overturn a patent not to accept it.
In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974). also Wilson is the same.
"If a claim is subject to more than one interpretation, at least one of which would render the claim unpatentable over the prior art, the examiner should reject the claim as indefinite"
i.e. if a claim can be objectively determined to be vague (more than one interpretation) then its objectively faulty. It says nothing about the subjective terms.
Deere simply excludes commerical success as an argument.
Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co is the same:
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference."
Again it says nothing about the subjective terms.
"Therefore, unless it can be proven by the standards layed out by the courts that the patent appplication is either non-novel or obvious, the patent must be granted."
No, a subjective judgement must by definition include a range of opinions. The courts dealing with a challenge presume that the patent is valid unless proved invalid so they deal with the 'high water mark' of proof, the case law you quoted gives a low water mark of proof. There must be a range of opinions between those.
Put it this way, if the high water mark and the low water mark were the same, the courts would not have to presume the patent is valid unless proved otherwise because the level of proof would be the same (whether they presumed or not) as if they were originally granting it.
I don't believe that addresses my point. For example, the link you gave is the USPTO opinion of a judgement that I've put to you is fault. For example you quoted "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element..." I refer you to this discussion of that judgement:
/ opinions/99opinions/99-1066.html
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/Federal/judicial/fed
"This court requires that a party seeking to invalidate a patent under 102 show that the allegedly invalidating prior art contains "each and every element of [the] claimed invention.""
Notice that the court requires THAT THE PARTY SEEKING TO INVALIDATE A PATENT required to show this higher level.
This judgement is guidance on how to set the bar for an invalidating party (setting a very high bar), not to the patent officer making the original judgement. If you accept that the patent officer is the person positioned to make the initial subjective judgement, the court is setting a high bar for changing that judgement. Further it says:
"The law imposes this high burden because Unocal's patent, like any issued patent, enjoys a presumption of validity"
Here, the PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY presupposes the patent officer made his subjective decision correctly! The court is saying that by default the patent officer's opinion prevails, not that he isn't entitled to an opinion.
The second quote you gave backs my point not yours. He doesn't specify HOW he says "PATENT EXAMINERS CARRY THE RESPONSIBILITY".
i.e. he firmly gives the patent officer the judgement not the courts!
Let me put to you a reasoning why when the courts determine high burdens of proof in patent challenges that they are actually strengthening the patent officers right to make a judgement call.
1) The patent law includes subjective elements and objective elements.
2) The patent officer decides on those subjective elements.
3) He decides to issue the patent based on his judgement.
4) Someone challenges the patent.
5) The courts decides that to overrule the patent officers judgement you need that high level of proof of X Y Z.
It's not that the court decided that patent officer needed that high level of proof X Y Z to refuse to issue the patent. It's that the courts have backed his judgement by default unless a high burden of proof is provided to overturn it!
The stricter the conditions X Y Z, the more the court is strengthening the right of the patent officer to make that initial judgement!
Again, if you disagree, can you bring me a case law example where the courts IN THE CONTEXT THE PATENT EXAMINER FACES have ruled that to refuse the patent that same high burden of proof of prior art and non obviousness.
Either a court challenge to a refused patent, or where the Judge specifically references an incorrect judgement call on behalf of the patent officer would do it.
But I have to put it to you that its just the US patent office refusing to do its job.
That 'invention' is clearly already *known* and *used* so he should not have been given the patent.
I disagree, here's why
"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
(a) he invention WAS KNOWN OR USED by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or"
"A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically DISCLOSED OR DESCRIBED a"
These are subjective things 'known' 'used' 'disclosed' 'described' determined first by a patent examiner. The judicial branch only becomes involved later, when they are faced with the situation where the patent officer has already effectively accepted that it is not "KNOWN OR USED" or "DISCLOSED OR DESCRIBED " and are taking a challenge.
So the Judicial branch make their interpretation in the context that the patent officer has done his job.
If I'm wrong then please point me to US case law where the patent office has refused a patent because it is 'known' or 'used' and the courts have then set an interpretation that overrules them.
"Unfortunatley the courts have set the burden of proving obviousness so high that it becomes difficult to reject something as being obvious."
Except it only gets to court *after* the patent office has already passed it according to its own rules and its being challenged in court.
The patent office could define obviousness anyway it chooses that fits the necessary criteria of 'invention' (i.e. something new) and 'not obvious to a practictioner in the field'.
"Anti-retroviral medication, "
Immunisation
"designer drugs"
LSD, Opium
"endovascular stents"
Don't know what they are.
"non invasive diagnostic imaging... "
Ct scanner = XRays+computer
"they pay $200 to the director of Lord of the Rings trilogy"
Erm, $200 *million*. My bad.
" This dictates the amount of investment he can afford to put into his work."
Doesn't the cost of creating a work relate to the cost of creating the work? i.e. its not that a song costs $1000 to write if copyright is 14 years and $6500 to write if copyright is 90 years.
The cost is related to the cost of making it.
That musicians and directors etc. get much more than the actual cost is surely just a side effect of over generous copyright.
Movie costs for example, they pay $200 to the director of Lord of the Rings trilogy. Would he have done it for $50 million? I bet he would. $10 millions? Yep. His reward is so much greater than the cost, so its not the *cost* of creating the work thats the limiting factor.
This is Microsoft we're talking about, so its most likely done to attack its competitors rather than any useful purpose. (Who would pay silly money for something they don't want?!).
The only thing I could find that might be it is Relevancyrank (patent pending) which might allow Microsoft to attack Google and Yahoo for personalised search (I haven't studied the patent application yet).
http://www.claria.com/relevancyrank/
"Is every file looked through to make sure it's not copyrighted? "
All content is copyrighted by default. Doesn't your comment just reflect the tyrany that copyright has become? Aren't you suggesting Google becomes judge jury and pre-censors all to avoid the risk of a copyright infringement?
Or did I misunderstand your comment?
So? One of my sites doesn't work so well on IE, a moving progress bar doesn't update if you use IE but does work if you use Firefox.
(Its just an animated GIF I set to visible before a slow page switch, for some reason it didn't work on IE).
Because I used FF for the better Javascript console to develop it with, the site works slightly better with FF and I only noticed it when I came to test it on other browsers at the end.
The way I figure it, Firefox is increasingly being used by the tech savvy people and so we'll see lots of things like this, sites that work slightly better on Firefox because thats what they were developed on, and no so well on Internet Explorer.
I can't ignore IE, but its a pain to cope with its quirks and 'good enough' is 'good enough'.
IE users won't miss the little animated bar.
"Last weekend I heard him interviewed on NPR's On the Media, talking about why the RIAA and MPAA don't have a clue in hell about remix culture."
I beg to differ with Lessig and the rest on the benefits of public domain. Let me suggest to you the biggest benefit is not some vague cultural gain when an item goes into public domain. The big benefit is MORE JOBS MAKING NEW STUFF.
How much public domain stuff is on television, radio, books? Almost none. It doesn't make sense to promote a public domain work because anyone could come along and release the same item, leeching off your marketing and undercutting you on price.
So public domain works are available to use, but not worth marketing because you can't get an exclusive on them.
Now consider the other extreme: infinite copyright & perfect DRM. Sony/BMG/Vivendi etc. simply sells music recorded centuries earlier by long dead musicians, endless re-releases from one generation to the next. For the next gazillion years. No work is done, computers send out the files, and take the money -> no jobs.
You have to let works expire into the public domain (free from DRM) to force companies to make new stuff because 'new stuff' = jobs.
"The threat to economic confidence is a lot more significant than "a recession"."
So you're suggesting you can have a recession *AND* have economic confidence at the same time? If thats so why aren't people investing during a recession? You write as though they're unlinked.
"Personally I've lived through 3 recessions in the UK in my lifetime, none were much fun and all of them killed people."
And I've seen people kill themselves over a tax bill.
I believe lack of economic confidence is a tiny thing, and *temporary* loss of economic confidence caused by misstaken words on a website is a *microscopic* thing. Much less damage for example than wasting millions on a quango and taxing people to pay for that quango.
" it's still an attack against critical infrastructure; it's targetted,"
But its not targetted, its the normal scatter gun password sniffer backdoor stuff. If you read the webmaster boards they're all discussing the upserge in this stuff recently.
Surely critical infrastructure is stuff thats critical! i.e. Indispensable.
So intangible things, economic confidence etc. aren't critical because you can live without them. (and given the state of the US$ you ARE living without economic confidence right now!).
Knock a bank off the Internet, what happens? Nothing, Citibank website was down recently, I used the telephone banking instead!
"The business model, and hence attack strategy, adopted by the present attackers is significantly differnt,"
Except it isn't, nothing NISCC describes is anyway different from a normal trojan attack. Everything from the social engineering to the customized variants of backdoors, to the delivery via attachment or website, *everything* is exactly as it is normally with these attacks.
You say they are targetting critical infrastructure, no they're not, I'm seeing it right across all my non-critical websites!
" if you're in the UK and you recklon you see this stuff perhaps you should get in touch with the NISCC"
Why? They sound like clueless newbies!
Add 221.227.27.154 to the list.
http://www.niscc.gov.uk/niscc/docs/ttea.pdf
That NISCC advisory exactly describes exactly what I'm seeing. Even down to the 'newspaper article' reference, e.g. the one I shows as an example was from uniontrib.com = San Diego Union Tribune.
I don't see the difference, what they describe is exactly what is normal for this sort of attack, custom backdoor variants, social engineering, website or attachment delivery, sender spoofed, IP address typically Asian.
What exactly is this 'critical infrastructure' thats connected to the NET and why exactly is it connected to the NET when these sorts of things are so common?
Seems to be a lot coming from one IP address.
....
----------------------
"Rejected mail, The original message was received at Fri, 17 Jun 2005 08:05:12 +0800 from uniontrib.com [121.206.16.100]."
Actually its a trojan (a.COM) in a zip file.
Comes from 222.136.55.64 = China
-----------------------
"RETURNED MAIL: SEE TRANSCRIPT FOR DETAILS"
Another from 222.136.55.64
I think they're just paranoid, we have nothing to do with security or government, yet we get these trojans all the time too.
Here's a book on the subject:
0 303283/103-2487204-0890251?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/013
"E-Commerce Logistics & Fulfillment: Delivering the Goods"
The abstract is a little misleading, the patent covers logistics of delivering the orders based on whats in stock etc..
A amazon.com&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&fl=0&x=w rt
Basically you and I thought that online ordering logistics was a field in itself, with many many companies specialising in it (both doing it and advising on it), and countless books on the subject, but no, apparently it was all in our minds and the subject was invented by Amazon in 2003.
Strange since this search:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=logistics+site%3
Shows lots of books on Amazon.com on the subject.
"At any given load maybe 1 of them is active. "
The file cache thread *could* be active, file caching is only done during idle time to let the main thread run better, a simple OS tweak could overlap that better.
Same with the network, it *could* be overlapped better its only not done now to avoid impacting the front thread.
I assume the same is true through all the drivers and OS subsystems.
So yes you may have 1 thread mainly running now, but it doesn't mean you can't gain from this.
But all this misses the point, Sun make servers, the exact sort of boxes that run hundreds of active threads running the same code serving to multiple users. The perfect thing to benefit from this.
"A 1000-cycle task switch is NOTHING compared to the 2.2 million cycles a process has "
Fair comment.
"Sure the two cars let you do independent things but when you're working on one task [getting to work] you're not ahead."
But you're not, you never are working on only 1 task.
Look at the threads running on a PC and its hundreds, you have file cache threads, communications threads, all kinds of stuff running.
A whole convoy of cars all sitting in one lane waiting for the car in front.
You keep the speed limit the same, make the highway 8 lane and 8 times the cars can pass through.
Also you would save the thread state store/recall overhead, as the processor needs prepped for each thread switch. You have only 1/8th of those happening if the chip can run 8 threads at a time.
I was always horrified that future generations would be listening to their crappy new music instead of Elvis Presley and the Beetles.
I wanted to freeze time so that when music reached its peak in the 60's everyone after that would be made to listen to nothing but cover version of these classic songs.
Now finally the UK and EU have found a solution! Extend copyright, keep the record companies selling the same old excellent shit over and over and over and over and over and over again!
That way that new annoying music from those youngsters won't have room in the market place!
Britney can do her "I love rock and roll" and Britney Junior can do her cover version of "I love rock and roll" in another 25 years! Brilliant! A perfect way to prevent new music from being made.
" there is a special procedure where you prove that you invented something before it was >>>PATENTED by another company."
Patents are to reward an inventor correct?
The order of the world is invention comes first, followed by patent of invention, Correct?
So how could a new invention have already been patented? If it had, it wouldn't be a new invention!
In the scenario I have Magic Wheel 2000 was a *new* invention, not a reinvention of an already patent idea.
The patent is award to a non inventor, because you have removed the only (piss poor) check that they are in fact the inventor.