Restrict my right to APPLY those patents to my OWN creations, but limit what I can do on my own computer? No way. Wrong.
As the other respondant said, thats EXACTLY what patents do. Software isn't a machine. It's a way to use a machine. If I want to program something, I'm using my computer. If I hook it up to a network or I put a CD or DVD into it's cd/dvd drive and send out some data, I am using my computer. And yet these are the exact things that software patents prevent you from doing. So, for the basic reason that software patents are stopping you from using your property, I have no problem stopping someone from using OSS if they try to stop other people from using OSS. It's like the idea that you don't initiate violence willy-nilly, but you can use it as a response to real or imminent violence. And it still doesn't say anything about you going after proprietary companies. After all, they're the ones with the money. And, if you're unwilling to express your thoughts because you're afraid that hobbyists might use the ideas to express their thoughts, then don't express your thoughts. You don't have anything good enough worth saying that can't be said by someone else.
And remember thanks to the wonderful world of sofware licensing as opposed to software ownership, you don't have the right to use any software you have. You can only do it if you have a license (generally). So, all this is saying is that your license to use MY software will be terminated if you attempt to stop someone else from using their software.
But if you submit the spec and you only go after people with proprietary software, you're ok. And, in order for the other company to stop you, they would have to release their code under an OSI-approved license with the patent MAD (mutally assured destruction) clause. Which shouldn't bother you anyway since you're making use of OSS somewhere.
It's just that when you go after OSI-licensed code with the patent clause, you have to stop using ALL OSI-licensed code with that clause. Obviously if someone puts this clause into their license, they don't want you to sue any OSI-licensed software people. So, if you sue any of the developers or users you lose the right to use ANY of the OSI-licensed software with this clause. It sounds pretty fair to me.
Yeah, but if you sue anyone to keep them from writing or using an OSI-licensed software with this clause in it, you lose all rights to use ANY software with this clause in it. This is a very interesting idea.
but is it really smart to mix up copyrights and patents in the same legal document?
It's exactly as smart as allowing patents and copyright to cover the same thing (like software). No more. No less.
But seriously, if clauses like that are actually legal, holy shit. Put something like that into the GPL and if ANYONE in your company sues some OS programmer for patent infringement and you're using Linux for ANY of your internal computers... *LICK*. You have o stop using your Linux boxes IMMEDIATELY. Or else it's a DMCA violation, I'm sure.:P It would REALLY segregate the software world into open/closed sides.
Although my vote doesn't count for much, I hope the FSF is willing to add a clause like this into the GPL, or is at least willing to allow the GPL to fork and let people decide. If not, I would recommend dumping Linux and moving to a fork of *BSD with a clause like this added.
Just stop giving money to the copyright industry forever. Tell everyone you know to stop giving money to the copyright industry forever. They'll never learn and they'll never stop no matter what you do so just take away the only thing that they care about: money.
Dr.Stress: Frankly, as an HP employee, I am alarmed at all this closeness with Microsoft lately
In an unrelated story, Dr.Stress was fired from HP for making !MS comments.
Oh wait. This really happened didn't it?
And remember kiddies, never give money to the copyright industry for any reason forever. If you're renting/buying anything that gives money to the companies backing the **AA's, you're a part of the problem.
Oh, by the way. Seeing as how my google search for the word "IPirate" came up with nothing really relevant, you must refer to this as IPirate (tm) or IPirates (tm) or IPiracy (tm) from now on. *lick*
Copyright Industry Association of America spokestrog Vilary Halenti today lamented "the emergence of a new and more deadly form of IPiracy that will soon raid the and pillage the IP repositories of this great nation. The IPirates have upgraded from their little rubber dinghies they used to IPirate Copyrighted Protected Digital Intelletctual Property and are now getting TiVo-class heavy freighters that they can use to IPirate even more than ever before. We are disappointed that the US hasn't gone after these terrorists with the same vigor that they've gone after the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We can only hope that Rep. Berman's legalized hacking for rich copyright holders bill will set the precedent necessary for giving us the broad powers we need to defeat the IPirates."
Since software is abstract thought and since abstract thoughts are a dime a dozen, I would get a bunch of geeks and lawyers together and every day we would look at new software patent applications that get released. (It's nice that they release the applications early on now...so that you don't have as much of a chance of them extending their patent before you get your application in...)
Out of those applications, we would take the most promising and novel ones (usually from smaller companies) and get umbrella patents that surround whatever little idea they have with a bunch of "novel and nonobvious" extensions.
When I say "novel and nonobvious" I mean not only extensions made by daydreaming and thinking about the problem a little bit, but also extensions that are computer generated. For example, if you have IRC bots and MUD bots and chat room bots, then it's "novel and nonobvious" if you come up with the idea of an IM bot. Therefore, it's also probably nonobvious to come up with cellphone text messaging bots.
I think you see where I'm going with this. If someone patents something for "IM" then the "nonobvious" extensions would be for wireless networks, chatrooms, PDAs, cellphones, IRC and so forth. This could be algorithmically generated with a database of "related ideas" and "dongles" you can add to any invention.
It wouldn't just be for that one part of the invention, either. You have to look at products that exist and follow the "dongle and feature" web (where if at any time a version of feature1 was used with a version of feature2 in a product, then you adjoin all possible ways of having feature1 and/or feature2 in your "novel and nonobvious" extensions) to adjoin as many different features as you can think of. Then say you will use a "plurality" of these things within the invention. Have you noticed how patent lawyers love the word "plurality"? Heck, we could probably get rid of patents altogether (which I don't support) if we made the word "plurality" illegal. They wouldn't know what to do.:P
But anyway, you watch them when they release their products and if they add any of your "nonobvious" extensions, you sue them, not to make money, just to force them to cripple their products and remove them from market. Since "self-help" features that remotely shut down software for copyright reasons are or will become legal, I'm sure you could force them to invoke these features and shut down their products until they stop infringing on my valuable IP space.
Eventually, the government may wake up and realize that abstract thought patents can cripple innovation and perhaps we can get back to a time when we had the right to express our thoughts and use our property without getting sued. Or they might just not let me get any more patents.
Also, you should note that we wouldn't be writing software during this time. That's because if you understand software and you understand the breadth and triviality of software patents you know that you can't respect software patents and write software at the same time. So, in order to respect the patents, I would have to stop writing software. But it would be nice to try to crapflood the USPTO.
There's gotta be irony somewhere in having two articles on/. about the record industry in one day.
Article 1: Record companies are sending expensive sealed players to reviewers instead of just CD's.
Article 2: Artists are fed up with being screwed over by the record industry, but the industry keeps bleating about how expensive it is to handle their artists.
I see a nice cycle here: They have to spend more money to keep their music controlled because they need to make more money to spend more money to keep their music controlled because they need to make more money to spend more money to...
*DING* You win the prize. You now understand why you need to never give them any more money ever again. They DO want to take away computers and they won't stop with any halfway methods (because those methods will always be beaten) and they will work their way toward a world where there are no computers (Except for *_approved_* *_trusted_* minions of the copyright industry. To do your part, stop giving them any resources they can use to destroy freedom. That means no more money for the copyright industry forever.
let us find a new way of beating the RIAA from the grassroots, where the best technology comes from. and no, i have no ideas.
OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! CALL ON ME! CALL ON ME! I KNOW! I KNOW!
It's called never give the copyright industry any of your money ever again.. If you aren't willing to take this step, then you're a part of the problem.
It's paving the way for music and movies that won't play at all unless you have a Palladium-enabled processor.
I am going to be a dick here. Why are you still contemplating giving money to the copyright industry? I will tell you the problem. It isn't DRM or Intel or AMD or the **AA. It's people who don't realize that the only thing the copyright industry cares about is money. If you want to stop all of this DRM bullshit, then you need to stop giving money to the copyright industry. If you're not willing to give up movies and music forever, you're not taking this seriously enough and you're still a part of the problem. So kwitcherbitching until you're willing to take the first step and stop working at cross-purposes to your stated goals.
The problem is not that you won't be able to use the copyright industry's movies and music. It's that you won't be able to create your own stuff and use it as you see fit. Nor will you be able to get and use things that other people don't mind you using. You see: they don't want to stop you from seeing their movies without their permission. They want to stop you from seeing YOUR movies without their permission. So stop giving them money already.
Here's how it will happen. MS will get Intel/AMD to add circuits onto their chips that require the OS running on them to implement abstract thought patents that MS owns. Hence, they will make it illegal to run any OS other than Windows. It isn't a technological hurdle, but it is a legal one. Are you willing to violate laws to run Linux? You will have to.
You act as if the RIAA and MPAA are out to control exactly what we see and hear. In reality, its just people working for an industry hoping to make money.
The thing is with computers the only way they can continue to make lots of money is to control what we see and hear. I am not arguing that the control is their end purpose. Their end purpose is making as much money as possible. It's just that the only way to do that is to control everything. So, they are out to get me because they want to make money. I think we're in agreement about the money. I just have a different opinion about what kinds of strategies they want to use.
If you lived in an age where machines made it so that you could only protect copyright or freedom strongly, but not both. Which would you choose to protect strongly?
It's about control and competition. They aren't scared of copying, they're scared of people making their own stuff and not paying the industry taxes to get it made and distributed. They are trying to hinder the progress of the arts by artificially restricting what gets made while keeping themselves as the "gatekeepers to culture". You might not believe this, but most artists would accept a modest lifestyle if they could make the art that they want without being controlled by others. Those kinds of people are the ones who make the really good stuff. The idea that those people would be able to make a living without being controlled scares the shit out of the copyright industry.
Also, besides hindering the progress of art, they will also hinder the progress of science since most scientific advancements of today depend heavily on the use of computers. If computers are taken away (which they will have to be in order to get this level of control), then the copyright industry will be using copyright to hinder the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
However, since the ONLY reason that copyright exists is to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences,what they're doing is blatantly unconstitutional. It's just that they can't come out and say that they want to control culture and prevent people from cmpeting with them by creating their own art, since they would get destroyed in the backlash. Maybe someday their internal notes and memos will come out and people will realize that this is about control and doing blatantly unconstitutional things to make money, not about stealing.
So what does this mean? This means:
Stop talking about this in terms of piracy. If you believe this is about piracy and not about control of culture, then you're still a part of the problem since you believe the copyright industrys' lies.
Stop buying anything from the copyright industry forever. Fuck em. Giving money to the copyright industry is giving weapons to people who want to destroy freedom to help sustain their bankrupt "-ism". So, stop seeing, renting, buying movies and music. Forever, since that's how long they would want copyright to last if they got their way.
I don't like SWpat, but eBay also has some lovely patents like that one for loading thumbnails from 2 different servers and put them onto the same page. I hope that everybody loses this battle.
MUDs have been around for 20 years and have had various kinds of commerce and banking and auctions in them. I assume that real money has been trading hands for things from the start.
You're patenting the ideas behind the software. Which means you're patenting the ideas behind math. The implementation doesn't matter. All software is math, and since it's possible to do any sequence of mathematical steps for no other reason than to do them, all software is the same as some abstract math.
The main issue (IMO) is that people don't get math. Since they say you can't patent an abstract algorithm, but you can patent a mathematical algorithm if it's useful, you're saying that the same thing is both patentable and not patentable. The reason people think this way is that they think word problems aren't math problems. So, when you start giving numbers in algorithms real-word meaning, people get that confused GW Bush look and start fumbling around thinking that because the math has some real-world meaning given to it, it's somehow different than abstract math. Which is a load of crock. What we need is to send people back to elementary school so that they can learn that when you solve an abstract math problem, then you give the numbers real-world meaning in a word problem, you don't change the problem.
As others have pointed out, polarizing filters are so common that there's no security here.
Kind of how like ROT-13 decryptors are so common that there's no reason to send someone for jail for breaking the 31337 ROT-13 encryption on your valuable copyrighted digital content?
Give it up. Polarizing filters are now terrorist Weapons of Mass IP Destruction.
In a stunning move with far-reaching global implications, the Bush Administration added the South American nation of Venezuela to the Axis of Evil. When asked why the sudden change was made, Ari Fleischer responded "As President Bush said, "You're either with us, or you're against us.", and Venezuela has sided with the pirates and terrorists of the world by allowing Weapons of Mass IP Destruction into its governmental computing systems.
Reports from inside sources are confirming that the decision was made after careful consultation with key members of the IP industry who explained that Venezuela released an IP-destroying Pac-Man virus into its governmental IT infrastructure and now any IP that gets sent to Venezuela is being sucked into a giant vortex of piracy and thievery!
When asked whether or not the US would invade Venezuela, Fleischer responded "We _were_ concerned about Iraq, and we were going to invade, but Iraq has to be put on the back burner for a while. Iraq's physical weapons like nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are dangerous and a threat to world security, but they can ONLY destroy all life as we know it! An IP-destroying Pac-Man virus could destroy all of CAPITALISM as we know it! Now what's worse: being dead or having to be a long-haired hippy who has to WORK for a living doing something that's directly beneficial to society. So, to answer your question: Venezuela will be pockmarked with giant glowing craters within the next 72 hours."
Reports are coming in from Norfolk and Guantanamo Naval Air Station that the ships of the Atlantic fleet are preparing to leave, and three nuclear submarines have passed through the Panama Canal within the last 12 hours, leaving little doubt that a serious military buildup is occuring.
RIAA may be able to take them to court, but it would probably be worth the $$$ to fend them off.
Didn't the RIAA just ask ISPs to block music4ever.com?
What would the RIAA say? "You must block all of the sites we tell you and you can ONLY block the sites we tell you!"
Please. The RIAA has already stated that it thinks it's ok for ISPs to block sites if the RIAA asks. If ISPs want to block other unsavory sites of their own choosing, I don't see how the RIAA can complain. Of course, this argument uses "logic" and "reason" and not "lawyerthink" so anything's possible I guess.
ROFL Valenti probably doesn't get induction. We're talking about the land of lawyers where what they say gets interpreted very narrowly and literally. Later on if they do make things illegal that are legal today and we point to this statement, he would probably argue that he only meant for one tomorrow. Never assume that things make sense when you're dealing with people steeped in legalese.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Restrict my right to APPLY those patents to my OWN creations, but limit what I can do on my own computer? No way. Wrong.
As the other respondant said, thats EXACTLY what patents do. Software isn't a machine. It's a way to use a machine. If I want to program something, I'm using my computer. If I hook it up to a network or I put a CD or DVD into it's cd/dvd drive and send out some data, I am using my computer. And yet these are the exact things that software patents prevent you from doing. So, for the basic reason that software patents are stopping you from using your property, I have no problem stopping someone from using OSS if they try to stop other people from using OSS. It's like the idea that you don't initiate violence willy-nilly, but you can use it as a response to real or imminent violence. And it still doesn't say anything about you going after proprietary companies. After all, they're the ones with the money. And, if you're unwilling to express your thoughts because you're afraid that hobbyists might use the ideas to express their thoughts, then don't express your thoughts. You don't have anything good enough worth saying that can't be said by someone else.
And remember thanks to the wonderful world of sofware licensing as opposed to software ownership, you don't have the right to use any software you have. You can only do it if you have a license (generally). So, all this is saying is that your license to use MY software will be terminated if you attempt to stop someone else from using their software.
But if you submit the spec and you only go after people with proprietary software, you're ok. And, in order for the other company to stop you, they would have to release their code under an OSI-approved license with the patent MAD (mutally assured destruction) clause. Which shouldn't bother you anyway since you're making use of OSS somewhere.
It's just that when you go after OSI-licensed code with the patent clause, you have to stop using ALL OSI-licensed code with that clause. Obviously if someone puts this clause into their license, they don't want you to sue any OSI-licensed software people. So, if you sue any of the developers or users you lose the right to use ANY of the OSI-licensed software with this clause. It sounds pretty fair to me.
Yeah, but if you sue anyone to keep them from writing or using an OSI-licensed software with this clause in it, you lose all rights to use ANY software with this clause in it. This is a very interesting idea.
but is it really smart to mix up copyrights and patents in the same legal document?
:P It would REALLY segregate the software world into open/closed sides.
It's exactly as smart as allowing patents and copyright to cover the same thing (like software). No more. No less.
But seriously, if clauses like that are actually legal, holy shit. Put something like that into the GPL and if ANYONE in your company sues some OS programmer for patent infringement and you're using Linux for ANY of your internal computers... *LICK*. You have o stop using your Linux boxes IMMEDIATELY. Or else it's a DMCA violation, I'm sure.
Although my vote doesn't count for much, I hope the FSF is willing to add a clause like this into the GPL, or is at least willing to allow the GPL to fork and let people decide. If not, I would recommend dumping Linux and moving to a fork of *BSD with a clause like this added.
Just stop giving money to the copyright industry forever. Tell everyone you know to stop giving money to the copyright industry forever. They'll never learn and they'll never stop no matter what you do so just take away the only thing that they care about: money.
Dr.Stress: Frankly, as an HP employee, I am alarmed at all this closeness with Microsoft lately
In an unrelated story, Dr.Stress was fired from HP for making !MS comments.
Oh wait. This really happened didn't it?
And remember kiddies, never give money to the copyright industry for any reason forever. If you're renting/buying anything that gives money to the companies backing the **AA's, you're a part of the problem.
Oh, by the way. Seeing as how my google search for the word "IPirate" came up with nothing really relevant, you must refer to this as IPirate (tm) or IPirates (tm) or IPiracy (tm) from now on. *lick*
Copyright Industry Association of America spokestrog Vilary Halenti today lamented "the emergence of a new and more deadly form of IPiracy that will soon raid the and pillage the IP repositories of this great nation. The IPirates have upgraded from their little rubber dinghies they used to IPirate Copyrighted Protected Digital Intelletctual Property and are now getting TiVo-class heavy freighters that they can use to IPirate even more than ever before. We are disappointed that the US hasn't gone after these terrorists with the same vigor that they've gone after the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We can only hope that Rep. Berman's legalized hacking for rich copyright holders bill will set the precedent necessary for giving us the broad powers we need to defeat the IPirates."
I would use it to stop software patents.
:P
How you ask?
Since software is abstract thought and since abstract thoughts are a dime a dozen, I would get a bunch of geeks and lawyers together and every day we would look at new software patent applications that get released. (It's nice that they release the applications early on now...so that you don't have as much of a chance of them extending their patent before you get your application in...)
Out of those applications, we would take the most promising and novel ones (usually from smaller companies) and get umbrella patents that surround whatever little idea they have with a bunch of "novel and nonobvious" extensions.
When I say "novel and nonobvious" I mean not only extensions made by daydreaming and thinking about the problem a little bit, but also extensions that are computer generated. For example, if you have IRC bots and MUD bots and chat room bots, then it's "novel and nonobvious" if you come up with the idea of an IM bot. Therefore, it's also probably nonobvious to come up with cellphone text messaging bots.
I think you see where I'm going with this. If someone patents something for "IM" then the "nonobvious" extensions would be for wireless networks, chatrooms, PDAs, cellphones, IRC and so forth. This could be algorithmically generated with a database of "related ideas" and "dongles" you can add to any invention.
It wouldn't just be for that one part of the invention, either. You have to look at products that exist and follow the "dongle and feature" web (where if at any time a version of feature1 was used with a version of feature2 in a product, then you adjoin all possible ways of having feature1 and/or feature2 in your "novel and nonobvious" extensions) to adjoin as many different features as you can think of. Then say you will use a "plurality" of these things within the invention. Have you noticed how patent lawyers love the word "plurality"? Heck, we could probably get rid of patents altogether (which I don't support) if we made the word "plurality" illegal. They wouldn't know what to do.
But anyway, you watch them when they release their products and if they add any of your "nonobvious" extensions, you sue them, not to make money, just to force them to cripple their products and remove them from market. Since "self-help" features that remotely shut down software for copyright reasons are or will become legal, I'm sure you could force them to invoke these features and shut down their products until they stop infringing on my valuable IP space.
Eventually, the government may wake up and realize that abstract thought patents can cripple innovation and perhaps we can get back to a time when we had the right to express our thoughts and use our property without getting sued. Or they might just not let me get any more patents.
Also, you should note that we wouldn't be writing software during this time. That's because if you understand software and you understand the breadth and triviality of software patents you know that you can't respect software patents and write software at the same time. So, in order to respect the patents, I would have to stop writing software. But it would be nice to try to crapflood the USPTO.
There's gotta be irony somewhere in having two articles on /. about the record industry in one day.
Article 1: Record companies are sending expensive sealed players to reviewers instead of just CD's.
Article 2: Artists are fed up with being screwed over by the record industry, but the industry keeps bleating about how expensive it is to handle their artists.
I see a nice cycle here: They have to spend more money to keep their music controlled because they need to make more money to spend more money to keep their music controlled because they need to make more money to spend more money to...
With this logic, PC's should be banned,
*DING* You win the prize. You now understand why you need to never give them any more money ever again. They DO want to take away computers and they won't stop with any halfway methods (because those methods will always be beaten) and they will work their way toward a world where there are no computers (Except for *_approved_* *_trusted_* minions of the copyright industry. To do your part, stop giving them any resources they can use to destroy freedom. That means no more money for the copyright industry forever.
let us find a new way of beating the RIAA from the grassroots, where the best technology comes from. and no, i have no ideas.
OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! CALL ON ME! CALL ON ME! I KNOW! I KNOW!
It's called never give the copyright industry any of your money ever again.. If you aren't willing to take this step, then you're a part of the problem.
It's paving the way for music and movies that won't play at all unless you have a Palladium-enabled processor.
I am going to be a dick here. Why are you still contemplating giving money to the copyright industry? I will tell you the problem. It isn't DRM or Intel or AMD or the **AA. It's people who don't realize that the only thing the copyright industry cares about is money. If you want to stop all of this DRM bullshit, then you need to stop giving money to the copyright industry. If you're not willing to give up movies and music forever, you're not taking this seriously enough and you're still a part of the problem. So kwitcherbitching until you're willing to take the first step and stop working at cross-purposes to your stated goals.
The problem is not that you won't be able to use the copyright industry's movies and music. It's that you won't be able to create your own stuff and use it as you see fit. Nor will you be able to get and use things that other people don't mind you using. You see: they don't want to stop you from seeing their movies without their permission. They want to stop you from seeing YOUR movies without their permission. So stop giving them money already.
Here's how it will happen. MS will get Intel/AMD to add circuits onto their chips that require the OS running on them to implement abstract thought patents that MS owns. Hence, they will make it illegal to run any OS other than Windows. It isn't a technological hurdle, but it is a legal one. Are you willing to violate laws to run Linux? You will have to.
You act as if the RIAA and MPAA are out to control exactly what we see and hear. In reality, its just people working for an industry hoping to make money.
The thing is with computers the only way they can continue to make lots of money is to control what we see and hear. I am not arguing that the control is their end purpose. Their end purpose is making as much money as possible. It's just that the only way to do that is to control everything. So, they are out to get me because they want to make money. I think we're in agreement about the money. I just have a different opinion about what kinds of strategies they want to use.
If you lived in an age where machines made it so that you could only protect copyright or freedom strongly, but not both. Which would you choose to protect strongly?
Also, besides hindering the progress of art, they will also hinder the progress of science since most scientific advancements of today depend heavily on the use of computers. If computers are taken away (which they will have to be in order to get this level of control), then the copyright industry will be using copyright to hinder the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
However, since the ONLY reason that copyright exists is to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences,what they're doing is blatantly unconstitutional. It's just that they can't come out and say that they want to control culture and prevent people from cmpeting with them by creating their own art, since they would get destroyed in the backlash. Maybe someday their internal notes and memos will come out and people will realize that this is about control and doing blatantly unconstitutional things to make money, not about stealing.
So what does this mean? This means:
Photoshop anyone? :P
I don't like SWpat, but eBay also has some lovely patents like that one for loading thumbnails from 2 different servers and put them onto the same page. I hope that everybody loses this battle.
MUDs have been around for 20 years and have had various kinds of commerce and banking and auctions in them. I assume that real money has been trading hands for things from the start.
You're patenting the ideas behind the software. Which means you're patenting the ideas behind math. The implementation doesn't matter. All software is math, and since it's possible to do any sequence of mathematical steps for no other reason than to do them, all software is the same as some abstract math.
The main issue (IMO) is that people don't get math. Since they say you can't patent an abstract algorithm, but you can patent a mathematical algorithm if it's useful, you're saying that the same thing is both patentable and not patentable. The reason people think this way is that they think word problems aren't math problems. So, when you start giving numbers in algorithms real-word meaning, people get that confused GW Bush look and start fumbling around thinking that because the math has some real-world meaning given to it, it's somehow different than abstract math. Which is a load of crock. What we need is to send people back to elementary school so that they can learn that when you solve an abstract math problem, then you give the numbers real-world meaning in a word problem, you don't change the problem.
As others have pointed out, polarizing filters are so common that there's no security here.
Kind of how like ROT-13 decryptors are so common that there's no reason to send someone for jail for breaking the 31337 ROT-13 encryption on your valuable copyrighted digital content?
Give it up. Polarizing filters are now terrorist Weapons of Mass IP Destruction.
From the Associated Press wire:
August 29, 2002:
In a stunning move with far-reaching global implications, the Bush Administration added the South American nation of Venezuela to the Axis of Evil. When asked why the sudden change was made, Ari Fleischer responded "As President Bush said, "You're either with us, or you're against us.", and Venezuela has sided with the pirates and terrorists of the world by allowing Weapons of Mass IP Destruction into its governmental computing systems.
Reports from inside sources are confirming that the decision was made after careful consultation with key members of the IP industry who explained that Venezuela released an IP-destroying Pac-Man virus into its governmental IT infrastructure and now any IP that gets sent to Venezuela is being sucked into a giant vortex of piracy and thievery!
When asked whether or not the US would invade Venezuela, Fleischer responded "We _were_ concerned about Iraq, and we were going to invade, but Iraq has to be put on the back burner for a while. Iraq's physical weapons like nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are dangerous and a threat to world security, but they can ONLY destroy all life as we know it! An IP-destroying Pac-Man virus could destroy all of CAPITALISM as we know it! Now what's worse: being dead or having to be a long-haired hippy who has to WORK for a living doing something that's directly beneficial to society. So, to answer your question: Venezuela will be pockmarked with giant glowing craters within the next 72 hours."
Reports are coming in from Norfolk and Guantanamo Naval Air Station that the ships of the Atlantic fleet are preparing to leave, and three nuclear submarines have passed through the Panama Canal within the last 12 hours, leaving little doubt that a serious military buildup is occuring.
*LICK* Let's see if the BSA really protects the licenses of all software makers...
RIAA may be able to take them to court, but it would probably be worth the $$$ to fend them off.
Didn't the RIAA just ask ISPs to block music4ever.com?
What would the RIAA say? "You must block all of the sites we tell you and you can ONLY block the sites we tell you!"
Please. The RIAA has already stated that it thinks it's ok for ISPs to block sites if the RIAA asks. If ISPs want to block other unsavory sites of their own choosing, I don't see how the RIAA can complain. Of course, this argument uses "logic" and "reason" and not "lawyerthink" so anything's possible I guess.
ROFL Valenti probably doesn't get induction. We're talking about the land of lawyers where what they say gets interpreted very narrowly and literally. Later on if they do make things illegal that are legal today and we point to this statement, he would probably argue that he only meant for one tomorrow. Never assume that things make sense when you're dealing with people steeped in legalese.:)