"You want fries with that?" Darl: "Bwahahahaha. Mom, mom, it isn't fair! That big bully, GPL is cheating." SCO reminds me of my brother and I fighting over something. Hey SCO, how do you feel about paying IBM's (and anyone else you were thinking of suing) legal costs?
Not to feed the troll, but the command he mentions does reboot the machine without syncing the disks if you have enabled the SysRq key. Of course this doesn't make the system insecure in any way, but gotta give the troll props for getting people to do something which could have hosed their boxes because they wouldn't even look up what it does on google first.
You can read more about it here
It should be noted that UNIX talk is specifically talked about in the patent and the advantages of this system over it are mentioned. This does not get around the apparant prior art of POWWOW. Remember that it is the claims of a patent that are important, not the abstract. It appears from quickly looking at the claims, that the broadest requirements are for client A to send a message to client B that client A is typing. Then client B must indicate that client A is typing. Finally, that message is turned off when client A sends another message that it is done typing. The initial typing message must be based upon typing within a predefined period of time.
Any prior art asserted against this patent would need to have been in use on or before July 21, 1998.
This is not an invasion of privacy. To be an invasion of privacy, you must have a reasonable expectation of privacy. No one has a reasonable expectation of privacy for their P2P shares because they are SHARING THE FILES TO THE PUBLIC! If you want your files to be private, then don't put them on a P2P network. You are not giving up any of your "rights".
The only thing that it confirms is that companies are worried about the SCO lawsuit. Companies buying Linux don't want to expend the resources to hire lawyers to give them a risk assessment of the SCO lawsuit. While everyone on/. might know that it is junk, businessmen in the real world haven't been following it at all. They just see that there is a pending lawsuit that could expose them to liability. This exposure is an additional cost to them of buying Linux. Thus, HP is just telling them that they will assume that cost. This does not mean that SCO is correct in any way.
One of the main problems is that computers depreciate in value extremely quickly. You would need to lease the computers to the home users at a price that would be near the same cost of buying the computer. Thus, because individuals (in general) prefer ownership to leasing, they would just buy the computer as opposed to leasing it from you.
With a patent, you can sue someone to stop the importation of an infringing device into the US. So the Patent would not stop anyone from making and using the device outside the country, but it could be used to prevent from being downloaded in the US.
People are really getting their panties in a wad over this one for no reason anyway because it has not even bee looked at by the Patent Office yet. Patents, even the "crappier" ones, tend to go through some significant changes when being processed by the Patent Office. If people want to be upset over granted patents, thats fine, but this patent just describes what Microsoft wants, not what they are going to get.
I agree that prior art probably exists to most of the broader claims. I haven't read through the narrower claims in the patent to see if they are any better. However, even if the patent is invalid, you can't counter-sue for damages. The only time you can get sanctions against someone for suing you is if they bring something completely without merit. Because the patent has been granted by the PTO, it has a presumption of validity. Thus, it is not frivolous to sue someone who is infringing the terms of the claims.
The point, however, is not how Mirror Image actually operates, but what their patent covers. If you read the patent, it really describes any transparant proxy. The system just needs to intercept the request, see if the request is for a particular web page, then redirect it if it is or pass it on if not.
From just browsing the published patent it appears that the priority date of the patent is in 1997, so this patent has been tossing around in the PTO for a while. It might be a pain to find some decent prior art for this, but I suspect that people were doing this sort of thing for quite a while.
Man, what was Babs thinking? California Coast said that they were in compliance with all laws. It must be so! I need to start selling my "I shot that driver in complete compliance with applicable Federal and State laws." card to all of my friends so I can get to work quicker.
Main Entry: (5)up Function: verb Inflected Form(s): upped/'&pt/; or in intransitive sense 2 up; upped; upping; ups or in intransitive sense 2 up Date: 1643 intransitive senses 1 a : to rise from a lying or sitting position b : to move upward : ASCEND 2 -- used with and and another verb to indicate that the action of the following verb was either surprisingly or abruptly initiated transitive senses 1 : RAISE, LIFT 2 a : to advance to a higher level: (1) : INCREASE (2) : PROMOTE 1a b : RAISE 8d, e
Re:I need just three things to replace my vcr
on
Rabid TiVo Fanaticism
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Perhaps you should check the dictionary before you put your foot in your mouth.
Oh yeah, those $25,000 checks to suicide bombers have nothing to do with terrorism. Especially when they are increased depending on the number of people killed. The guy hanging around Bagdhad who helped arrange the hijacking of a cruise liner where an elderly American was shot and dumped off of the boat in his wheelchair had nothing to do with terrorism either. Iraq had very little to do with Al Queda, that does not mean they had nothing to do with terrorism.
This doesn't only happen in the video game industry. CNN announced today that they did not report lots of things in Iraq during the past 12 years because they were afraid of the consequences against their journalists. As opposed to doing the ethical thing and leaving Iraq, they decided to keep their access and only report things approved by the Iraqi government. Thus, they were getting access to a very important news story if they would only report good news. Note that this did not only happen during the current war (when it was expected), but during the past 12 years.
The judge mentioned reverse engineering only to mention that it did not meet a very high standard for them to take the case. Normally, on declaratory judgement cases, the judge will only allow it to proceed if there is a substantial likelyhood that the petitioner will actually be sued. However, there is an exception for more extreme cases, and the judge was just mentioning that this case does not meet that high standard.
Why don't you just do your homework and quit whining? It seems that you parents wouldn't check in on your progress if they trusted you enough to do it on your own.
And if you read the Judge's opinion, then you would see that is the reason that the judge did not allow the Declaratory judgement to go forward. The quote in the article is very misrepresentative of the opinion.
Am I the only one who actually read the Judge's VERY CORRECT opinion? The case was being brought under Declaratory Judgement, ie. I am suing N2H2 because they are about to sue me. The Judge ruled that there was not any proof that N2H2 was about to sue, so the case was thrown out. This ruling had nothing to due with the validity of the DMCA or the scope of reverse engineering exception.
We have restrictions that stop things like that. It is called the Sherman Act. We will not have the problem of one company controlling all of the radio stations in the nation, but we will have the problem of one company controlling all of the radio stations in one small geographic area.
However, in practice I find that Objectivists are about as pragmatic as 2nd year philosophy majors.
That is probably because most Objectivists are 2nd year philosophy majors.
The strike on Slashdot has begun. We will soon learn if My-SQL and PERL can handle Enterprise level loads while being slammed by sleep-deprived nerds who have nothing better to do.
Gee, haven't you heard? Big Oil was pushing that the sanctions be lifted from Iraq so that they could get their hands on the oil. A war in Iraq will make its oil supply unavailable for quite a long time to US Oil Companies. The one thing that Oil companies don't want is unrest in a country they are doing business with. A country under a command and control dictatorship (like Saddam Hussein's) is much more stable and much better to keep oil flowing for Big Oil. The only reason that "Big Oil" might want Saddam Hussein toppled is because they are afriad that he will get his hands on nuclear weapons and start invading his neighbors again. Once Saddam gets nuclear weapons, he will not be easily contained anymore.
Yes, France suffered through a very brutal war. Of course, the US did not suffer at all during the World Wars liberating France. It is precisely because of the enormity of the Second world war why we should invade Iraq. Before the Second World War, Britain and France appeased Hitler and Nazi Germanys productions of weapons and land grabs. Because they did not prevent Germany from following the restrictions which they agreed to, Germany became extremely dangerous, and millions of people died. The same thing is happening with Iraq. What does it say about the international community if we allow a brutal dictator to violate the terms of a cease-fire treaty and build terrible weapons? It shows that we are taking the route of PM Chamberlain. If we want "Peace For Our Time" we must not be deathly afraid of using our military to create peace.
The government *can* take civilian software/patents/etc. under certain circumstances, but they have to pay a reasonable rate for the product. It is a great part of the United States Constitution called the "takings clause". It is the last clause in the Fifth Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Slashdot Mirror
"You want fries with that?" Darl: "Bwahahahaha. Mom, mom, it isn't fair! That big bully, GPL is cheating." SCO reminds me of my brother and I fighting over something. Hey SCO, how do you feel about paying IBM's (and anyone else you were thinking of suing) legal costs?
A much better site for information on learning Japanese is at U. Mass.
Actually, make that closer to three years.
Not to feed the troll, but the command he mentions does reboot the machine without syncing the disks if you have enabled the SysRq key. Of course this doesn't make the system insecure in any way, but gotta give the troll props for getting people to do something which could have hosed their boxes because they wouldn't even look up what it does on google first. You can read more about it here
It should be noted that UNIX talk is specifically talked about in the patent and the advantages of this system over it are mentioned. This does not get around the apparant prior art of POWWOW. Remember that it is the claims of a patent that are important, not the abstract. It appears from quickly looking at the claims, that the broadest requirements are for client A to send a message to client B that client A is typing. Then client B must indicate that client A is typing. Finally, that message is turned off when client A sends another message that it is done typing. The initial typing message must be based upon typing within a predefined period of time.
Any prior art asserted against this patent would need to have been in use on or before July 21, 1998.
This is not an invasion of privacy. To be an invasion of privacy, you must have a reasonable expectation of privacy. No one has a reasonable expectation of privacy for their P2P shares because they are SHARING THE FILES TO THE PUBLIC! If you want your files to be private, then don't put them on a P2P network. You are not giving up any of your "rights".
The only thing that it confirms is that companies are worried about the SCO lawsuit. Companies buying Linux don't want to expend the resources to hire lawyers to give them a risk assessment of the SCO lawsuit. While everyone on /. might know that it is junk, businessmen in the real world haven't been following it at all. They just see that there is a pending lawsuit that could expose them to liability. This exposure is an additional cost to them of buying Linux. Thus, HP is just telling them that they will assume that cost. This does not mean that SCO is correct in any way.
One of the main problems is that computers depreciate in value extremely quickly. You would need to lease the computers to the home users at a price that would be near the same cost of buying the computer. Thus, because individuals (in general) prefer ownership to leasing, they would just buy the computer as opposed to leasing it from you.
People are really getting their panties in a wad over this one for no reason anyway because it has not even bee looked at by the Patent Office yet. Patents, even the "crappier" ones, tend to go through some significant changes when being processed by the Patent Office. If people want to be upset over granted patents, thats fine, but this patent just describes what Microsoft wants, not what they are going to get.
I agree that prior art probably exists to most of the broader claims. I haven't read through the narrower claims in the patent to see if they are any better. However, even if the patent is invalid, you can't counter-sue for damages. The only time you can get sanctions against someone for suing you is if they bring something completely without merit. Because the patent has been granted by the PTO, it has a presumption of validity. Thus, it is not frivolous to sue someone who is infringing the terms of the claims.
The point, however, is not how Mirror Image actually operates, but what their patent covers. If you read the patent, it really describes any transparant proxy. The system just needs to intercept the request, see if the request is for a particular web page, then redirect it if it is or pass it on if not. From just browsing the published patent it appears that the priority date of the patent is in 1997, so this patent has been tossing around in the PTO for a while. It might be a pain to find some decent prior art for this, but I suspect that people were doing this sort of thing for quite a while.
Man, what was Babs thinking? California Coast said that they were in compliance with all laws. It must be so! I need to start selling my "I shot that driver in complete compliance with applicable Federal and State laws." card to all of my friends so I can get to work quicker.
Main Entry: (5)up /'&pt/; or in intransitive sense 2 up; upped; upping; ups or in intransitive sense 2 up
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): upped
Date: 1643
intransitive senses
1 a : to rise from a lying or sitting position b : to move upward : ASCEND
2 -- used with and and another verb to indicate that the action of the following verb was either surprisingly or abruptly initiated
transitive senses
1 : RAISE, LIFT
2 a : to advance to a higher level: (1) : INCREASE (2) : PROMOTE 1a b : RAISE 8d, e
Perhaps you should check the dictionary before you put your foot in your mouth.
Oh yeah, those $25,000 checks to suicide bombers have nothing to do with terrorism. Especially when they are increased depending on the number of people killed. The guy hanging around Bagdhad who helped arrange the hijacking of a cruise liner where an elderly American was shot and dumped off of the boat in his wheelchair had nothing to do with terrorism either. Iraq had very little to do with Al Queda, that does not mean they had nothing to do with terrorism.
This doesn't only happen in the video game industry. CNN announced today that they did not report lots of things in Iraq during the past 12 years because they were afraid of the consequences against their journalists. As opposed to doing the ethical thing and leaving Iraq, they decided to keep their access and only report things approved by the Iraqi government. Thus, they were getting access to a very important news story if they would only report good news. Note that this did not only happen during the current war (when it was expected), but during the past 12 years.
The judge mentioned reverse engineering only to mention that it did not meet a very high standard for them to take the case. Normally, on declaratory judgement cases, the judge will only allow it to proceed if there is a substantial likelyhood that the petitioner will actually be sued. However, there is an exception for more extreme cases, and the judge was just mentioning that this case does not meet that high standard.
Why don't you just do your homework and quit whining? It seems that you parents wouldn't check in on your progress if they trusted you enough to do it on your own.
And if you read the Judge's opinion, then you would see that is the reason that the judge did not allow the Declaratory judgement to go forward. The quote in the article is very misrepresentative of the opinion.
Am I the only one who actually read the Judge's VERY CORRECT opinion? The case was being brought under Declaratory Judgement, ie. I am suing N2H2 because they are about to sue me. The Judge ruled that there was not any proof that N2H2 was about to sue, so the case was thrown out. This ruling had nothing to due with the validity of the DMCA or the scope of reverse engineering exception.
We have restrictions that stop things like that. It is called the Sherman Act. We will not have the problem of one company controlling all of the radio stations in the nation, but we will have the problem of one company controlling all of the radio stations in one small geographic area.
However, in practice I find that Objectivists are about as pragmatic as 2nd year philosophy majors. That is probably because most Objectivists are 2nd year philosophy majors.
The strike on Slashdot has begun. We will soon learn if My-SQL and PERL can handle Enterprise level loads while being slammed by sleep-deprived nerds who have nothing better to do.
Gee, haven't you heard? Big Oil was pushing that the sanctions be lifted from Iraq so that they could get their hands on the oil. A war in Iraq will make its oil supply unavailable for quite a long time to US Oil Companies. The one thing that Oil companies don't want is unrest in a country they are doing business with. A country under a command and control dictatorship (like Saddam Hussein's) is much more stable and much better to keep oil flowing for Big Oil. The only reason that "Big Oil" might want Saddam Hussein toppled is because they are afriad that he will get his hands on nuclear weapons and start invading his neighbors again. Once Saddam gets nuclear weapons, he will not be easily contained anymore. Yes, France suffered through a very brutal war. Of course, the US did not suffer at all during the World Wars liberating France. It is precisely because of the enormity of the Second world war why we should invade Iraq. Before the Second World War, Britain and France appeased Hitler and Nazi Germanys productions of weapons and land grabs. Because they did not prevent Germany from following the restrictions which they agreed to, Germany became extremely dangerous, and millions of people died. The same thing is happening with Iraq. What does it say about the international community if we allow a brutal dictator to violate the terms of a cease-fire treaty and build terrible weapons? It shows that we are taking the route of PM Chamberlain. If we want "Peace For Our Time" we must not be deathly afraid of using our military to create peace.
Gotta Love that Bill of Rights.