Well... that's sort of the idea. You do know that just filing and obtaining a single patent will cost anywhere between $7K - $12K? And then there are HUGE maintenance fees for just keeping the patents in force. Just for the off-chance you MIGHT need the patent later! If a company has a huge arsenal of patents, then it shows they ponied up the cash to protect their monopoly, and most likely they did it the right way. That's what our patent system is designed to do: give a limited monopoly to the inventor.
No, it isn't meant for a new little guy to enter the market easily... but he *can* do it if he really really wants to. Here's how:
1. Little guy comes up with new innovation and patents it.
2. Big guys unknowingly infringe on patent
3. Little guy puts them on notice but says, "Tell ya what. Instead of me seeking damages, how about a cross-license?"
After all, even though he has a cross-license, he still has to tool-up, get R&D, get manufacturing, get employment, get new products, and *then* he enters an already saturated market. So why would he want to do it in the first place?
Even if he doesn't enter the market as a competitor, he still contributed to advancing technology forward. So what is the problem?
Laugh if you must, but I have actually seen the patent claiming the specific colors of audio connectors.
But -- it caused problems for anyone who wanted to be compatible with this unaid standard! Everyone wanted blue connectors to match with the blue port on the motherboard or soundcard, but they would be sued unless they licensed the patent!
So some things may seem trivial to you (like a gray wire vs. a blue one), but even that sort of thing can throw turbulence into the industry.
But remember, the patent can't be obvious to "anyone skilled in the trade." So no; you should not be able to patent no-duh ideas and get away with it (though it happens).
Most manufacturers have a policy of "tread softly and carry a big stick." They don't go whacking everyone with their patent portfolio. It's generally for the company's own protection. Many manufacturers cross-license their patents (IBM and Dell, for example). This way, both companies get the benefit of each others patents, and also get the safety and peace-of-mind that one won't sue the other.
Except... there is ONE type of company that will whack anyone they can reach: the one in dire straits, about to tank. Like SCO.
"Oh, we need revenue like... NOW! Say, what do we have in our patent portfolio, and who can we hit with it?"
Look throughout history, and you will find that in the majority of cases, if a company starts aggressively using their patents, they are probably in financial trouble.
Inventors (aka company engineers) typically ARE NOT supposed to research patents when inventing. That generally creates too much liability for the company if they were to find something interesting. Most companies have a legal department designed to handle patent searching anyway. They are usually technically-minded people who are also in the legal field. As a former IP paralegal, I really would rather the engineer NOT do patent searches unless asked.
6 Billion people, but how many in the US, or even might ever market to the US. You can get foreign patents as well (though rare); but I've actually never heard of an international case (but that doesn't mean they don't exist). There are not many people (in relation to the planet's population) filing US patents, but the number is still large on its own. Most people will choose to file in their own country first, and then if it's a whopper, get a foreign patent.
But, yes, what you described is called "prior art." Say someone else first thought of your product exactly, but didn't patent it, but you DID patent it. Well, there are a few possibilities:
- Say they did nothing with the idea and just sat on it. You could still patent the invention. How could you have known of the original? Your patent is valid, and they can't do anything about it. (At least with their idea.)
- Say they are a professor and published a paper on the technology. Now we have published "prior art." If the prior art supersedes your patent's filing date (not the grant date), then it could potentially invalidate (kill) the patent if you didn't cite this article when the patent was filed and prosecuted. If the article WAS cited, then the claims must have been adjusted around the prior art.
- Say they created a real product, but never patented the idea. That's OK, it's prior art and could also invalidate your patent. The cute part is, if it's been less than 2 years (though unlikely) since the original idea was used/sold/offered for sale, the original inventor *could* file a patent, quickly get it granted, and come back on YOU for damages!! Nasty, eh? Turnabout is fair play.
IBM has a publication that they print (I believe) every month or so. It is a list of all their inventions that they chose not to get a patent for. Why would they do this? No other reason than to create prior art so that others can't come back with a patent later claiming they invented something.
No, it doesn't work that way. The way you describe would seem more logical, but these *are* patents we're talking about.
Damages start to accrue when the infringer is "put on notice" by the patent-holder. This can be done one of several ways, if you are the patent-holder:
1. Send a notice by mail (registered of course) to the manufacturer citing the patent(s) you hold, and claiming that they are infringing. At this point you could offer to license your patent, tell them to cease production and stop selling the item, or demand a settlement offer (and still shut them down or license the patent).
2. Mark your own products with the granted patent numbers. Usually something like "This product is covered by US patents 5,205,321 and 5,255,555." Although some manufacturers just put a list of patent numbers only on the product. Sometimes you will see a product that says "Patent pending." This does nothing. It might scare folks out of infringing, but I could write that and have no patent at all. No damages would accrue, and that is not "putting them on notice."
3. If the manufacturer inadvertently discovers that they are infringing the patent, then the damages begin accruing then. (Of course, proving that they knew when they knew is another matter entirely).
But you could really screw a manufacturer over by telling them about this article and showing them the patents. Essentially you would be doing the work of "putting them on notice" for Seagate.
Many manufacturers have several strategies for this problem:
1. On release of the product, they do a "patent scrub." This allows the inventors to file patents protecting this product. During the patent scrub, they are asked about any prior art or other patents that would limit the claims for this product. Often, though, during the prior art search, a patent claiming the exact product is found. Now the manufacturer must make a decision to either a) stop manufacturing/using/selling, b) risk infringement (with treble damages), c) contact the inventor for possible licensing.
2. Purposely don't do a prior art search. This way you won't turn up any patents accidentally. Sometimes it might be a good idea to save several dollars per sale in an escrow account in case of patent infringement (to easily pay off the patent holder). Then hope there is no product out there that has been patent-marked. If the manufacturer is contacted and "put on notice" by a patent holder, then the manufacturer can stop production immediately without any damages.
Often, however, a manufacturer could go a complete product cycle while unknowingly infringing a patent -- and never get a notice. If they make it all the way through, and then the patent-holder comes later claiming infringement, it is too-bad-so-sad. The manufacturer isn't making or selling that product anymore.
I am really sorry, I don't mean to be off-topic. This voting machine problem is really big, but in my opinion it pales in comparison to another larger problem that no one seems to be addressing: people who vote that have no legal right to in this country.
I know in my area, this happens to be a huge problem that has no detection ability. I have personally seen illegal aliens standing in our lines to vote, because I could hear them speaking and laughing about it.
Case-in-point: My uncle (a very white southern-looking farmer-type) went to the local library to take his wife to vote. While he was there he was handed ballot with instructions for voting. He protested, "but I'm not a US citizen! I'm Canadian!"
"Oh!!! Well, give me that ballot back!!!"
THEY DIDN'T EVEN ASK IF HE WAS LEGAL TO VOTE FIRST.
How many illegal immigrants, convicted felons, and otherwise ineligible-to-vote people are participating in elections? Until you can filter out who is *supposed* to be voting in the first place, I don't see how a machine-count error makes any difference at all.
But there are *so* many open relays, how do you make those in China and Russia close their open relays? How do you stop someone from registering a domain name, setting up a spam server, authenticating to it, bulk sending their mail, and then shutting it down once they get on the blacklist?
What about all the hotmails and yahoos of the world that allow millions to sign up, send some mail out (either using the domain as a reply-to, or sending through until they get noticed) and then shutting the user down... only for them to come right back and create a new user? You can't (and shouldn't) blacklist yahoo.
It's fine that they were authenticated when they sent the mail. But that tells you nothing about their trust level. Maybe they sent out 10,000 messages before their account got shut down from a legit service.
What I have noticed about regular run-of-the-mill SPAMMERS is that they almost always use invalid addresses. Not talking about viruses that might harvest email settings. Over 99% of this crap is from a completely made up address, or at least an address that has now been shut down. In other words, they spew their messages and don't care if they get replies back or not.
No, it wouldn't increase the mail traffic 2X. Because I would say that most normal people receive email from the same people over and over (with few new addresses). We are only talking about 2X on the first received email ever. That is a small percentage.
When have you seen messages sent to a list of people only one time that wasn't SPAM? I must be missing the obvious. But yes, if it's the fist time you get an email from someone, you send the reply. But only once ever!
Look, at first only a relatively few people would install this feature. As time goes by, if it is successful, more and more people install the feature. The traffic will crescendo. Then SPAM suddenly drops because the SPAMMERS know it doesn't work anymore. So I don't buy that it really increases bandwidth; in the long-run it drops it.
SMTP is a broken protocol. If it is impossible to change the whole 'net to a different protocol not susceptible to SPAM (and lends to verifiable email addresses), then where does that really leave you? The only thing you can do is modify your client.
I know this system works because I've actually done it to prove the concept. In my real-world implementation, you could implement any other SPAM-fighting feature along with this. Let it go through your strict filters and get rid of the things you know for certain are SPAM. Then when you're in doubt, do the challenge-response.
You're actually encouraging me to go implement this in a real email client. Maybe as a plugin.
Unless you interpreted me as saying you have to infringe all the claims... I should amend to say you must infringe all the elements of the broadest valid claim.
Sure they can try to forge both headers, but most of my SPAM isn't that smart. Heck, most of the time I'm lucky to even get any message at all. Open it and it's just blank. Let alone a valid email address. Let alone a valid email address WITH a valid IP.
Yes, it might inconvenience you a little to reply to me, if it's your first ever email. But I hardly call it invasive. Honestly, there are systems out there already that do at least that much to fight SPAM. All I'm really adding new here is the part of making it a standard format so that clients don't have to do it manually, and can be an automated process.
Well tell me why I really need to? I mean I have it installed, but I certainly don't have that stupid active scanning thing turned on. So when I open a file, my computer really needs to open it twice? Bull.
I get my mail from gmail (so attachments already scanned there). I use FireFox (so little chance of infection there). I do scan things that might possibly contain a virus -- anything from a usenet newsgroup or from P2P (which is only a few executables ever anyway); And I do let it scan the whole thing once a week (and never finds anything I didn't already know about, of course).
And you know what? My old computer running Win2K runs faster than most any new computers out there with AV turned on. To date, I've never been bitten by any viruses.
I think somehow you've misunderstood something.
Which IP address? If a spammer forges an envelope, how the hell is he going to guess the right IP address? Think about it. If I get a SPAM email from a valid address joe@smith.com IP 123.123.123.123, and I reply.... and if joe@smith.com's header says his IP address is "245.245.245.245" then obviously it isn't the same guy, is it.
You're going to have to prove that. How do you know it's an invalid address until you attempt to deliver to it? I know they are mostly invalid addresses because I told you I manually did it for over a month. Usually you just get an "undeliverable" message. Try it yourself, I'm interested to hear your results. I did it on over 3000 messages. I *never* - not even once - got a SPAM message from a valid email address of someone I knew (though I admit it could happen).
SPF is great. And authenticated SMTP. But... there are still so many open relays out there, and we can't seem to make everyone change. Why can't there be one source for approved mail servers that authenticate/have SPF that is managed like domain names. Well, there isn't. So maybe we can do something on the client's end to help.
Okay, so your solution is vulnerable to backscatter, depends on an easy way to tell if a given e-mail address is valid as a sender and a recipient, reinvents SMTP authentication in a new and possibly incompatible way such that people have to upgrade to a new protocol, breaks store-and-forward, and requires everyone to upgrade their mail clients. I can only conclude you missed something or only lightly read my idea. My method works even if YOU do nothing to upgrade your email client or mail system. I am changing only *my* client -- nothing else. If YOU want the process to be seamless, then YOU would upgrade your client as well so you aren't bothered with the conversation. Even if YOU used PINE as your client, then I still have broken nothing. I am only mitigating the chance of receiving SPAM.
I was saying that I use Gmail as my email client now, which does a pretty good job of stopping most of my SPAM these days anyway. Once in awhile things get through, but it's 1/600 ratio. I can live with that.
- Do you have any idea about how to stop SPAM 100%? Even if you had to change protocols completely?
OK, I see your point (albeit a minor exception happening). Then we can modify it a bit:
We still reply even though it's a valid address that was forged. But we also look at the IP addresses. If the original IP address isn't in the same range as the reply, then there's no possible way it could be valid.
In my personal experience, this happens infrequently... and my email is all over the place on the web. Usually SPAM is from a completely invalid address (easily 99.99%).
For store-and-forward, well... SMTP design is stupid anyway (IMHO). Frankly it needs an overhaul. No authentication/verification for who the sender is? Just plain silly. I should not be able to forge an email from michael.dell@dell.com. So I guess we have to improvise a way around it:
In my idea, the sending client doesn't have to be online immediately. We are sending a reply message back. If it takes an hours, a day, a week, a month for the original sender to reply to us, then so be it. Our original received email (on the receiver's end) could easily just be thrown into a temporary SPAM folder (so the user could peruse it if they want to). Then when the reply is received from the original sender, it's taken out of the SPAM folder and displayed (or left there if no reply).
Perhaps my method could be used in conjunction with some methods used today. When I thought of this, I tried doing it manually for a little while, so I know it works. I just got tired of having to do it manually. Gmail mostly solves it for me anyway.
The problem seems clear to me. I do not understand why this has not been understood. The problem is easily solvable by email clients, with a minor change in protocol, and can be backwards compatible with older clients.
I base it on two observations I've had: - I do not get SPAM from addresses I know - 99.999% of messages with SPAM do not have valid email addresses to reply to
So here is how to fix:
1) Bobby's email client randomly generates a long code or "safe word" (for this example, "supermanhateskryptonite123456"). A new "safe word" is used for each new suspicious email.
2) Jane just got Bobby's email address and sends him an email for the first time. Bobby's client doesn't know Jane, so Bobby's client delays Jane's email, and replies back to her with Bobby's "safe word." The message is part of a standard protocol so that email clients can easily understand it, but also people who have old clients can read the reply and understand what to do as well. The message basically says, "Hi! I'm Bobby's computer. I don't know you. But if you really exist, please reply back to me with 'supermanhateskryptonite123456' so that I can trust your email address." (BTW, Bobby isn't aware any of this even happened yet.)
3) Jane's computer is compatible with this new protocol, and sees the standard protocol reply from Bobby. Also unknown to Jane, her email client silently replies back with 'supermanhateskryptonite123456' in the message.
4) Bobby's computer gets the reply (which proves that the address is valid) and now it can trust Jane's email address, so her original message (that was temporarily held) is now displayed to Bobby. Any further emails from Jane won't be delayed.
This solves several problems: - You don't need a "bad words" list to check for SPAM - You don't need Bayesian filters - You don't have to set up a "white list" of email addresses manually - If you decide someone is SPAMMING you, you have a valid email address to go after - It doesn't require ISP's to do anything - It doesn't require other users to do anything (other than the first-time response) - If Jane's computer is compromised by a virus that reads her mail settings and address book, Bobby will know whose computer is infected and can do something about it
One aside; I think it is always best to put yourself in a position that helps you and not your adversary. Perhaps having a written policy that says "We don't log things unless it is of recognized importance at the time" turns the double-edge sword of IM into a single-edge sword working in your favor.
In one entity I have been a part of (a legal group for a prominent computer manufacturer), we were encouraged to use private telephone messaging as much as possible, and avoid email if possible. And *never* say anything that could come back to bite you later.
As you said, there are stringent rules concerning documentation... but the interesting thing is that you are allowed to shred/trash *almost* right up until litigation -- regardless of general document retention policy of the company. But once you get that discovery notice, you dare not touch.
What you say is largely true. Although, I can find no such law for the US regarding logging IM. I did find one for the UK.
I am not aware of any penalty for the failure to produce discovery evidence simply because a record is not kept (or even mis-filed). Often/sometimes it is a 3rd party that comes in to perform some discovery anyway.
If the company has a written policy that their IM system is not to be logged or cached (other than manual copying and pasting into a separate document, such as Word or an email message, by the users themselves), then I cannot see how they can be liable for not producing IM logs when they don't exist. After all, they are not held accountable for phone conversations they didn't record, office conversations that weren't documented, nor business meeting comments that don't get logged into the minutes. I see IM as no different.
If a log or recording or an email or a piece of paper just doesn't exist, it just doesn't exist. Where you really get into trouble is when you shred after being put on notice for discovery. Bad bad.
Oh! Because there are lots of things that are said every day in the business world -- either to a customer or a coworker or even to family members that should not be recorded! Arguably, they shouldn't be said either! But they are. But we don't record phone conversations (unless warned ahead of time), and we generally don't put mics and cameras in peoples' cubicles.
IM logs could potentially contain all kinds of irrelevant things (to that subject being discussed) that could be used to paint an unfavorable position against you or the company. It's a business risk; not an asset.
Just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you necessarily should.
If it is something that needs to be logged, then log that one thing! And shut off the logging after that. But to log everything carte blanche is just *asking* for trouble, IMHO.
Well that's stupid. Apart from the fact that using biometric data that is subject to loss, and cannot ever be changed in case of compromise...
Assuming you *had* to do it with fingerprints... why wouldn't you just come up with some algorithm that takes certain points and spaces and distances of your fingerprint, creates an encryption/decryption password based on the results, and then encrypts/decrypts your data with something like what TrueCrypt does, but using this password instead.
This way your data is actually encrypted, and not just gated.
I don't agree (not necessarily with you but with general policy) that all things must be logged and archived. IM is the one thing I think should not be logged unless it serves a specific purpose. It is not the same as an email message. I think it is unreasonable to expect to log and archive IM.
It is more analogous to telephone conversations. Most telephone conversations are not recorded and kept for any real length of time either (although, they *can* be, and can be used in court also). There is no expectation that IM messages would be logged, whereas it's reasonable to expect email messages to be.
However, if IM is purposely or inadvertently logged... it should certainly be discoverable.
I am an IP paralegal and have training and real experience with patents specifically (relating to computer tech). I read the claims, and frankly, I can't see how Guitar Hero possibly infringes. There are so many claims, you would have to have that exact embodiment to infringe.
Patents are counter-intuitive: you would think that the more you claim, the better your patent; but that really isn't the case. The more ambiguous your claims, the better off you are.
For example, if I claimed that my patent is "a computer in a vehicle", it is not better to say "a computer having a at least 512MB of RAM and standard keyboard interface and display permanently affixed to a mobile system with 4 wheels." The 2nd just narrowed my claims. All a potential infringer has to do is have the same computer but with 511MB of RAM, or put it in a motorcycle, or an 18-wheeler.
If I claim A, B, C, and D, but you infringed on only A, B, and C, then too-bad-so-sad you did not infringe my patent.
It's not if I claim A, B, C, and D and you infringe on B that you infringe my patent (like this suit seems to suggest).
An interesting idea, if I interpret the idea correctly, he claims that atoms are actually made up of a pair of their known particles, and they are superluminal (which explains certain quantum effects). This would explain why you can't seem to track an electron's orbit: because you're actually trying to track 2 orbits... (maybe I've misinterpreted; I can't view the pictures.)
Anyway, correct or not -- my point is to show that there are other folks who have ideas for alternative models for physics that show special relativity to be slightly wrong, and the math seems reasonable.
An interesting idea, if I interpret the idea correctly, he claims that atoms are actually made up of a pair of their known particles, and they are superluminal (which explains certain quantum effects). This would explain why you can't seem to track an electron's orbit: because you're actually trying to track 2 orbits... (maybe I've misinterpreted; I can't view the pictures.)
Anyway, correct or not -- my point is to show that there are other folks who have ideas for alternative models for physics that show special relativity to be slightly wrong, and the math seems reasonable.
To "learn enough physics to have a basic understanding" is easier said than done (at least if you confine yourself to the internet -- which is about the limit of my interest). For me, it sometimes gets to the point where I don't even give a crap about physics anymore because it's too hard to keep up with, and yields little usefulness in my everyday life. Especially when there is so much that is truly factually wrong, outdated, or written by a whack job. Then in the course of a few years scientific data can change what we know in drastic ways (e.g. proof of black holes). When you begin to talk about string theory (something scientists can't even agree on) it's hard to imagine how you can even have a coherent conversation about physics at all. Having an argument is good (the best way I learn), but having an argument with someone who is condescending is just as useless to me.
All that said, one thing I had not taken into account is that slowing molecular movement would also change temperature. Even so, I reckon that the amounts of temperature change (even 10 degrees either way) would not likely change a person's perception of time much. The point is moot anyway because I see that if you lower the temperature, it would alter the physiology in undesirable ways. I suppose the only way around that would be to scale everything (which amounts to scaling down time) which is what appears to happen in reality. The question (which maybe someone has answered) is "why does that happen when an object accelerates?"
I do think there is reason to believe that some animals perceive time differently (though it has nothing to do with electron orbits or molecular movement or temperature), and even variably; I seem to recall reading about it years ago. Do you think a turtle perceives time the same as a fly or a hummingbird? We know that crocodiles can vary their metabolism rates to be very low (to preserve calories). Perhaps during that time their perception of time is altered?
Maybe it's akin to having different processors with different clock cycles. Some breeds of processors are faster than others (just as some animals brains work faster than others). That allows them to devote more attention to what they are doing (more cycles per second). Perhaps that has to do with perception of time.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... that's sort of the idea. You do know that just filing and obtaining a single patent will cost anywhere between $7K - $12K? And then there are HUGE maintenance fees for just keeping the patents in force. Just for the off-chance you MIGHT need the patent later! If a company has a huge arsenal of patents, then it shows they ponied up the cash to protect their monopoly, and most likely they did it the right way. That's what our patent system is designed to do: give a limited monopoly to the inventor.
No, it isn't meant for a new little guy to enter the market easily... but he *can* do it if he really really wants to. Here's how:
1. Little guy comes up with new innovation and patents it.
2. Big guys unknowingly infringe on patent
3. Little guy puts them on notice but says, "Tell ya what. Instead of me seeking damages, how about a cross-license?"
After all, even though he has a cross-license, he still has to tool-up, get R&D, get manufacturing, get employment, get new products, and *then* he enters an already saturated market. So why would he want to do it in the first place?
Even if he doesn't enter the market as a competitor, he still contributed to advancing technology forward. So what is the problem?
Laugh if you must, but I have actually seen the patent claiming the specific colors of audio connectors.
But -- it caused problems for anyone who wanted to be compatible with this unaid standard! Everyone wanted blue connectors to match with the blue port on the motherboard or soundcard, but they would be sued unless they licensed the patent!
So some things may seem trivial to you (like a gray wire vs. a blue one), but even that sort of thing can throw turbulence into the industry.
But remember, the patent can't be obvious to "anyone skilled in the trade." So no; you should not be able to patent no-duh ideas and get away with it (though it happens).
Bingo. You hit the nail on the head.
Most manufacturers have a policy of "tread softly and carry a big stick." They don't go whacking everyone with their patent portfolio. It's generally for the company's own protection. Many manufacturers cross-license their patents (IBM and Dell, for example). This way, both companies get the benefit of each others patents, and also get the safety and peace-of-mind that one won't sue the other.
Except... there is ONE type of company that will whack anyone they can reach: the one in dire straits, about to tank. Like SCO.
"Oh, we need revenue like... NOW! Say, what do we have in our patent portfolio, and who can we hit with it?"
Look throughout history, and you will find that in the majority of cases, if a company starts aggressively using their patents, they are probably in financial trouble.
I can answer your questions.
Inventors (aka company engineers) typically ARE NOT supposed to research patents when inventing. That generally creates too much liability for the company if they were to find something interesting. Most companies have a legal department designed to handle patent searching anyway. They are usually technically-minded people who are also in the legal field. As a former IP paralegal, I really would rather the engineer NOT do patent searches unless asked.
6 Billion people, but how many in the US, or even might ever market to the US. You can get foreign patents as well (though rare); but I've actually never heard of an international case (but that doesn't mean they don't exist). There are not many people (in relation to the planet's population) filing US patents, but the number is still large on its own. Most people will choose to file in their own country first, and then if it's a whopper, get a foreign patent.
But, yes, what you described is called "prior art." Say someone else first thought of your product exactly, but didn't patent it, but you DID patent it. Well, there are a few possibilities:
- Say they did nothing with the idea and just sat on it. You could still patent the invention. How could you have known of the original? Your patent is valid, and they can't do anything about it. (At least with their idea.)
- Say they are a professor and published a paper on the technology. Now we have published "prior art." If the prior art supersedes your patent's filing date (not the grant date), then it could potentially invalidate (kill) the patent if you didn't cite this article when the patent was filed and prosecuted. If the article WAS cited, then the claims must have been adjusted around the prior art.
- Say they created a real product, but never patented the idea. That's OK, it's prior art and could also invalidate your patent. The cute part is, if it's been less than 2 years (though unlikely) since the original idea was used/sold/offered for sale, the original inventor *could* file a patent, quickly get it granted, and come back on YOU for damages!! Nasty, eh? Turnabout is fair play.
IBM has a publication that they print (I believe) every month or so. It is a list of all their inventions that they chose not to get a patent for. Why would they do this? No other reason than to create prior art so that others can't come back with a patent later claiming they invented something.
No, it doesn't work that way. The way you describe would seem more logical, but these *are* patents we're talking about.
Damages start to accrue when the infringer is "put on notice" by the patent-holder. This can be done one of several ways, if you are the patent-holder:
1. Send a notice by mail (registered of course) to the manufacturer citing the patent(s) you hold, and claiming that they are infringing. At this point you could offer to license your patent, tell them to cease production and stop selling the item, or demand a settlement offer (and still shut them down or license the patent).
2. Mark your own products with the granted patent numbers. Usually something like "This product is covered by US patents 5,205,321 and 5,255,555." Although some manufacturers just put a list of patent numbers only on the product. Sometimes you will see a product that says "Patent pending." This does nothing. It might scare folks out of infringing, but I could write that and have no patent at all. No damages would accrue, and that is not "putting them on notice."
3. If the manufacturer inadvertently discovers that they are infringing the patent, then the damages begin accruing then. (Of course, proving that they knew when they knew is another matter entirely).
But you could really screw a manufacturer over by telling them about this article and showing them the patents. Essentially you would be doing the work of "putting them on notice" for Seagate.
Many manufacturers have several strategies for this problem:
1. On release of the product, they do a "patent scrub." This allows the inventors to file patents protecting this product. During the patent scrub, they are asked about any prior art or other patents that would limit the claims for this product. Often, though, during the prior art search, a patent claiming the exact product is found. Now the manufacturer must make a decision to either a) stop manufacturing/using/selling, b) risk infringement (with treble damages), c) contact the inventor for possible licensing.
2. Purposely don't do a prior art search. This way you won't turn up any patents accidentally. Sometimes it might be a good idea to save several dollars per sale in an escrow account in case of patent infringement (to easily pay off the patent holder). Then hope there is no product out there that has been patent-marked. If the manufacturer is contacted and "put on notice" by a patent holder, then the manufacturer can stop production immediately without any damages.
Often, however, a manufacturer could go a complete product cycle while unknowingly infringing a patent -- and never get a notice. If they make it all the way through, and then the patent-holder comes later claiming infringement, it is too-bad-so-sad. The manufacturer isn't making or selling that product anymore.
That's all I know. IAAPP.
I am really sorry, I don't mean to be off-topic. This voting machine problem is really big, but in my opinion it pales in comparison to another larger problem that no one seems to be addressing: people who vote that have no legal right to in this country.
I know in my area, this happens to be a huge problem that has no detection ability. I have personally seen illegal aliens standing in our lines to vote, because I could hear them speaking and laughing about it.
Case-in-point: My uncle (a very white southern-looking farmer-type) went to the local library to take his wife to vote. While he was there he was handed ballot with instructions for voting. He protested, "but I'm not a US citizen! I'm Canadian!"
"Oh!!! Well, give me that ballot back!!!"
THEY DIDN'T EVEN ASK IF HE WAS LEGAL TO VOTE FIRST.
How many illegal immigrants, convicted felons, and otherwise ineligible-to-vote people are participating in elections? Until you can filter out who is *supposed* to be voting in the first place, I don't see how a machine-count error makes any difference at all.
Sounds simple.
But there are *so* many open relays, how do you make those in China and Russia close their open relays? How do you stop someone from registering a domain name, setting up a spam server, authenticating to it, bulk sending their mail, and then shutting it down once they get on the blacklist?
What about all the hotmails and yahoos of the world that allow millions to sign up, send some mail out (either using the domain as a reply-to, or sending through until they get noticed) and then shutting the user down... only for them to come right back and create a new user? You can't (and shouldn't) blacklist yahoo.
It's fine that they were authenticated when they sent the mail. But that tells you nothing about their trust level. Maybe they sent out 10,000 messages before their account got shut down from a legit service.
What I have noticed about regular run-of-the-mill SPAMMERS is that they almost always use invalid addresses. Not talking about viruses that might harvest email settings. Over 99% of this crap is from a completely made up address, or at least an address that has now been shut down. In other words, they spew their messages and don't care if they get replies back or not.
I suppose you have a better idea --- one that doesn't increase traffic at all? and--using the current SMTP protocol?
Maybe you have a different idea using a different protocol? I seriously want to hear it.
Yes, I've ran a mail server before.
No, it wouldn't increase the mail traffic 2X. Because I would say that most normal people receive email from the same people over and over (with few new addresses). We are only talking about 2X on the first received email ever. That is a small percentage.
When have you seen messages sent to a list of people only one time that wasn't SPAM? I must be missing the obvious. But yes, if it's the fist time you get an email from someone, you send the reply. But only once ever!
Look, at first only a relatively few people would install this feature. As time goes by, if it is successful, more and more people install the feature. The traffic will crescendo. Then SPAM suddenly drops because the SPAMMERS know it doesn't work anymore. So I don't buy that it really increases bandwidth; in the long-run it drops it.
SMTP is a broken protocol. If it is impossible to change the whole 'net to a different protocol not susceptible to SPAM (and lends to verifiable email addresses), then where does that really leave you? The only thing you can do is modify your client.
I know this system works because I've actually done it to prove the concept. In my real-world implementation, you could implement any other SPAM-fighting feature along with this. Let it go through your strict filters and get rid of the things you know for certain are SPAM. Then when you're in doubt, do the challenge-response.
You're actually encouraging me to go implement this in a real email client. Maybe as a plugin.
What country?
See here.
Unless you interpreted me as saying you have to infringe all the claims... I should amend to say you must infringe all the elements of the broadest valid claim.
Sure they can try to forge both headers, but most of my SPAM isn't that smart. Heck, most of the time I'm lucky to even get any message at all. Open it and it's just blank. Let alone a valid email address. Let alone a valid email address WITH a valid IP.
Yes, it might inconvenience you a little to reply to me, if it's your first ever email. But I hardly call it invasive. Honestly, there are systems out there already that do at least that much to fight SPAM. All I'm really adding new here is the part of making it a standard format so that clients don't have to do it manually, and can be an automated process.
Ha. I already don't run AV on the PC either.
Well tell me why I really need to? I mean I have it installed, but I certainly don't have that stupid active scanning thing turned on. So when I open a file, my computer really needs to open it twice? Bull.
I get my mail from gmail (so attachments already scanned there). I use FireFox (so little chance of infection there). I do scan things that might possibly contain a virus -- anything from a usenet newsgroup or from P2P (which is only a few executables ever anyway); And I do let it scan the whole thing once a week (and never finds anything I didn't already know about, of course).
And you know what? My old computer running Win2K runs faster than most any new computers out there with AV turned on. To date, I've never been bitten by any viruses.
I think somehow you've misunderstood something. Which IP address? If a spammer forges an envelope, how the hell is he going to guess the right IP address? Think about it. If I get a SPAM email from a valid address joe@smith.com IP 123.123.123.123, and I reply.... and if joe@smith.com's header says his IP address is "245.245.245.245" then obviously it isn't the same guy, is it. You're going to have to prove that. How do you know it's an invalid address until you attempt to deliver to it? I know they are mostly invalid addresses because I told you I manually did it for over a month. Usually you just get an "undeliverable" message. Try it yourself, I'm interested to hear your results. I did it on over 3000 messages. I *never* - not even once - got a SPAM message from a valid email address of someone I knew (though I admit it could happen).
SPF is great. And authenticated SMTP. But... there are still so many open relays out there, and we can't seem to make everyone change. Why can't there be one source for approved mail servers that authenticate/have SPF that is managed like domain names. Well, there isn't. So maybe we can do something on the client's end to help. Okay, so your solution is vulnerable to backscatter, depends on an easy way to tell if a given e-mail address is valid as a sender and a recipient, reinvents SMTP authentication in a new and possibly incompatible way such that people have to upgrade to a new protocol, breaks store-and-forward, and requires everyone to upgrade their mail clients. I can only conclude you missed something or only lightly read my idea. My method works even if YOU do nothing to upgrade your email client or mail system. I am changing only *my* client -- nothing else. If YOU want the process to be seamless, then YOU would upgrade your client as well so you aren't bothered with the conversation. Even if YOU used PINE as your client, then I still have broken nothing. I am only mitigating the chance of receiving SPAM.
I was saying that I use Gmail as my email client now, which does a pretty good job of stopping most of my SPAM these days anyway. Once in awhile things get through, but it's 1/600 ratio. I can live with that.
- Do you have any idea about how to stop SPAM 100%? Even if you had to change protocols completely?
OK, I see your point (albeit a minor exception happening). Then we can modify it a bit:
We still reply even though it's a valid address that was forged. But we also look at the IP addresses. If the original IP address isn't in the same range as the reply, then there's no possible way it could be valid.
In my personal experience, this happens infrequently... and my email is all over the place on the web. Usually SPAM is from a completely invalid address (easily 99.99%).
For store-and-forward, well... SMTP design is stupid anyway (IMHO). Frankly it needs an overhaul. No authentication/verification for who the sender is? Just plain silly. I should not be able to forge an email from michael.dell@dell.com. So I guess we have to improvise a way around it:
In my idea, the sending client doesn't have to be online immediately. We are sending a reply message back. If it takes an hours, a day, a week, a month for the original sender to reply to us, then so be it. Our original received email (on the receiver's end) could easily just be thrown into a temporary SPAM folder (so the user could peruse it if they want to). Then when the reply is received from the original sender, it's taken out of the SPAM folder and displayed (or left there if no reply).
Perhaps my method could be used in conjunction with some methods used today. When I thought of this, I tried doing it manually for a little while, so I know it works. I just got tired of having to do it manually. Gmail mostly solves it for me anyway.
I do not understand. Please elaborate? I do not see what I have broken.
The problem seems clear to me. I do not understand why this has not been understood. The problem is easily solvable by email clients, with a minor change in protocol, and can be backwards compatible with older clients.
I base it on two observations I've had:
- I do not get SPAM from addresses I know
- 99.999% of messages with SPAM do not have valid email addresses to reply to
So here is how to fix:
1) Bobby's email client randomly generates a long code or "safe word" (for this example, "supermanhateskryptonite123456"). A new "safe word" is used for each new suspicious email.
2) Jane just got Bobby's email address and sends him an email for the first time. Bobby's client doesn't know Jane, so Bobby's client delays Jane's email, and replies back to her with Bobby's "safe word." The message is part of a standard protocol so that email clients can easily understand it, but also people who have old clients can read the reply and understand what to do as well. The message basically says, "Hi! I'm Bobby's computer. I don't know you. But if you really exist, please reply back to me with 'supermanhateskryptonite123456' so that I can trust your email address." (BTW, Bobby isn't aware any of this even happened yet.)
3) Jane's computer is compatible with this new protocol, and sees the standard protocol reply from Bobby. Also unknown to Jane, her email client silently replies back with 'supermanhateskryptonite123456' in the message.
4) Bobby's computer gets the reply (which proves that the address is valid) and now it can trust Jane's email address, so her original message (that was temporarily held) is now displayed to Bobby. Any further emails from Jane won't be delayed.
This solves several problems:
- You don't need a "bad words" list to check for SPAM
- You don't need Bayesian filters
- You don't have to set up a "white list" of email addresses manually
- If you decide someone is SPAMMING you, you have a valid email address to go after
- It doesn't require ISP's to do anything
- It doesn't require other users to do anything (other than the first-time response)
- If Jane's computer is compromised by a virus that reads her mail settings and address book, Bobby will know whose computer is infected and can do something about it
Idea is for free.
Yes, agreed.
One aside; I think it is always best to put yourself in a position that helps you and not your adversary. Perhaps having a written policy that says "We don't log things unless it is of recognized importance at the time" turns the double-edge sword of IM into a single-edge sword working in your favor.
In one entity I have been a part of (a legal group for a prominent computer manufacturer), we were encouraged to use private telephone messaging as much as possible, and avoid email if possible. And *never* say anything that could come back to bite you later.
As you said, there are stringent rules concerning documentation... but the interesting thing is that you are allowed to shred/trash *almost* right up until litigation -- regardless of general document retention policy of the company. But once you get that discovery notice, you dare not touch.
I think I'm up to $.04 now.
What you say is largely true. Although, I can find no such law for the US regarding logging IM. I did find one for the UK.
I am not aware of any penalty for the failure to produce discovery evidence simply because a record is not kept (or even mis-filed). Often/sometimes it is a 3rd party that comes in to perform some discovery anyway.
If the company has a written policy that their IM system is not to be logged or cached (other than manual copying and pasting into a separate document, such as Word or an email message, by the users themselves), then I cannot see how they can be liable for not producing IM logs when they don't exist. After all, they are not held accountable for phone conversations they didn't record, office conversations that weren't documented, nor business meeting comments that don't get logged into the minutes. I see IM as no different.
If a log or recording or an email or a piece of paper just doesn't exist, it just doesn't exist. Where you really get into trouble is when you shred after being put on notice for discovery. Bad bad.
Oh! Because there are lots of things that are said every day in the business world -- either to a customer or a coworker or even to family members that should not be recorded! Arguably, they shouldn't be said either! But they are. But we don't record phone conversations (unless warned ahead of time), and we generally don't put mics and cameras in peoples' cubicles.
IM logs could potentially contain all kinds of irrelevant things (to that subject being discussed) that could be used to paint an unfavorable position against you or the company. It's a business risk; not an asset.
Just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you necessarily should.
If it is something that needs to be logged, then log that one thing! And shut off the logging after that. But to log everything carte blanche is just *asking* for trouble, IMHO.
Well that's stupid. Apart from the fact that using biometric data that is subject to loss, and cannot ever be changed in case of compromise...
Assuming you *had* to do it with fingerprints... why wouldn't you just come up with some algorithm that takes certain points and spaces and distances of your fingerprint, creates an encryption/decryption password based on the results, and then encrypts/decrypts your data with something like what TrueCrypt does, but using this password instead.
This way your data is actually encrypted, and not just gated.
I don't agree (not necessarily with you but with general policy) that all things must be logged and archived. IM is the one thing I think should not be logged unless it serves a specific purpose. It is not the same as an email message. I think it is unreasonable to expect to log and archive IM.
It is more analogous to telephone conversations. Most telephone conversations are not recorded and kept for any real length of time either (although, they *can* be, and can be used in court also). There is no expectation that IM messages would be logged, whereas it's reasonable to expect email messages to be.
However, if IM is purposely or inadvertently logged... it should certainly be discoverable.
Just my $.02
Totally agree with you.
I am an IP paralegal and have training and real experience with patents specifically (relating to computer tech). I read the claims, and frankly, I can't see how Guitar Hero possibly infringes. There are so many claims, you would have to have that exact embodiment to infringe.
Patents are counter-intuitive: you would think that the more you claim, the better your patent; but that really isn't the case. The more ambiguous your claims, the better off you are.
For example, if I claimed that my patent is "a computer in a vehicle", it is not better to say "a computer having a at least 512MB of RAM and standard keyboard interface and display permanently affixed to a mobile system with 4 wheels." The 2nd just narrowed my claims. All a potential infringer has to do is have the same computer but with 511MB of RAM, or put it in a motorcycle, or an 18-wheeler.
If I claim A, B, C, and D, but you infringed on only A, B, and C, then too-bad-so-sad you did not infringe my patent.
It's not if I claim A, B, C, and D and you infringe on B that you infringe my patent (like this suit seems to suggest).
Upon more research into time dilation, I happened upon this page:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-lorentz.asp/ [blazelabs.com]
An interesting idea, if I interpret the idea correctly, he claims that atoms are actually made up of a pair of their known particles, and they are superluminal (which explains certain quantum effects). This would explain why you can't seem to track an electron's orbit: because you're actually trying to track 2 orbits... (maybe I've misinterpreted; I can't view the pictures.)
Anyway, correct or not -- my point is to show that there are other folks who have ideas for alternative models for physics that show special relativity to be slightly wrong, and the math seems reasonable.
Upon more research into time dilation, I happened upon this page:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-lorentz.asp/
An interesting idea, if I interpret the idea correctly, he claims that atoms are actually made up of a pair of their known particles, and they are superluminal (which explains certain quantum effects). This would explain why you can't seem to track an electron's orbit: because you're actually trying to track 2 orbits... (maybe I've misinterpreted; I can't view the pictures.)
Anyway, correct or not -- my point is to show that there are other folks who have ideas for alternative models for physics that show special relativity to be slightly wrong, and the math seems reasonable.
To "learn enough physics to have a basic understanding" is easier said than done (at least if you confine yourself to the internet -- which is about the limit of my interest). For me, it sometimes gets to the point where I don't even give a crap about physics anymore because it's too hard to keep up with, and yields little usefulness in my everyday life. Especially when there is so much that is truly factually wrong, outdated, or written by a whack job. Then in the course of a few years scientific data can change what we know in drastic ways (e.g. proof of black holes). When you begin to talk about string theory (something scientists can't even agree on) it's hard to imagine how you can even have a coherent conversation about physics at all. Having an argument is good (the best way I learn), but having an argument with someone who is condescending is just as useless to me.
All that said, one thing I had not taken into account is that slowing molecular movement would also change temperature. Even so, I reckon that the amounts of temperature change (even 10 degrees either way) would not likely change a person's perception of time much. The point is moot anyway because I see that if you lower the temperature, it would alter the physiology in undesirable ways. I suppose the only way around that would be to scale everything (which amounts to scaling down time) which is what appears to happen in reality. The question (which maybe someone has answered) is "why does that happen when an object accelerates?"
I do think there is reason to believe that some animals perceive time differently (though it has nothing to do with electron orbits or molecular movement or temperature), and even variably; I seem to recall reading about it years ago. Do you think a turtle perceives time the same as a fly or a hummingbird? We know that crocodiles can vary their metabolism rates to be very low (to preserve calories). Perhaps during that time their perception of time is altered?
Maybe it's akin to having different processors with different clock cycles. Some breeds of processors are faster than others (just as some animals brains work faster than others). That allows them to devote more attention to what they are doing (more cycles per second). Perhaps that has to do with perception of time.