There were two items that I forgot to include, which another posters post reminded me of - one the licensing of a patent must be compulsory. Thus one cannot hoard the patent and keep it from circulation just because it reduces the profits gained from another product. The second item- the total combined payment in IP fees cannot exceed 15% of the total product retail cost. This is so multiple IP technologies can be included in a single product, without skyrocketing the price of the product due to IP entanglements...
IT seems appropriate that I put form my proposal at this time, that is similar in spirit.
Each technological group of patents would have its own maximum expiration time. This expiration time would be based on the dynamicity of the technology- which would be determined by the number of patents issued in the group the previous three years.
Further, I would change the patent process such that each patent is automatically granted, with the caveat that a five grand bond must be placed with the patent. Anyone can challenge the validity of the patent by putting up five grand. This money would in turn go to five reviewers, chosen at random from a pool of experts in the technology. Each expert would rate the patent on a scale of 1-10 on its innovativeness. 1 being blantantly obvious, 5 somewhat innovative and a 10 extraordinarily innovative. The patent life would then be based on the average ratings of the experts. If the average rating is less than 5 then the patent is immediately invalidated, and the patenter loses their bond. If it scores 5 or greater, the challenger forfiets his challenge money. The time length of the patent would then be based on the average score. The default would be the maximum time length for that category. The rest would be the average score as a percent of the maximum score multiplied by the category.
"but I seriously disagree with your suggestion of charging five thousand dollars for the opportunity to dispute a patent"
I assumed that for impoverished programmers with valid claims, an organization similar to the EFF would probably help. Or alternatively, I'm certain that there will be organizations willing to pony up the five grand for a percentage of the take.
This system is mostly to streamline the elimination of obvious patents, and to reduce the strifiling of innovation, especially in those areas that are experienceing rapid growth and change. It's also meant to reduce the whole lawsuit strategy of filing bogus patents that the clerks are undertrained/staffed to realize, and than suing anyone who infringes. If someone attempts to sue- pony up five grand, get the claim invalidated, end of lawsuit. If the claim holds up- settle quickly .
IT seems appropriate that I put form my proposal at this time, that is similar in spirit.
Each technological group of patents would have its own maximum expiration time. This expiration time would be based on the dynamicity of the technology- which would be determined by the number of patents issued in the group the previous three years.
Further, I would change the patent process such that each patent is automatically granted, with the caveat that a five grand bond must be placed with the patent. Anyone can challenge the validity of the patent by putting up five grand. This money would in turn go to five reviewers, chosen at random from a pool of experts in the technology. Each expert would rate the patent on a scale of 1-10 on its innovativeness. 1 being blantantly obvious, 5 somewhat innovative and a 10 extraordinarily innovative. The patent life would then be based on the average ratings of the experts. If the average rating is less than 5 then the patent is immediately invalidated, and the patenter loses their bond. If it scores 5 or greater, the challenger forfiets his challenge money. The time length of the patent would then be based on the average score. The default would be the maximum time length for that category. The rest would be the average score as a percent of the maximum score multiplied by the category.
They aren't just making money off of the ISP. If you look at the keyboard, where the function keys are, there is instead hotlinks to various services - shopping, email, even a pizza button. They probably get money from every sale made via those hot buttons, similar to amazon's web partnering.
"And finally, don't make the same mistake millions of other developers make every day, don't assume that the user has exactly the same system and setup that you do. Don't assume that the user has a large monitor or lots of memory. Don't assume that they have an active connection to the net. Don't assume that home directories are under/home."
Perhaps a testing enviornment could be written that emulates the various configurations above - ie small and large amounts of memory, small vs large screens, active and innactive net connections, as well as other areas that are often overlooked by programers - millions of colors vs four bit graphics...
Let's say, at the end of the day, I copy a folder which contains files I have been working on to a backup folder on the same hard drive. The program deletes all of my copies, replacing them with symbolic links. The next day after a few hours work, I realize I need to revert to one of my backup files, but it's been changed to a symbolic link to the file I'm using now. Presto! "
A simple solution to this problem, would be to have an extension.backup (or a folder defined for backups or...) that exempts files from the autolinking.
"is to be able to get credit for eventual success of nanotech"
I wasn't speaking to motivation when I said for the public good, I was refering to end effect. If Al Gore wants credit for the internet, or Clinton for nanotech, who cares? As long as the end result is more basic research being done which achieves the long term interests of the people.
I admit, my reply was rather dashed off to a poorly worded statement. (Might have something to do with not having slept yet... )
I further agree that funding needs to be improved all around, and- astronomy has significant ability to contribute to science/tech on many fronts. I also agree that the scarcity model for funding sucks!
The only area that I'm likely to quibble with is "I think the president and Congress both understand how good of an investment science is, and that the effort has to be spread around to advance the state of the art on as many fronts as possible.
I think that they also are very aware that the country will receive economic and spriritual returns commensurate with whatever level of funding they they provide for the sciences. "
This is not at all apparent to me. I believe it is quite possibly the case with some individuals in Congress, but the majority don't have the vision nor insight for that type of thinking... (alas, I wish it were otherwise...)
LetterRip
(I do promise to not make quite a fool of myself next time tho... or at least pay more attention to my sleep deprived brain)
It is not 'evil' for the private sector to do research. The reason it is benificial to have government funded research, is because corporations have only a responsibility to there stock holders. Stock holders rarely take the long view on investments, hence all research will be for immediate applicability. Unfortunately, basic research, that which brings about enourmous leaps in our understanding and technology, are not a good short term investment.
Ergo, we have the government making a long term investment for the public good.
There is a world of difference between basic nanotechnology, and a full scale autonomous replicator. Probably on the order of 20 to 50 years of reasearch difference, minimum. Early nano allows for better basic materials sciene- ie fewer flaws in metals, plastics, silicon, which increases strength, reduces resistance, and basically improves properties all around.
This is very early level stuff, your talking at least twenty years off for the applications you speak of (and much more likely closer to 100...)
Research in nano is nice, because it advances technological fronts on many sides- materials science/manufacturing, chemistry, molecular biology, medicine, computer science
A mapping of the near earth objects/space is of little return (short term). Also, by waiting a few years technological improvements could greatly increase the search speed. (recall the article about waiting to start on computer intensive projects because of moores law?)
Thus a nano/related investment is probably the best bang for the buck...
I believe that the defense should make the point that the DeCSS code is required to make players for other platforms than Linux. Only if they are willing to make a player for all of the available OS's out there should they be willing to give up the rights. They might very well make a player for Linux, but what about all of the *BSD and other Unixes? What about BeOS? What about DOS? OS/2? What about the various linux distributions? All twenty or more, or just RedHat? just x86 or Sparc/Alpha, PPC, m68k? and I'm sure probably a hundered others of OSes and configurations that I haven't touched on...
If you recall, there was a post about the gentleman who paid for MS's net bill auctioning it on ebay. If someone here were to win it, they could donate the money towards the EFF. This could get some positive plublicity for the DeCSS hearings.
Well, to be about the billionth person to explain this...
1) Being a trade secret they have to dilligently protect it, it's not clear that there encryption meets a due dillegence standard
2) The person who broke the encryption was a minor, hence any shrink wrap licensce is unenforcable on them
3) The minor was from a foreign country where reverse engineering was valid
4) reverse engineering is allowed for interoperability, the software makes DVD's interoperable with linux hardware this is the "only" way to software decode DVD's on linux so that they can be watched.
5) this isn' just about DeCSS, there is also that whole freedom of speech thing...
"Since the judge acknowledges that he doesn't forsee a victory for the plaintiff"
He actually stated ""I don't think there's the slightest question that plaintiffs have a very good chance of success." That is, he expects the plaintiff to win...
Since the judge has made a public statement that shows a clear bias in the case prior to the hearing, is there any legal proceeding for getting him off of the case?
I feel that their is a much better interpretation of their data...
They have the strongest positive and negatives for Bush and Gore, and then strong positives for Bill Bradley and John McCain.
The reason for this, is that the strong criticism of either side, are likely from those with opposite political idealogies, who, for lack of information about the other side, focus on the most predominate individual in the other parties campaign, hence Bush and Gore. Essentially, Bradley and McCain are ignored by the naysayers because they aren't considered politically important.
Admittedly, 4-7 miles isn't much of a radius, but, setting up multiple stations, where the primary stations signal could be sent via an internet conection to be rebroadcast nearly simultaneously on all of the other stations, you could cover some significant area. This would require very low maintenance towers probably, and lots of organization, but would be interesting to attempt. What's a typical citie size these days? Also, if three or four stations were set up around the perimeter then you could get overlap coverage. Finally, the 4 - 7 mile radius, is that the radius at which the signal is 50%? what is the actual radius of a usuable signal? (assume fairly ideal conditions...)
They are actually throwing (mostly) US taxpayer money at the project, there contibution runs about 40% for the initial design, and about 5% for the total project. The rest is through government grants according to their web page..
Slashdot Mirror
There were two items that I forgot to include, which another posters post reminded me of - one the licensing of a patent must be compulsory. Thus one cannot hoard the patent and keep it from circulation just because it reduces the profits gained from another product. The second item- the total combined payment in IP fees cannot exceed 15% of the total product retail cost. This is so multiple IP technologies can be included in a single product, without skyrocketing the price of the product due to IP entanglements...
LetterRip
Tom M.
fstmm@yahoo.com
(This was also posted in the HUGEP storie...)
IT seems appropriate that I put form my proposal at this time, that is similar in spirit.
Each technological group of patents would have its own maximum expiration time. This expiration time would be based on the dynamicity of the technology- which would be determined by the number of patents issued in the group the previous three years.
Further, I would change the patent process such that each patent is automatically granted, with the caveat that a five grand bond must be placed with the patent. Anyone can challenge the validity of the patent by putting up five grand. This money would in turn go to five reviewers, chosen at random from a pool of experts in the technology. Each expert would rate the patent on a scale of 1-10 on its innovativeness. 1 being blantantly obvious, 5 somewhat innovative and a 10 extraordinarily innovative. The patent life would then be based on the average ratings of the experts. If the average rating is less than 5 then the patent is immediately invalidated, and the patenter loses their bond. If it scores 5 or greater, the challenger forfiets his challenge money. The time length of the patent would then be based on the average score. The default would be the maximum time length for that category. The rest would be the average score as a percent of the maximum score multiplied by the category.
Please tell me what you think,
LetterRip
fstmm@yahoo.com
"but I seriously disagree with your suggestion of charging five thousand dollars for the opportunity to dispute a patent"
I assumed that for impoverished programmers with valid claims, an organization similar to the EFF would probably help. Or alternatively, I'm certain that there will be organizations willing to pony up the five grand for a percentage of the take.
This system is mostly to streamline the elimination of obvious patents, and to reduce the strifiling of innovation, especially in those areas that are experienceing rapid growth and change. It's also meant to reduce the whole lawsuit strategy of filing bogus patents that the clerks are undertrained/staffed to realize, and than suing anyone who infringes. If someone attempts to sue- pony up five grand, get the claim invalidated, end of lawsuit. If the claim holds up- settle quickly .
LetterRip
Tom M.
fstmm@yahoo.com
IT seems appropriate that I put form my proposal at this time, that is similar in spirit.
Each technological group of patents would have its own maximum expiration time. This expiration time would be based on the dynamicity of the technology- which would be determined by the number of patents issued in the group the previous three years.
Further, I would change the patent process such that each patent is automatically granted, with the caveat that a five grand bond must be placed with the patent. Anyone can challenge the validity of the patent by putting up five grand. This money would in turn go to five reviewers, chosen at random from a pool of experts in the technology. Each expert would rate the patent on a scale of 1-10 on its innovativeness. 1 being blantantly obvious, 5 somewhat innovative and a 10 extraordinarily innovative. The patent life would then be based on the average ratings of the experts. If the average rating is less than 5 then the patent is immediately invalidated, and the patenter loses their bond. If it scores 5 or greater, the challenger forfiets his challenge money. The time length of the patent would then be based on the average score. The default would be the maximum time length for that category. The rest would be the average score as a percent of the maximum score multiplied by the category.
Please tell me what you think,
LetterRip
fstmm@yahoo.com
They aren't just making money off of the ISP. If you look at the keyboard, where the function keys are, there is instead hotlinks to various services - shopping, email, even a pizza button. They probably get money from every sale made via those hot buttons, similar to amazon's web partnering.
LetterRip
Unfortunately, I started a new job with a startup company two days after I registered it, so I haven't made much (~ zero) progress.
LetterRip
"And finally, don't make the same mistake millions of other developers make every day, don't assume that the user has exactly the same system and setup that you do. Don't assume that the user has a large monitor or lots of memory. Don't assume that they have an active connection to the net. Don't assume that home directories are under /home."
Perhaps a testing enviornment could be written that emulates the various configurations above - ie small and large amounts of memory, small vs large screens, active and innactive net connections, as well as other areas that are often overlooked by programers - millions of colors vs four bit graphics...
Just a thought,
LetterRip
"
.backup (or a folder defined for backups or...) that exempts files from the autolinking.
Let's say, at the end of the day, I copy a folder which contains files I have been working on to a backup folder on the same hard drive. The program deletes all of my copies, replacing them with
symbolic links. The next day after a few hours work, I realize I need to revert to one of my backup files, but it's been changed to a symbolic link to the file I'm using now. Presto! "
A simple solution to this problem, would be to have an extension
LetterRip
"is to be able to get credit for eventual success of nanotech"
I wasn't speaking to motivation when I said for the public good, I was refering to end effect. If Al Gore wants credit for the internet, or Clinton for nanotech, who cares? As long as the end result is more basic research being done which achieves the long term interests of the people.
LetterRip
I admit, my reply was rather dashed off to a poorly worded statement. (Might have something to do with not having slept yet... )
I further agree that funding needs to be improved all around, and- astronomy has significant ability to contribute to science/tech on many fronts. I also agree that the scarcity model for funding sucks!
The only area that I'm likely to quibble with is
"I think the president and Congress both understand how good of an investment science is, and that the effort has to be spread around to advance the state of the art on as many fronts as possible.
I think that they also are very aware that the country will receive economic and spriritual returns commensurate with whatever level of funding they they provide for the sciences. "
This is not at all apparent to me. I believe it is quite possibly the case with some individuals in Congress, but the majority don't have the vision nor insight for that type of thinking... (alas, I wish it were otherwise...)
LetterRip
(I do promise to not make quite a fool of myself next time tho... or at least pay more attention to my sleep deprived brain)
I admit, my reply was rather dashed off to a poorly worded statement. (Might have something to do with not having slept yet... )
It is not 'evil' for the private sector to do research. The reason it is benificial to have government funded research, is because corporations have only a responsibility to there stock holders. Stock holders rarely take the long view on investments, hence all research will be for immediate applicability. Unfortunately, basic research, that which brings about enourmous leaps in our understanding and technology, are not a good short term investment.
Ergo, we have the government making a long term investment for the public good.
LetterRip
There is a world of difference between basic nanotechnology, and a full scale autonomous replicator. Probably on the order of 20 to 50 years of reasearch difference, minimum. Early nano allows for better basic materials sciene- ie fewer flaws in metals, plastics, silicon, which increases strength, reduces resistance, and basically improves properties all around.
This is very early level stuff, your talking at least twenty years off for the applications you speak of (and much more likely closer to 100...)
LetterRip
Research in nano is nice, because it advances technological fronts on many sides- materials science/manufacturing, chemistry, molecular biology, medicine, computer science
A mapping of the near earth objects/space is of little return (short term). Also, by waiting a few years technological improvements could greatly increase the search speed. (recall the article about waiting to start on computer intensive projects because of moores law?)
Thus a nano/related investment is probably the best bang for the buck...
LetterRip
I believe that the defense should make the point that the DeCSS code is required to make players for other platforms than Linux. Only if they are willing to make a player for all of the available OS's out there should they be willing to give up the rights. They might very well make a player for Linux, but what about all of the *BSD and other Unixes? What about BeOS? What about DOS? OS/2? What about the various linux distributions? All twenty or more, or just RedHat? just x86 or Sparc/Alpha, PPC, m68k? and I'm sure probably a hundered others of OSes and configurations that I haven't touched on...
LetterRip
If you recall, there was a post about the gentleman who paid for MS's net bill auctioning it on ebay. If someone here were to win it, they could donate the money towards the EFF. This could get some positive plublicity for the DeCSS hearings.
Just a thought...
LetterRip
Well, to be about the billionth person to explain this...
1) Being a trade secret they have to dilligently protect it, it's not clear that there encryption meets a due dillegence standard
2) The person who broke the encryption was a minor, hence any shrink wrap licensce is unenforcable on them
3) The minor was from a foreign country where reverse engineering was valid
4) reverse engineering is allowed for interoperability, the software makes DVD's interoperable with linux hardware this is the "only" way to software decode DVD's on linux so that they can be watched.
5) this isn' just about DeCSS, there is also that whole freedom of speech thing...
LetterRip
"Since the judge acknowledges that he doesn't forsee a victory for the plaintiff"
He actually stated ""I don't think there's the slightest question that plaintiffs have a very good chance of success." That is, he expects the plaintiff to win...
LetterRip
Since the judge has made a public statement that shows a clear bias in the case prior to the hearing, is there any legal proceeding for getting him off of the case?
LetterRip
A perl script to contravene the above ideas is trivial to implement. Yes it would take a bit more effort, but not much...
LetterRip
I feel that their is a much better interpretation of their data...
They have the strongest positive and negatives for Bush and Gore, and then strong positives for Bill Bradley and John McCain.
The reason for this, is that the strong criticism of either side, are likely from those with opposite political idealogies, who, for lack of information about the other side, focus on the most predominate individual in the other parties campaign, hence Bush and Gore. Essentially, Bradley and McCain are ignored by the naysayers because they aren't considered politically important.
Just a thought...
LetterRip
Admittedly, 4-7 miles isn't much of a radius, but, setting up multiple stations, where the primary stations signal could be sent via an internet conection to be rebroadcast nearly simultaneously on all of the other stations, you could cover some significant area. This would require very low maintenance towers probably, and lots of organization, but would be interesting to attempt.
What's a typical citie size these days? Also, if three or four stations were set up around the perimeter then you could get overlap coverage. Finally, the 4 - 7 mile radius, is that the radius at which the signal is 50%? what is the actual radius of a usuable signal? (assume fairly ideal conditions...)
Linux advocacy to the airwaves!
LetterRip
They are actually throwing (mostly) US taxpayer money at the project, there contibution runs about 40% for the initial design, and about 5% for the total project. The rest is through government grants according to their web page..
LetterRip
Or... they could purchase of five dollar CD or get a freebie donated by any number of people...
They're not saving 8000 GBP, at most they save 99$ (store bought...) if they buy the official RH CD per school...
LetterRip
Thank you for the link, it looks like an interesting read...
LetterRip