First, Rambus was a member of JEDEC. They joined in 1992 and left in 1996. This was clearly stated in the article. As for contribution, that seems to be in debate.
There is another article here at ElectronicNews Online that provides some information not included in the C-Net article. All I can say is the more I read about Rambus the more I am convinced that they were unethical in their dealings with JEDEC.
For myself, I am more inclinced to accuse Rambus of corporate espionage than I am of Micron or Hyundai. If there is any justice, Rambus will be nailed to the wall for breaking the spirit if not the letter of the law.
This is being tried in Germany. Does anybody know how this will be different from the court cases here in the States? Also, noticing that there is also a trial coming up in Italy, does the EU provide common standards for these cases or does each country rule based on their own set of laws?
I do not believe that to be true. In the US if I file a patent and it is not open to the public until the patent is issued.Now I may inform my competitors that I have a patent pending but I am not obliged to do so.
Other countries open a patent upon submisson which imo is a cleaner design. We could have this avoided this mess if JEDEC was able to check with the USPTO and verify that everyone was playing fairly. I also feel it could reduce litigation costs. Competitors would have the opprotunity to fight a patent before it was issued instead of filing suit or waiting to be sued.
Well just goes to show that right after/. rule #1 "Always check that link before you click." is rule #2 "Never trust a link you haven't seen in its entirety." which is quickly follwed by rule 3 "Are you sure you trust that link?"
Prof. Lessig did not argue in favor of internet taxation. Let's look at the entire quote:
The current no-tax scenario for Internet transactions is clearly a temporary situation. Given the explosive projections for the volume of Internet commerce, it is inevitable that online transactions are going to be taxed.
I call that a prediction or analysis rather than arguing in favor of.
As for keeping the government out of the Internet, let's start by keeping Big Business out of lawmaking. I can directly attribute bad laws, such as the DMCA, as coming from corporations and organizations like the MPAA who currently buy a louder voice than the average voter or activist group. I counter with Big Business must not be allowed to determine the direction of the Internet. Their needs must never take priority over any individual's.
You may get a couple of moderators on crack to think your trash talk means something but I can say this. It isn't you talking to the DC Court of Appeals against the Sony Bono Copyright Act. I don't see your signature on a Amici Brief to get the DMCA overturned. I don't see you out on the stump going head to head with Jack Valenti over IP.
Yeah, we should turn our backs on someone capable of and currently fighting for us on these issues just because he feels that Internet taxation is inevitable and that policymakers don't spend enough time thinking about how their laws will impact the Internet. What a betrayal!
Someone hasn't had a virus outbreak in a business now have they? One of the times when I first started doing support I was handed a set of diskettes and told to clean up after a floppy with Jack the Ripper made the rounds. "Who did you give the floppy to? Have you made any other floppies? Have you sent any of your files to someone via e-mail?" I had to work on 15 machines. A thankfully minute number and I only had to work a couple hours of OT.
Compare that to having Inoculan installed on the workstations with automatic updates coming over the network. Yeah it slows the workstations down a bit, sometimes you wind up with a file that you can clean but the important things is 99.99 percent of the viruses get flagged and either deleted or put in a sandbox. Better yet, those infected files don't get transmitted to other PCs.
So, to answer your question, I have 1000+ people using anti-virus software here. I'm sure a few more people can bump that number up an order of magnitude or three.
Ok, the link is five years out of date but it shouldn't be forgotten that the patent office does or did have a quota system in place. This also contributes to the problem with software patents.
There is another link from Wired but it is from '94. I remember this being an issue and there was a promise of reform but I can't find anything recent abut the quota system. Does anybody else have more current information?
You're talking about slush reading. When I was in college I did it for a while. Here's how the system worked under the publisher I was working for. The author pays the publisher a fee to have his book reviewed. In this case it was $50. The publisher passes the manuscript to a reader. You're supposed to correct spelling and grammatical errors, jot notes in the margin, suggest ways to improve the prose, etc.. You also provided a 1-2 page summary giving your opinion if the book is publishable and ways it could be approved. If you recommended the book it went to the next level.
I got paid $25 a book. And you are right. 90% of what I read was crap. But the story doesn't end there....
See, the kicker was the publisher didn't hire me. He hired my friend who passed me additional manuscripts. Slush reading is piecework and I was between jobs. Looking back on this I don't feel too bad over the situation. I was holding my own in a graduate level creative writing course, acing my grammar class and was involved in a writers workshop for a year. imho, I felt qualified to review the books.
But just so we understand each other. First, it was the author that paid to have his book reviewed. Second, using cheap labor (it took between 7-10 hours to go through a manuscript) the publisher makes $25 per submission. Finally, the system was so unsupervised a person's work could have been reviewed by Bobo the chimp as far as the publisher was concerned. Just keep that in mind when you consider the sacrifice the publisher is making to keep all that crap away from Joe Public.
If you're around Mad City, WI from May 6th-9th there is this conference being held on IP. I originally saw it on the OpenLaw DVD mailing list and after looking over the speaker list thought about staking out some pavement and protest^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hvoicing my opinion. I probably won't be able to make it (my son will just be over a month old then:) but I do encourage anybody who can make it to go and let your views be known.
I do not have to give up any of my rights. When I go to the library I don't photocopy entire books. I'm not pirating someone's work and giving it away to the masses.
I'm not a criminal.
Content providers, otoh, who have the audacity to maintain that a digital stream of a work passed through a router's memory is a unique copy do have to change. And they can start by treating by approaching me as a customer first and potential criminal last.
If I go to a store and they treat me like shit I don't go back. I should suddenly be forgiving because the product is now digital? I don't think so.
Could you contact Mr. Feist and have him comment on this link? I think the issue of him being a best-selling author isn't very pertinent on this issue except maybe in the case of bias.
Clean the wax out of your ears. Or better yet read the lyrics. They are in the CD. They are available on the Internet. You could of done a google search if it was that shocking.
There is a set of books out there which list lyrics most people misinterpret. You would not believe what people come up with... Well then again. ANd if you want a funny example of how that works, rent Jumpin Jack Flash and watch Whoopi Goldburg try to write down the lyrics to that Stone's tune.
But I have never heard that "lyric" in the hundred plus times I have listened to Wisconsin Death Trip.
Looking here, it says in rather large type that the people should die in the game only not in real life. Wouldn't this seem to clarify the wanted dead or alive statement in smaller type at the top of the page?
Was the page updated recently or was that disclaimer always there?
All you've done is list a bunch of negatives about IM without delving into any of the causes. Did the company provide any training with IM? Did it issue or remind the employees of the company's usage policy? Better yet, did they have a usage policy out regarding IM because if you're in the U.S. those people who got fired may have grounds to sue the company for snooping in on their conversations.
How did IM cause them to lose touch with their co-workers? Here's a hint on how to get a free 15 minute break. Get out of your cube to ask a co-worker a question and hunt them down. With IM, I can get immediate feedback.
One of my coworkers uses IM to keep in touch with her kids. In this case there are moral benefits and the phone line stays open for business calls.
Don't fault the tool because the craftsman is inept.
I'll have to check on it again. About three months ago I tried this on a NT workstation with SO 5.2 and Office2000.
Created Word2K document with pictures, opened doc file in SO made some changes and saved as SO file, opened new file in SO and saved as Office2000 file, opened document in Office2000.
I lost all my pictures and some formatting. Not as bad as say doing an English to Spanish to English translation on Babelfish but bad enough to know I couldn't use SO at work.
Not enforcing the copyright does not cost you the copyright.
As shown here, you have three years to file a civil suit or five for a criminal suit. Now where does it say the copyright holder loses the copyright? You're confusing a time limit on filing a lawsuit with losing IP rights. They are not the same.
Just because Disney can't sue one pre-school for painting Mickey on the wall does not mean they lose the copyright on Mickey and cannot sue the next infringer.
And thank you for posting that link and supporting my arguement that the Xerox case was over copyright and not patents. Now would you like to recind your statement in this post?
Ok, I need 5 moderators to bust this down as Overrated:) But seriously, you are wrong and I finally found a link to prove it.
Go here and look at the year 1990. The suit was over copyright infringement not patents.
I may not be a lawyer but I do read West's Business Law. Not enforcing a patent does not cost you the patent. Not enforcing a copyright does not cost you the copyright. Not enforcing a trademark will cost you the trademark.
Why? Red means stop. It's in the same position that the 'x' button is on Windows. It kills the window.
As we have moved from a cli to a gui I see no reason not to extend the paradigm from a key-combo to an icon. I would even be willing to say that a gui furthers the appliance argument.
Mickey is copyrighted and quite simply shouldn't be any more. Disney is being a major ass when they sue a pre-school for infringement. I just hope the verdict on Eldred v. Reno overturns the Sonny Bono Act. Otherwise come 2018 we'll see Disney tossing a few million once again upon Congress to keep Mickey out of the public domain. Come 2019, when Mickey's copyright expires, Disney will have owned him for 91 years. That's what? 3-4 generations? For all intents and purposes, Disney has a perpetual copyright on Mickey and this is in violation of the letter and spirit of the law.
btw, it is either or when it comes to IP. You get to copyright or trademark. Not both. Apple can trademark their logo. Fine. They can't trademark their gui. Nor can they copyright it. The gui is essentially a collection of controls. They'll have to go back to the Supreme Court and get Lotus v. Borland overturned. Possible but unlikely.
Then they had better have a design patent because if they go on copyright violation there is precedent from the Lotus v. Borland case. Controls cannot be copyrighted. So if my red jellybean closes a window and you sue me because you had a crimson gumdrop doing that first well I don't see you having much of a case.
What? One blender manufacture can sue another because the puree, blend and chop buttons are in the same order and have concave buttons to fit a fingertip? Screw that. Summed up, Apple has got the cash to make non-compliance an expensive option. That's it. People will cave in because they don't want the hassle of going to court not because there is any legal merit to Apple's accusations.
I fixed them and read them. They have nothing to do with the hypothetical you originally proposed. Nor do they have anything to do with your original proposition that and I quote:
Someone's right to make money is just as important as someone's right to live. Someone doesn't have the right to profit from another person's death, but if they weren't responsible for the person getting in that position in the first place, then by all means they can do what they want.
I took your hypothetical and showed, in a capitalist framework, that intervening for the benefit of the individual was worth more than the cost of doing nothing because there was no immediate profit in it.
Now, to refute me, you post links to three stories about murdered cabbies. They are tragic stories. It is not right that any of them had to die and that their loved ones have to suffer with a violent loss.
That said, please inform me upon how they apply to the things you originally posted. As somebody else has posted, your hypothetical was bullshit to begin with. Now you want to tear down my argument by posting three links which are only connected because they are about cabbies. May I remind you that you brought up the "dream world" situation to begin with.
I don't need to defend my arguement. It extrapolates on your scenerio and shows why it would behoove drug companies to send the needed drugs to combat AIDS in Africa instead of withholding them due to lack of profit. You have done nothing to refute it except try some bait and switch tactic to get off the topic at hand.
Your analogy is flawed at a fundamental level because you are focused on one industry (the taxi driver) instead of focusing on society. To put it in perspective:
Say, the taxi driver is altruistic and gives our would-be victim a ride out of Harlem. The cabbie spends 50 cents in gas, does not have to stop giving people rides and develops a goodwill relationship with the person he helps. While this goodwill is intangible, it is worth more than the 50 cents the cabbie spent. Our victim now becomes a source of free advertising and will recommend our company and more than likely the cabbie. In the end, this act of goodwill makes money.
On the flip side, when the cabbie does not save our mugging victim. Multiple industries and people unrelated to the incident at hand pay the price for the cabbie's greed and indifference. To put it in the context of what is happening in Africa, the victim is severely beaten and hospitalized. The victim's place of work loses his productivity for months as he rehabilitates and the insurance company pays so much in medical bills that they must raise rates for everyone. The cabbie could have spent 50 cents once. Now 2000 people must pay 50 cents a month.
And let's not forget that cabbie. People now don't feel the route he drives is safe anymore. He gets fewer fares. The bars there see a dip in profit for months while people get over the shock of such a brutal mugging. Some people actually know he did jack and despise him and his company for being so cold and not being a good neighbor. The cabbie and the company never do get those customers back. Everybody loses because a cabbie couldn't make a profit on 50 cents of gas he was burning up anyway.
This is just the merest tip of the iceburg on why maintaining that someone's right to a profit is as valuable as someone's right to live is obscene. I'll drink that koolaid. It's far better than that short-sighted, immoral urine you seem to be consuming.
Slashdot Mirror
There is another article here at ElectronicNews Online that provides some information not included in the C-Net article. All I can say is the more I read about Rambus the more I am convinced that they were unethical in their dealings with JEDEC.
For myself, I am more inclinced to accuse Rambus of corporate espionage than I am of Micron or Hyundai. If there is any justice, Rambus will be nailed to the wall for breaking the spirit if not the letter of the law.
TIA
Flower
Other countries open a patent upon submisson which imo is a cleaner design. We could have this avoided this mess if JEDEC was able to check with the USPTO and verify that everyone was playing fairly. I also feel it could reduce litigation costs. Competitors would have the opprotunity to fight a patent before it was issued instead of filing suit or waiting to be sued.
Well just goes to show that right after /. rule #1 "Always check that link before you click." is rule #2 "Never trust a link you haven't seen in its entirety." which is quickly follwed by rule 3 "Are you sure you trust that link?"
Prof. Lessig did not argue in favor of internet taxation. Let's look at the entire quote:
I call that a prediction or analysis rather than arguing in favor of.
As for keeping the government out of the Internet, let's start by keeping Big Business out of lawmaking. I can directly attribute bad laws, such as the DMCA, as coming from corporations and organizations like the MPAA who currently buy a louder voice than the average voter or activist group. I counter with Big Business must not be allowed to determine the direction of the Internet. Their needs must never take priority over any individual's.
You may get a couple of moderators on crack to think your trash talk means something but I can say this. It isn't you talking to the DC Court of Appeals against the Sony Bono Copyright Act. I don't see your signature on a Amici Brief to get the DMCA overturned. I don't see you out on the stump going head to head with Jack Valenti over IP.
Yeah, we should turn our backs on someone capable of and currently fighting for us on these issues just because he feels that Internet taxation is inevitable and that policymakers don't spend enough time thinking about how their laws will impact the Internet. What a betrayal!
And yeah I already know I've been trolled. HAND.
Compare that to having Inoculan installed on the workstations with automatic updates coming over the network. Yeah it slows the workstations down a bit, sometimes you wind up with a file that you can clean but the important things is 99.99 percent of the viruses get flagged and either deleted or put in a sandbox. Better yet, those infected files don't get transmitted to other PCs.
So, to answer your question, I have 1000+ people using anti-virus software here. I'm sure a few more people can bump that number up an order of magnitude or three.
There is another link from Wired but it is from '94. I remember this being an issue and there was a promise of reform but I can't find anything recent abut the quota system. Does anybody else have more current information?
And silly me. approved should be improved. I even previewed that message. I'm positively mortified. :)
I got paid $25 a book. And you are right. 90% of what I read was crap. But the story doesn't end there....
See, the kicker was the publisher didn't hire me. He hired my friend who passed me additional manuscripts. Slush reading is piecework and I was between jobs. Looking back on this I don't feel too bad over the situation. I was holding my own in a graduate level creative writing course, acing my grammar class and was involved in a writers workshop for a year. imho, I felt qualified to review the books.
But just so we understand each other. First, it was the author that paid to have his book reviewed. Second, using cheap labor (it took between 7-10 hours to go through a manuscript) the publisher makes $25 per submission. Finally, the system was so unsupervised a person's work could have been reviewed by Bobo the chimp as far as the publisher was concerned. Just keep that in mind when you consider the sacrifice the publisher is making to keep all that crap away from Joe Public.
If you're around Mad City, WI from May 6th-9th there is this conference being held on IP. I originally saw it on the OpenLaw DVD mailing list and after looking over the speaker list thought about staking out some pavement and protest^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hvoicing my opinion. I probably won't be able to make it (my son will just be over a month old then :) but I do encourage anybody who can make it to go and let your views be known.
I'm not a criminal.
Content providers, otoh, who have the audacity to maintain that a digital stream of a work passed through a router's memory is a unique copy do have to change. And they can start by treating by approaching me as a customer first and potential criminal last.
If I go to a store and they treat me like shit I don't go back. I should suddenly be forgiving because the product is now digital? I don't think so.
Could you contact Mr. Feist and have him comment on this link? I think the issue of him being a best-selling author isn't very pertinent on this issue except maybe in the case of bias.
There is a set of books out there which list lyrics most people misinterpret. You would not believe what people come up with... Well then again. ANd if you want a funny example of how that works, rent Jumpin Jack Flash and watch Whoopi Goldburg try to write down the lyrics to that Stone's tune.
But I have never heard that "lyric" in the hundred plus times I have listened to Wisconsin Death Trip.
Was the page updated recently or was that disclaimer always there?
All you've done is list a bunch of negatives about IM without delving into any of the causes. Did the company provide any training with IM? Did it issue or remind the employees of the company's usage policy? Better yet, did they have a usage policy out regarding IM because if you're in the U.S. those people who got fired may have grounds to sue the company for snooping in on their conversations.
How did IM cause them to lose touch with their co-workers? Here's a hint on how to get a free 15 minute break. Get out of your cube to ask a co-worker a question and hunt them down. With IM, I can get immediate feedback.
One of my coworkers uses IM to keep in touch with her kids. In this case there are moral benefits and the phone line stays open for business calls.
Don't fault the tool because the craftsman is inept.
As long as I can remember not to eat yellow snow I think I'm going to be ok.
Heh. Too close. heh. I get the point but.. heh That's funny. Ironic too.
Created Word2K document with pictures, opened doc file in SO made some changes and saved as SO file, opened new file in SO and saved as Office2000 file, opened document in Office2000.
I lost all my pictures and some formatting. Not as bad as say doing an English to Spanish to English translation on Babelfish but bad enough to know I couldn't use SO at work.
Not enforcing the copyright does not cost you the copyright.
As shown here, you have three years to file a civil suit or five for a criminal suit. Now where does it say the copyright holder loses the copyright? You're confusing a time limit on filing a lawsuit with losing IP rights. They are not the same.
Just because Disney can't sue one pre-school for painting Mickey on the wall does not mean they lose the copyright on Mickey and cannot sue the next infringer.
And thank you for posting that link and supporting my arguement that the Xerox case was over copyright and not patents. Now would you like to recind your statement in this post?
Go here and look at the year 1990. The suit was over copyright infringement not patents.
I may not be a lawyer but I do read West's Business Law. Not enforcing a patent does not cost you the patent. Not enforcing a copyright does not cost you the copyright. Not enforcing a trademark will cost you the trademark.
As we have moved from a cli to a gui I see no reason not to extend the paradigm from a key-combo to an icon. I would even be willing to say that a gui furthers the appliance argument.
Mickey is copyrighted and quite simply shouldn't be any more. Disney is being a major ass when they sue a pre-school for infringement. I just hope the verdict on Eldred v. Reno overturns the Sonny Bono Act. Otherwise come 2018 we'll see Disney tossing a few million once again upon Congress to keep Mickey out of the public domain. Come 2019, when Mickey's copyright expires, Disney will have owned him for 91 years. That's what? 3-4 generations? For all intents and purposes, Disney has a perpetual copyright on Mickey and this is in violation of the letter and spirit of the law.
btw, it is either or when it comes to IP. You get to copyright or trademark. Not both. Apple can trademark their logo. Fine. They can't trademark their gui. Nor can they copyright it. The gui is essentially a collection of controls. They'll have to go back to the Supreme Court and get Lotus v. Borland overturned. Possible but unlikely.
What? One blender manufacture can sue another because the puree, blend and chop buttons are in the same order and have concave buttons to fit a fingertip? Screw that. Summed up, Apple has got the cash to make non-compliance an expensive option. That's it. People will cave in because they don't want the hassle of going to court not because there is any legal merit to Apple's accusations.
2nd link is bad..
3rd link is bad...
I fixed them and read them. They have nothing to do with the hypothetical you originally proposed. Nor do they have anything to do with your original proposition that and I quote:
I took your hypothetical and showed, in a capitalist framework, that intervening for the benefit of the individual was worth more than the cost of doing nothing because there was no immediate profit in it.
Now, to refute me, you post links to three stories about murdered cabbies. They are tragic stories. It is not right that any of them had to die and that their loved ones have to suffer with a violent loss.
That said, please inform me upon how they apply to the things you originally posted. As somebody else has posted, your hypothetical was bullshit to begin with. Now you want to tear down my argument by posting three links which are only connected because they are about cabbies. May I remind you that you brought up the "dream world" situation to begin with.
I don't need to defend my arguement. It extrapolates on your scenerio and shows why it would behoove drug companies to send the needed drugs to combat AIDS in Africa instead of withholding them due to lack of profit. You have done nothing to refute it except try some bait and switch tactic to get off the topic at hand.
Say, the taxi driver is altruistic and gives our would-be victim a ride out of Harlem. The cabbie spends 50 cents in gas, does not have to stop giving people rides and develops a goodwill relationship with the person he helps. While this goodwill is intangible, it is worth more than the 50 cents the cabbie spent. Our victim now becomes a source of free advertising and will recommend our company and more than likely the cabbie. In the end, this act of goodwill makes money.
On the flip side, when the cabbie does not save our mugging victim. Multiple industries and people unrelated to the incident at hand pay the price for the cabbie's greed and indifference. To put it in the context of what is happening in Africa, the victim is severely beaten and hospitalized. The victim's place of work loses his productivity for months as he rehabilitates and the insurance company pays so much in medical bills that they must raise rates for everyone. The cabbie could have spent 50 cents once. Now 2000 people must pay 50 cents a month.
And let's not forget that cabbie. People now don't feel the route he drives is safe anymore. He gets fewer fares. The bars there see a dip in profit for months while people get over the shock of such a brutal mugging. Some people actually know he did jack and despise him and his company for being so cold and not being a good neighbor. The cabbie and the company never do get those customers back. Everybody loses because a cabbie couldn't make a profit on 50 cents of gas he was burning up anyway.
This is just the merest tip of the iceburg on why maintaining that someone's right to a profit is as valuable as someone's right to live is obscene. I'll drink that koolaid. It's far better than that short-sighted, immoral urine you seem to be consuming.