Then you don't have prior art. You need ONE that meets all of the claims described in the patent.
You do understand that if you do something very similar to the patent, but do it slightly differently, and therefore do not infringe on ONE of the claims, you won't infringe on the patent.
So saying you did something similar, but not exactly, and therefore this patent is invalid.. is an invalid argument.
If you want to argue that what is different here is not sufficiently different to qualify for a patent.. then point out what is different and why it should not qualify as sufficiently novel.
thin and diskless clients are not what is described in the patent.
If you think they are close enough, then point out the differences, and then say that what Google has done is not sufficiently novel to qualify for a 20 year patent.
Many would agree with you.. including myself.
But the patent definitely does not describe a thin client, and simply holding them up and saying they are the same as the patent won't win you any arguments
Can we stop with this BS? It's very clear from the patent claims that netboot is NOT prior art.
I agree with most of the people here that software patents should be eliminated.. but when you make up prior art, the people on the other side of this debate look at your claim, see that it isn't prior art at all, and then you are out of the debate.. because you've been shown to be inaccurate, or worse, a liar... and they win the argument.
So please just stop.
There are plenty of arguments that can be made for the elimination of software patents.. so it's entirely unnecessary.
Damnit. You've foiled my plan. I registered for this account in 1999/2000, and I've waited 12 years to build my reputation on slashdot just for this very moment when I could shill for Google. Now it's all been ruined!
Did any of your examples do the following (all of which it must do to be prior art):
Keep ALL OS and preference changes in sync with the server (so that when the local device is rebooted, OS and preference changes are restored). Note the patent also includes a remotely-mounted disk image for the user's files -- so that is not what it is talking about here.
An image loader than downloads the OS and preference images and combines them to create the full version of the OS
When the changes are synced with the server, the changes are compressed, encrypted, and transmitted incrementally.
1) the patent says when the data is synced, it is compressed and encrypted 2) BootP does not keep OS changes in sync (if the OS image is changed, those changes are not saved w/ BootP... the patent has an OS image server that keeps those changes in sync)
Did you read the patent? I'm guessing not, since you're asking how it's different than netboot.
Google's patent basically says:
The BIOS loads an image loader The image loader downloads the OS image + a preferences image from a server The image loader combines these two images to create the full version of the OS and loads the image on to the local device When changes are made to the image on the local device (file change, settings, etc), these changes are kept in sync with the OS/preferences image server(s) When the device is shutdown the image is removed from the device
The patent has more details.. but that's the basic idea (at least from my interpretation.. correct me if I'm wrong)
the average cost of a credit card breach is $200/record... remember, you have to pay to clean up the mess.. private investigator, documenting everything that happened, and your required to reimburse the banks for any fraudulent charges that could not reverse... and the fines from v/m/ax/d (50k/ea) if you're pci non-compliant.
Also Visa and Mastercard increase the pci fines for the 2nd and 3rd breaches, and only on the 3rd breach do they say you risk being unable to process credit cards.
In the US, 100% has never been required to qualify as a monopoly. Standard Oil controlled 91% of production, and 85% of US sales four years before the antitrust suit was filed.
Section 2 of the sherman antitrust act:
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony
And to be prosecuted under that section, two things have to be proven:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
1. Yes, you can't say, "you agree to never file a chargeback".. that is true. That's against the rules.
2. But if you file a chargeback, there's nothing in the rules that says the company must continue doing business with that person. In fact, they encourage you to maintain a ban list so that you do not process charges from high-risk customers.
Besides, if you file a chargeback and win, then the service was never paid for. So why are you using it?
When a company is punished, it raises the cost for them to do business, resulting in price increases for customers.
For some reason, you stop there. But it doesn't end there.
The customers, who can chose where to spend their money, will go to the cheapest retailer... leaving the punished company with fewer customers, less market share, etc.
Customers are not forced to buy from a company.. so fining 1 company is NOT punishing customers.
We can't cut social security because old people will starve in the streets. We can't cut the drug benefits because old people can't afford their medication. We can't cut the military, or our enemies will attack us. We can't cut unemployment benefits, because people are unemployed. We can't cut benefits to the poor because the poor need help. We can't cut support to the bank industry because they need help to recover. And apparently, we also can't cut science funding, or scientists will die.
The government is huge because people never want to give up ANYTHING. It's always "the other guy" who should pay.
Well when you have a massive debt, everyone has to give up something.. and that includes (unfortunately) scientists. Maybe those researching "blue skies" projects that have gone no where should be cut.
No, it could not be "email client syncing". The dropbox announcement specifically says it was a project document. So they DID copy the info for a specific project.
Yes, that's right.. anyone who thinks their personal data should be protected is shilling for a dropbox-competitor. [/sarcasm]
I work for an ecommerce site, where we deal with personally-identifiable information every single day. We protect our customers data, and downloading copies of it to another computer is a FIREABLE OFFENSE.
So tell me, if dropbox really cares, why do they not have a similar policy? which dropbox employee is getting fired for this?
Dropbox copies their customers data all over the place. They roll out changes to their authentication system without testing, letting anyone access anyone elses account. Face it.. dropbox doesn't give a shit about their customers data.
Dropbox says it was a project document with hundreds of customer email addresses.
Hate to correct myself.. but dropbox did not say "hundreds".. they just said it was a project document with customer email addresses.. So who knows how many were in the file
Slashdot Mirror
"most of that"?
Then you don't have prior art. You need ONE that meets all of the claims described in the patent.
You do understand that if you do something very similar to the patent, but do it slightly differently, and therefore do not infringe on ONE of the claims, you won't infringe on the patent.
So saying you did something similar, but not exactly, and therefore this patent is invalid.. is an invalid argument.
If you want to argue that what is different here is not sufficiently different to qualify for a patent.. then point out what is different and why it should not qualify as sufficiently novel.
thin and diskless clients are not what is described in the patent.
If you think they are close enough, then point out the differences, and then say that what Google has done is not sufficiently novel to qualify for a 20 year patent.
Many would agree with you.. including myself.
But the patent definitely does not describe a thin client, and simply holding them up and saying they are the same as the patent won't win you any arguments
to be prior art, it must meet ALL of the claims in the patent. None of your examples meet all of the claims, and therefore are not prior art.
If you don't agree, please name the ONE technology that meets all of the patents.
Can we stop with this BS? It's very clear from the patent claims that netboot is NOT prior art.
I agree with most of the people here that software patents should be eliminated.. but when you make up prior art, the people on the other side of this debate look at your claim, see that it isn't prior art at all, and then you are out of the debate.. because you've been shown to be inaccurate, or worse, a liar... and they win the argument.
So please just stop.
There are plenty of arguments that can be made for the elimination of software patents.. so it's entirely unnecessary.
the very moment you said "stateless" you proved your 'prior art' isn't prior art at all.
Damnit. You've foiled my plan. I registered for this account in 1999/2000, and I've waited 12 years to build my reputation on slashdot just for this very moment when I could shill for Google. Now it's all been ruined!
F'ing moron
LTSP is not the same thing at all. Here's a wikipedia page to LTSP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Terminal_Server_Project
and the patent is in the summary. Go compare them.
Did any of your examples do the following (all of which it must do to be prior art):
Keep ALL OS and preference changes in sync with the server (so that when the local device is rebooted, OS and preference changes are restored). Note the patent also includes a remotely-mounted disk image for the user's files -- so that is not what it is talking about here.
An image loader than downloads the OS and preference images and combines them to create the full version of the OS
When the changes are synced with the server, the changes are compressed, encrypted, and transmitted incrementally.
1) the patent says when the data is synced, it is compressed and encrypted
2) BootP does not keep OS changes in sync (if the OS image is changed, those changes are not saved w/ BootP... the patent has an OS image server that keeps those changes in sync)
Did you read the patent? I'm guessing not, since you're asking how it's different than netboot.
Google's patent basically says:
The BIOS loads an image loader
The image loader downloads the OS image + a preferences image from a server
The image loader combines these two images to create the full version of the OS and loads the image on to the local device
When changes are made to the image on the local device (file change, settings, etc), these changes are kept in sync with the OS/preferences image server(s)
When the device is shutdown the image is removed from the device
The patent has more details.. but that's the basic idea (at least from my interpretation.. correct me if I'm wrong)
the average cost of a credit card breach is $200/record... remember, you have to pay to clean up the mess.. private investigator, documenting everything that happened, and your required to reimburse the banks for any fraudulent charges that could not reverse... and the fines from v/m/ax/d (50k/ea) if you're pci non-compliant.
Also Visa and Mastercard increase the pci fines for the 2nd and 3rd breaches, and only on the 3rd breach do they say you risk being unable to process credit cards.
comcast has a 250gb limit, and centurylink has a 250gb cap
registration doesn't matter... it only counts when calculating damages.
the earliest reference in archive.org for the site with that logo was jan 23, 2002. also found this post who says it was created in 2001:
http://lists.openhardware.org/pipermail/legal/2011-September/000004.html
Interestingly, opensource.org did not use the logo until June 2002:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020725154922/http://opensource.org/
In fact, that page has an announcement in the sidebar:
*June 2002, Open Source & OSI-Certified marks launched! HTML & Print (color) instructions. Read about our Certification Program.
I would be interested in hearing what OSIs response is.
according to archive.org, that logo was placed on the site in 2002.
opensource.org was created in 1998
microsoft controlled 90% of the operating system market when the antitrust suit was filed in 1998
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/ofnote/9-16mrktshare.mspx
Countries define what percentage qualifies as a monopoly. In the UK, a company is defined as having monopoly power when it passes 25% market share.
http://economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Monopoly_power.html
In the US, 100% has never been required to qualify as a monopoly. Standard Oil controlled 91% of production, and 85% of US sales four years before the antitrust suit was filed.
Section 2 of the sherman antitrust act:
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony
And to be prosecuted under that section, two things have to be proven:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
#2 is called the rule of reason - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_reason
What?! You have something really confused.
1. Yes, you can't say, "you agree to never file a chargeback".. that is true. That's against the rules.
2. But if you file a chargeback, there's nothing in the rules that says the company must continue doing business with that person. In fact, they encourage you to maintain a ban list so that you do not process charges from high-risk customers.
Besides, if you file a chargeback and win, then the service was never paid for. So why are you using it?
Punishing companies is punishing their customers
Bullshit. I'm tired of this line.
When a company is punished, it raises the cost for them to do business, resulting in price increases for customers.
For some reason, you stop there. But it doesn't end there.
The customers, who can chose where to spend their money, will go to the cheapest retailer... leaving the punished company with fewer customers, less market share, etc.
Customers are not forced to buy from a company.. so fining 1 company is NOT punishing customers.
2.5T in federal revenue 2012
3.8T in federal spending 2012
So unless you plan to raise taxes by 50%, you're going to have to cut something.
Who said they should be penalized? If your project has failed, you don't get to keep working on it forever. MOVE ON to your next project.
That is not a penalty. A penalty would be not allowing you on a new project because of your previous failure. No where did I suggest that.
We can't cut social security because old people will starve in the streets.
We can't cut the drug benefits because old people can't afford their medication.
We can't cut the military, or our enemies will attack us.
We can't cut unemployment benefits, because people are unemployed.
We can't cut benefits to the poor because the poor need help.
We can't cut support to the bank industry because they need help to recover.
And apparently, we also can't cut science funding, or scientists will die.
The government is huge because people never want to give up ANYTHING. It's always "the other guy" who should pay.
Well when you have a massive debt, everyone has to give up something.. and that includes (unfortunately) scientists. Maybe those researching "blue skies" projects that have gone no where should be cut.
No, it could not be "email client syncing". The dropbox announcement specifically says it was a project document. So they DID copy the info for a specific project.
Yes, that's right.. anyone who thinks their personal data should be protected is shilling for a dropbox-competitor. [/sarcasm]
I work for an ecommerce site, where we deal with personally-identifiable information every single day. We protect our customers data, and downloading copies of it to another computer is a FIREABLE OFFENSE.
So tell me, if dropbox really cares, why do they not have a similar policy? which dropbox employee is getting fired for this?
Dropbox copies their customers data all over the place. They roll out changes to their authentication system without testing, letting anyone access anyone elses account. Face it.. dropbox doesn't give a shit about their customers data.
Dropbox says it was a project document with hundreds of customer email addresses.
Hate to correct myself.. but dropbox did not say "hundreds".. they just said it was a project document with customer email addresses.. So who knows how many were in the file
Excuse me.. but please don't make up explanations and ask us all to pretend it's ok.
Dropbox says it was a project document with hundreds of customer email addresses.
I don't know about you, but I don't call my email client a "project document"
The whole thing is some kind of joke. Just forget for a moment that the employee used the same password on multiple sites..
Why in the hell did he have a list of customer email addresses in his account?
Is this a common practice there.. to let employees store copies of customer data all over the place?
I think dropbox has proven repeatedly they really don't care about the security of their customers data.