http://the_scrivener.blogspot.com/2007/ 06/copyright-is-dead.html http://the_scrivener.bl ogspot.com/2007/06/copyright-is-dead-part-2.html Yep, it is. There should be an underscore between 'the' and 'scrivener'. slashdot seems to be filtering that out for some reason, so I'm posting as "code" - you'll have to cut'n'paste links.
I think if you read the thread you'll find that they're not discussing COW in general, the issue is specifically with COW for network sockets, which *doesn't* seem to be a particularly proven concept. Even the FreeBSD implementation of COW for network sockets comes with big warnings...
Hey, I'm totally with you on that count - Linus is unnecessarily rude about the whole thing. For better or worse that doesn't surprise me - he's been that way from the beginning, so I expect it now.
The only point I'm trying to make is that he doesn't really care about "what FreeBSD is doing", per se - he's being rude about what people want to put in *his* kernel. I think he couldn't care less about what FreeBSD does to *their* kernel, so long as it doesn't affect *his* kernel.
He doesn't care what the FreeBSD developers are doing...... until someone advocates copying their ideas into the Linux kernel. Then he cares very much.
He's not saying "The FreeBSD people should rewrite that part of their OS," he's saying "don't put that crap into the Linux kernel."
I'm not sure I would go all the way to "unethical," either, though I can see why one might be tempted to do so. As with most reporting, the goal here seems to be to focus more on the sensational aspects of the story than the actual factual content.
There is no link or source given for the original study, which I find to be distressing - but it may be unavailable to the public or only available in Swedish, so I can overlook that. It removes any real review of the merits of the article, though, which bothers me, especially when other references in the article seem quite sloppy.
For example, the article happily repeats the study author's claim that this study is the "the biggest yet to look at long-term users of the wireless phone," but the British study examined three times as many people, a fact which isn't mentioned.
The only support for "long-term" is the assertion that mobiles have been available in Sweden "since 1984, longer than in many other countries." The BBC coverage of the UK study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4628914.stm) notes that mobiles have been available in the UK since 1985. Oh, and that the UK study looked at usage history for 10 years into the past, which seems pretty long-term to me, especially given that the bulk of mobile phone usage is likely to be during that period.
The article notes that the British study was a "four-year" survey, but doesn't note at all that the study looked at 10 years of history. Nor does it clarify what time period the Swedish study covers.
As others have noted, there is little mention of the significant difference between a study which looks only at cancer patients and a study which looks at cancer *and* non-cancer patients. Oh, and the 240% statistic is completely without explanation or a baseline risk that the 240% can be seen to modify.
One could defend the article by saying: "Well, the reporter is simply repeating what the scientist is telling him." And that's true. But that's not very good reporting, then, is it?
It seems to me that they have a scientist who is making somewhat extreme statements about a study with somewhat extreme conclusions, so the article is taking the opportunity to capitalize on that without bothering to be critical in it's examination of the facts. After all, it's much more exciting to have an article that has a dramatic doom-and-gloom message than an article which downplays the importance of a doom-and-gloom study.
For comparison, hit the BBC link above. The BBC coverage of the UK study is much more comprehensive and, in my opinion, much more balanced as well.
This happened to EasyDNS a while back. They ended up moving part of their DNS infrastructure behind Prolexic, which appears to have helped.
Prolexic is the brainchild of Barrett Lyon, who seems to have some experience fighting DDoS attacks. I'd be interested to see how well Prolexic's service actually works, but it seems technically sound to me.
I cannot endorse babies on the whole, because I find some of the properties of their bathwater to be unacceptable. Therefore I choose not to endorse babies at all.
My brother sold plasma in college. They discovered some strange antibody of some kind in his bloodstream that was desirable for some reason so they started paying him extra to come in... >)
I don't dispute that he's insinuating that the information was deliberately withheld. However, I think it's clear that *because* the information was withheld, he found himself in a position where he made decisions that he now considers to be incorrect. He would have been in the same situation if the information simply hadn't been available, rather than deliberately withheld, or if the information had been freely shared, but entirely incorrect.
In other words, the failure of the "intelligence community" is the lack of reliable data, regardless of *why* reliable data is lacking. He does suggest that this particular failure (Iraq) should be examined especially carefully, but he suggests that this is because this particular failure "could turn out to be one of the worst in our history."
He goes from there to begin to discuss the lack of consideration for dissenting opinions. Again, to me this seems an indictment of the "intelligence community" as a whole - this whole "Iraq thing" is just the biggest, bestest, most prominent example of an underlying failure: that the "intelligence community" either doesn't have or fails to consider enough reliable data.
And, incidentally, at least *some* of that data *was* available before his work was delivered to the UN:
"And I did not listen to INR. And the Secretary of State did not listen to INR. And as it turns out we should have."
That quote appears to refer to data that they had *before* the UN received their report - "You can't put dissent in an obscure footnote on page 495 of an intelligence annex."
Congratulations for writing a report that was plaigarized by the "intelligence community." I'm confused why you titled your response "Wrong", though. As far as I can tell you're not asserting that TFA's author *did* know it was a hoax beforehand, which is my assertion. What part of what I wrote do you consider to be wrong?
Note that he claims to not have *known* that it was a hoax at the time that he participated and that some of his superiors were in the same boat.
I suspect this would be the likely defense if there *were* an investigation (which I don't expect) - "It wasn't *me* - I had no idea!"
The part that I find to be *more* damning is where he lists the items that the "intelligence community" *failed* to predict - fall of the Soviet Union, etc. The implication seems to be that the entire system is so flawed that preventing "hoaxes" like this in future will be difficult because it's almost impossible to know what is and is not true and whether or not you have all the data.
He's able to label the Iraq situation as a hoax only in *hindsight*, as he examines data not available to him at the time. This seems similar to the analyses done after 9/11 where there were suggestions (again, in hindsight) that the "intelligence community" should have known and been able to prevent 9/11 from happening. Hindsight's 20/20, after all...
Should you *have* a business plan that is waiting for other patents to expire, I'd consider that a valid argument that you're pursuing your invention - assuming that you are simultaneously taking other necessary steps along the way (not *all* of your invention depends on other patented inventions, of you have nothing original and therefore no patent).
The key here is that if you read TFA, NTP had *no* *such* *plan*. Their *express* plan was to sit on the patents until they could litigate them. That's it. No intention at *all* of building their invention.
That's what I don't think should be allowed. As I've said before, it's bad for innovation and flies against the original intent of the patent system.
As I've also said earlier in this thread, if NTP *did* have a desire to pursue their invention, then they should have patent protection to do so. I'll add now that they should have patent protection even if the pursuit of their invention is going to take a lot of time, so long as they are actually *pursuing* their invention.
I should note, though, that it is (or should be, if the patent system worked as intended) relatively unlikely (though not impossible) to be granted a patent that depends on other patented inventions. Those types of patent applications are likely to be seen as "obvious" (especially on review, should they be granted and challenged) and therefore fail the "non-obviousness" test (in the US) or the "inventive step" test (in other countries, including many European countries).
I suspect you haven't read the entire thread of this discussion, either, since in earlier posts I mention that I have done patent searches *and* patent applications as well, so I do, in fact, have some understanding about how patents work. I've also pointed out that my argument has nothing to do with how patents *do* work, but with how I believe patents *should* work.
If you read the entire thread I think you'll see that I'm not disputing how the patent system *does* (theoretically) work - I understand that very well. Ironically enough, I *am* an inventor with patent applications filed with the USPTO.
My point is simply that, as an inventor, I should *not* be allowed to patent an invention for the sole purpose of waiting for someone else to construct it so that I can benefit from their hard work, especially if that hard work was done without any knowledge of my patent.
The very fact that RIM was pursuing patents is a pretty clear indication that, for whatever reason, they were not aware of NTP's patents or did not consider them to be relevant to RIM's work. Therefore, RIM created (invented, if you prefer) something and worked hard to construct it, develop it into a product, market it, and ultimately sell it successfully. Without, ostensibly, any help from NTP. Yet NTP wishes to lay claim to a significant portion of the rewards for that work, despite having nothing to do with it.
Campana gave up on bringing his invention to life. My belief is that giving up on the implementation of your invention should cause you to forfeit the rights to your patent. Campana should not be able to sit on his patent, preventing anyone else from "inventing" the same thing, indefinitely with no intention of ever bringing that invention to fruition.
Nor should I. It's bad for innovation. If you're going to do it, *do* it - and you should have some protections while you do. But if you're *not* going to do it, you shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of someone who will.
This isn't strictly true. If you look at the NTP patents, for example, they cover a method of transmitting an email over wireless but don't interfere, infringe, or even involve the patents of "middle" layers of the technology. You could build a system that used their patented technology without having to get permission from a (hypothetical) holder of a GSM patent.
How? Someone else in the flow of your system may already be licensing that patented technology and removing the burden for you to do so. For example, the carriers (Verizon, Sprint, whatever) might be licensing a (hypothetical) GSM patent in order to create GSM networks. You can implement a system which *uses* that network as a carrier (like RIM does) without having to concern yourself with that patent at all.
While you could argue that the fee that you pay the carrier to use their network is an implicit licence payment for the (hypothetical) GSM patent holder it doesn't change the fact that *you*, the NTP inventor, do not need the explicit cooperation of the (hypothetical) GSM patent holder and that (hypothetical) patent holder is unlikely to be able to take any direct action to interfere with your patented invention.
Re:Glad this wasn't settled out of court
on
RIM - The Whole Story
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I agree that RIM is infringing by using the technology in NTP's patents (assuming the patents are upheld) and that whether or not the patents were used by RIM during development is irrelevant. I also agree that RIM has consistently acted in bad faith.
My original point is that I don't believe that NTP should be allowed to *hold* the patents if they do not intend to exercise them. That's a comment about how I wish the law were written, not a comment about how the law *is* written.
And I don't believe they should be allowed to hold them because, in part, I disagree with your first statement: Publishing the patent does *not* "encourage progress". Publishing the patent merely tells others what they may *not* build (without licensing from the patent holder, which discourages the builder) and what they may *not* patent themselves (which includes not only the patented idea, but any ideas that could be considered "trivial derivatives").
Therefore, publishing the patent discourages development by others along the lines of the patent. If the patent holder chooses not to turn the patent into an actual implementation, then that line of ideas is permanently held "hostage" by the patent holder. This does the *opposite* of "encouraging progress", in my opinion.
The way that the patent in *intended* to "encourage progress" is by protecting an inventor with limited resources while he pursues the implementation of his invention. The idea is that if I have an idea, you shouldn't be allowed to steal it just because you have more money and can produce an implementation sooner. The patent system is *not* intended to allow me to prevent an idea from *ever* coming to fruition simply because I choose not to implement it.
Re:Glad this wasn't settled out of court
on
RIM - The Whole Story
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Ironic, isn't it, that the patent system is becoming increasingly burdensome for exactly the people the system was originally intended to protect (the "small guy"). The cost of acquiring a patent is on the order thousands of dollars ($5,000 - $10,000, depending on your lawyer), which you have to be willing to spend without knowing if the patent which you receive actually has any value. It may be invalidated later (being granted is *not* a good measure of whether or not prior art exists) or simply not be useful.
More damagingly, though, a patent is useless if it can't be defended and defending one's patents is becoming horrifically expensive to the point that the winner is most likely to be the "big guy", and the "small guy" loses out.
It's not clear to me that RIM failed to check for prior art. Since they originated in Canada they may well have neglected to check for US patents, which I think is understandable. However, having been involved with the patent search process myself I can tell you that:
a) Patents to not have to be disclosed when filed - there is a period during which the details of the patent can be kept "private". TFA doesn't give specific filing times, but the timelines presented mean that the two could very well have been working near the same time.
b) It's not always clear that a patent applies to you. And even if it's clear to *you* that a patent does *not* apply to you, or that a patent should be invalid because of prior art, it may not be clear to a judge or jury. So RIM may have not seen this specific patent during the search or may have seen it and not considered it relevant.
Re:Glad this wasn't settled out of court
on
RIM - The Whole Story
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'm not sure I'd agree that their "intellectual property" was violated. Unless there's something yet to come to light, NTP's patents (the only "intellectual property" in play here) were not part of the development process for RIM and weren't even known until *after* the development was substantially complete.
Yes, technically speaking, if NTP held valid patents and RIM infringed on them, then the "IP violated" claim does stand. Technically (legally, even, perhaps). But not *practically*, not in my mind at least. RIM stole nothing from NTP. RIM did not prevent NTP from pursuing business opportunities or developing products.
NTP chose to sit on their ideas. Do *nothing* with them. Should they be allowed to protect ideas they have no intention of ever using? Does that "encourage progress" as is the original intent of the patent system?
The patent system is being abused in ways that were never intended. If NTP was actively pursuing a product, or even actively pursuing a partner with which to produce a product, I'd have a different view - in that case RIM would be hurting NTP, NTP would be discouraged from entering the marketplace, and "progress" would be stifled. The patent system was designed to prevent that.
In this case, though, NTP had no intention of developing anything. NTP was waiting for someone *else* to invest *their* millions of dollars and then NTP would step in and capitalize. *That* stifles progress, in my opinion - no-one is encouraged to develop NTP's ideas for fear of being sued, NTP is unwilling to pursue them, and suddenly an idea is *completely* *lost* (in terms of becoming a viable product).
If this is upheld and NTP wins I fear we'll see even more of this "sitting" behavior and that will ultimately have a very negative effect on competition in the marketplace.
Ironically enough, I'm in the middle of X-Com: Ufo Defense right now (*AGAIN*) running under dosbox. I have the original CD media and everything. Seriously addicted in college (a buddy of mine and I played *literally* 24/7 in shifts for about two weeks at one point) and it just keeps coming back...
Still irrelevant, IMHO. They don't list a complexity for the project(s) that they're claiming 30 LOC/day for and I can't think of a reasonable way for them to do so.
If the next project they do ends up at 20 LOC/day is that one less productive? How would anyone know? How would they publish a relative complexity scale to explain the 33% decrease in LOC "productivity"?
Even if you only look at the final result LOC is a poor metric for the same reason it's a poor metric when measured on a daily basis: lines of code have no intrinsic measurable value. I just don't see that they can be used to measure meaningful changes in productivity.
I will give you that the article isn't clear that Lockheed Martin's Aegis system deploys Microsoft components. However, I used to work for Lockheed Martin, specifically *on* the Aegis system components, and I probably shouldn't comment further.
So instead I offer this link to the US Navy deploying Microsoft for critical control systems:
Slashdot Mirror
Argh! B0rky b0rky b0rk b0rk b0rk...
Hold on - I think slashdot is b0rking them...
/ 06/copyright-is-dead.htmll ogspot.com/2007/06/copyright-is-dead-part-2.html
http://the_scrivener.blogspot.com/2007
http://the_scrivener.b
Yep, it is. There should be an underscore between 'the' and 'scrivener'. slashdot seems to be filtering that out for some reason, so I'm posting as "code" - you'll have to cut'n'paste links.
Links should be:
t -is-dead.htmlt -is-dead-part-2.html
http://thescrivener.blogspot.com/2007/06/copyrigh
http://thescrivener.blogspot.com/2007/06/copyrigh
I think if you read the thread you'll find that they're not discussing COW in general, the issue is specifically with COW for network sockets, which *doesn't* seem to be a particularly proven concept. Even the FreeBSD implementation of COW for network sockets comes with big warnings...
Hey, I'm totally with you on that count - Linus is unnecessarily rude about the whole thing. For better or worse that doesn't surprise me - he's been that way from the beginning, so I expect it now.
The only point I'm trying to make is that he doesn't really care about "what FreeBSD is doing", per se - he's being rude about what people want to put in *his* kernel. I think he couldn't care less about what FreeBSD does to *their* kernel, so long as it doesn't affect *his* kernel.
He doesn't care what the FreeBSD developers are doing... ... until someone advocates copying their ideas into the Linux kernel. Then he cares very much.
He's not saying "The FreeBSD people should rewrite that part of their OS," he's saying "don't put that crap into the Linux kernel."
I'm not sure I would go all the way to "unethical," either, though I can see why one might be tempted to do so. As with most reporting, the goal here seems to be to focus more on the sensational aspects of the story than the actual factual content.
There is no link or source given for the original study, which I find to be distressing - but it may be unavailable to the public or only available in Swedish, so I can overlook that. It removes any real review of the merits of the article, though, which bothers me, especially when other references in the article seem quite sloppy.
For example, the article happily repeats the study author's claim that this study is the "the biggest yet to look at long-term users of the wireless phone," but the British study examined three times as many people, a fact which isn't mentioned.
The only support for "long-term" is the assertion that mobiles have been available in Sweden "since 1984, longer than in many other countries." The BBC coverage of the UK study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4628914.stm) notes that mobiles have been available in the UK since 1985. Oh, and that the UK study looked at usage history for 10 years into the past, which seems pretty long-term to me, especially given that the bulk of mobile phone usage is likely to be during that period.
The article notes that the British study was a "four-year" survey, but doesn't note at all that the study looked at 10 years of history. Nor does it clarify what time period the Swedish study covers.
As others have noted, there is little mention of the significant difference between a study which looks only at cancer patients and a study which looks at cancer *and* non-cancer patients. Oh, and the 240% statistic is completely without explanation or a baseline risk that the 240% can be seen to modify.
One could defend the article by saying: "Well, the reporter is simply repeating what the scientist is telling him." And that's true. But that's not very good reporting, then, is it?
It seems to me that they have a scientist who is making somewhat extreme statements about a study with somewhat extreme conclusions, so the article is taking the opportunity to capitalize on that without bothering to be critical in it's examination of the facts. After all, it's much more exciting to have an article that has a dramatic doom-and-gloom message than an article which downplays the importance of a doom-and-gloom study.
For comparison, hit the BBC link above. The BBC coverage of the UK study is much more comprehensive and, in my opinion, much more balanced as well.
This happened to EasyDNS a while back. They ended up moving part of their DNS infrastructure behind Prolexic, which appears to have helped.
Prolexic is the brainchild of Barrett Lyon, who seems to have some experience fighting DDoS attacks. I'd be interested to see how well Prolexic's service actually works, but it seems technically sound to me.
It certainly *could* be the picture that insinuates that she smokes illegal substances that put potential employers off.
Or it could be the fact that as soon as her MySpace page loads a potential employer is greeted by a picture of her giving them the finger...
I cannot endorse babies on the whole, because I find some of the properties of their bathwater to be unacceptable. Therefore I choose not to endorse babies at all.
My brother sold plasma in college. They discovered some strange antibody of some kind in his bloodstream that was desirable for some reason so they started paying him extra to come in... >)
I don't dispute that he's insinuating that the information was deliberately withheld. However, I think it's clear that *because* the information was withheld, he found himself in a position where he made decisions that he now considers to be incorrect. He would have been in the same situation if the information simply hadn't been available, rather than deliberately withheld, or if the information had been freely shared, but entirely incorrect.
In other words, the failure of the "intelligence community" is the lack of reliable data, regardless of *why* reliable data is lacking. He does suggest that this particular failure (Iraq) should be examined especially carefully, but he suggests that this is because this particular failure "could turn out to be one of the worst in our history."
He goes from there to begin to discuss the lack of consideration for dissenting opinions. Again, to me this seems an indictment of the "intelligence community" as a whole - this whole "Iraq thing" is just the biggest, bestest, most prominent example of an underlying failure: that the "intelligence community" either doesn't have or fails to consider enough reliable data.
And, incidentally, at least *some* of that data *was* available before his work was delivered to the UN:
"And I did not listen to INR. And the Secretary of State did not listen to INR. And as it turns out we should have."
That quote appears to refer to data that they had *before* the UN received their report - "You can't put dissent in an obscure footnote on page 495 of an intelligence annex."
Congratulations for writing a report that was plaigarized by the "intelligence community." I'm confused why you titled your response "Wrong", though. As far as I can tell you're not asserting that TFA's author *did* know it was a hoax beforehand, which is my assertion. What part of what I wrote do you consider to be wrong?
Note that he claims to not have *known* that it was a hoax at the time that he participated and that some of his superiors were in the same boat.
I suspect this would be the likely defense if there *were* an investigation (which I don't expect) - "It wasn't *me* - I had no idea!"
The part that I find to be *more* damning is where he lists the items that the "intelligence community" *failed* to predict - fall of the Soviet Union, etc. The implication seems to be that the entire system is so flawed that preventing "hoaxes" like this in future will be difficult because it's almost impossible to know what is and is not true and whether or not you have all the data.
He's able to label the Iraq situation as a hoax only in *hindsight*, as he examines data not available to him at the time. This seems similar to the analyses done after 9/11 where there were suggestions (again, in hindsight) that the "intelligence community" should have known and been able to prevent 9/11 from happening. Hindsight's 20/20, after all...
Filing taxes is a big pain, too, so maybe I'll just give that one a miss this year and see how that turns out...
Should you *have* a business plan that is waiting for other patents to expire, I'd consider that a valid argument that you're pursuing your invention - assuming that you are simultaneously taking other necessary steps along the way (not *all* of your invention depends on other patented inventions, of you have nothing original and therefore no patent).
The key here is that if you read TFA, NTP had *no* *such* *plan*. Their *express* plan was to sit on the patents until they could litigate them. That's it. No intention at *all* of building their invention.
That's what I don't think should be allowed. As I've said before, it's bad for innovation and flies against the original intent of the patent system.
As I've also said earlier in this thread, if NTP *did* have a desire to pursue their invention, then they should have patent protection to do so. I'll add now that they should have patent protection even if the pursuit of their invention is going to take a lot of time, so long as they are actually *pursuing* their invention.
I should note, though, that it is (or should be, if the patent system worked as intended) relatively unlikely (though not impossible) to be granted a patent that depends on other patented inventions. Those types of patent applications are likely to be seen as "obvious" (especially on review, should they be granted and challenged) and therefore fail the "non-obviousness" test (in the US) or the "inventive step" test (in other countries, including many European countries).
I suspect you haven't read the entire thread of this discussion, either, since in earlier posts I mention that I have done patent searches *and* patent applications as well, so I do, in fact, have some understanding about how patents work. I've also pointed out that my argument has nothing to do with how patents *do* work, but with how I believe patents *should* work.
If you read the entire thread I think you'll see that I'm not disputing how the patent system *does* (theoretically) work - I understand that very well. Ironically enough, I *am* an inventor with patent applications filed with the USPTO.
My point is simply that, as an inventor, I should *not* be allowed to patent an invention for the sole purpose of waiting for someone else to construct it so that I can benefit from their hard work, especially if that hard work was done without any knowledge of my patent.
The very fact that RIM was pursuing patents is a pretty clear indication that, for whatever reason, they were not aware of NTP's patents or did not consider them to be relevant to RIM's work. Therefore, RIM created (invented, if you prefer) something and worked hard to construct it, develop it into a product, market it, and ultimately sell it successfully. Without, ostensibly, any help from NTP. Yet NTP wishes to lay claim to a significant portion of the rewards for that work, despite having nothing to do with it.
Campana gave up on bringing his invention to life. My belief is that giving up on the implementation of your invention should cause you to forfeit the rights to your patent. Campana should not be able to sit on his patent, preventing anyone else from "inventing" the same thing, indefinitely with no intention of ever bringing that invention to fruition.
Nor should I. It's bad for innovation. If you're going to do it, *do* it - and you should have some protections while you do. But if you're *not* going to do it, you shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of someone who will.
This isn't strictly true. If you look at the NTP patents, for example, they cover a method of transmitting an email over wireless but don't interfere, infringe, or even involve the patents of "middle" layers of the technology. You could build a system that used their patented technology without having to get permission from a (hypothetical) holder of a GSM patent.
How? Someone else in the flow of your system may already be licensing that patented technology and removing the burden for you to do so. For example, the carriers (Verizon, Sprint, whatever) might be licensing a (hypothetical) GSM patent in order to create GSM networks. You can implement a system which *uses* that network as a carrier (like RIM does) without having to concern yourself with that patent at all.
While you could argue that the fee that you pay the carrier to use their network is an implicit licence payment for the (hypothetical) GSM patent holder it doesn't change the fact that *you*, the NTP inventor, do not need the explicit cooperation of the (hypothetical) GSM patent holder and that (hypothetical) patent holder is unlikely to be able to take any direct action to interfere with your patented invention.
I agree that RIM is infringing by using the technology in NTP's patents (assuming the patents are upheld) and that whether or not the patents were used by RIM during development is irrelevant. I also agree that RIM has consistently acted in bad faith.
My original point is that I don't believe that NTP should be allowed to *hold* the patents if they do not intend to exercise them. That's a comment about how I wish the law were written, not a comment about how the law *is* written.
And I don't believe they should be allowed to hold them because, in part, I disagree with your first statement: Publishing the patent does *not* "encourage progress". Publishing the patent merely tells others what they may *not* build (without licensing from the patent holder, which discourages the builder) and what they may *not* patent themselves (which includes not only the patented idea, but any ideas that could be considered "trivial derivatives").
Therefore, publishing the patent discourages development by others along the lines of the patent. If the patent holder chooses not to turn the patent into an actual implementation, then that line of ideas is permanently held "hostage" by the patent holder. This does the *opposite* of "encouraging progress", in my opinion.
The way that the patent in *intended* to "encourage progress" is by protecting an inventor with limited resources while he pursues the implementation of his invention. The idea is that if I have an idea, you shouldn't be allowed to steal it just because you have more money and can produce an implementation sooner. The patent system is *not* intended to allow me to prevent an idea from *ever* coming to fruition simply because I choose not to implement it.
Ironic, isn't it, that the patent system is becoming increasingly burdensome for exactly the people the system was originally intended to protect (the "small guy"). The cost of acquiring a patent is on the order thousands of dollars ($5,000 - $10,000, depending on your lawyer), which you have to be willing to spend without knowing if the patent which you receive actually has any value. It may be invalidated later (being granted is *not* a good measure of whether or not prior art exists) or simply not be useful.
More damagingly, though, a patent is useless if it can't be defended and defending one's patents is becoming horrifically expensive to the point that the winner is most likely to be the "big guy", and the "small guy" loses out.
It's not clear to me that RIM failed to check for prior art. Since they originated in Canada they may well have neglected to check for US patents, which I think is understandable. However, having been involved with the patent search process myself I can tell you that:
a) Patents to not have to be disclosed when filed - there is a period during which the details of the patent can be kept "private". TFA doesn't give specific filing times, but the timelines presented mean that the two could very well have been working near the same time.
b) It's not always clear that a patent applies to you. And even if it's clear to *you* that a patent does *not* apply to you, or that a patent should be invalid because of prior art, it may not be clear to a judge or jury. So RIM may have not seen this specific patent during the search or may have seen it and not considered it relevant.
I'm not sure I'd agree that their "intellectual property" was violated. Unless there's something yet to come to light, NTP's patents (the only "intellectual property" in play here) were not part of the development process for RIM and weren't even known until *after* the development was substantially complete.
Yes, technically speaking, if NTP held valid patents and RIM infringed on them, then the "IP violated" claim does stand. Technically (legally, even, perhaps). But not *practically*, not in my mind at least. RIM stole nothing from NTP. RIM did not prevent NTP from pursuing business opportunities or developing products.
NTP chose to sit on their ideas. Do *nothing* with them. Should they be allowed to protect ideas they have no intention of ever using? Does that "encourage progress" as is the original intent of the patent system?
The patent system is being abused in ways that were never intended. If NTP was actively pursuing a product, or even actively pursuing a partner with which to produce a product, I'd have a different view - in that case RIM would be hurting NTP, NTP would be discouraged from entering the marketplace, and "progress" would be stifled. The patent system was designed to prevent that.
In this case, though, NTP had no intention of developing anything. NTP was waiting for someone *else* to invest *their* millions of dollars and then NTP would step in and capitalize. *That* stifles progress, in my opinion - no-one is encouraged to develop NTP's ideas for fear of being sued, NTP is unwilling to pursue them, and suddenly an idea is *completely* *lost* (in terms of becoming a viable product).
If this is upheld and NTP wins I fear we'll see even more of this "sitting" behavior and that will ultimately have a very negative effect on competition in the marketplace.
Ironically enough, I'm in the middle of X-Com: Ufo Defense right now (*AGAIN*) running under dosbox. I have the original CD media and everything. Seriously addicted in college (a buddy of mine and I played *literally* 24/7 in shifts for about two weeks at one point) and it just keeps coming back...
Still irrelevant, IMHO. They don't list a complexity for the project(s) that they're claiming 30 LOC/day for and I can't think of a reasonable way for them to do so.
If the next project they do ends up at 20 LOC/day is that one less productive? How would anyone know? How would they publish a relative complexity scale to explain the 33% decrease in LOC "productivity"?
Even if you only look at the final result LOC is a poor metric for the same reason it's a poor metric when measured on a daily basis: lines of code have no intrinsic measurable value. I just don't see that they can be used to measure meaningful changes in productivity.
I will give you that the article isn't clear that Lockheed Martin's Aegis system deploys Microsoft components. However, I used to work for Lockheed Martin, specifically *on* the Aegis system components, and I probably shouldn't comment further.
, 00.html
So instead I offer this link to the US Navy deploying Microsoft for critical control systems:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,13987
Trust me, they do it.