At the end of the full ruling is this little chestnut:
We build and create by bringing to the tangible and palpable reality around us new works based on instinct, simple logic, ordinary inferences, extraordinary ideas, and sometimes even genius. These advances, once part of our shared knowledge, define a new threshold from which innovation starts once more. And as progress beginning from higher levels of achievement is expected in the normal course, the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws. Were it otherwise patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts. See U. S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 8.
IANAL, but this ruling seems so clear and unabiguous, I've got to believe it will put a dramatic damper in patent troll activity. The decision (I've only read the summary) seems to be fairly even-handed. The old teaching-suggestion-motivation test might be a reasonable test to use in some cases, but not at the expense of common sense.
I think the justices 'got it'.
from the ruling: Inventions usually rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost necessarily will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known. Helpful insights, however, need not become rigid and mandatory formulas. If it is so applied, the TSM test is incompatiblewith this Court's precedents. The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against confining the obviousness analysis by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasizing the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. In many fields there may be little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and market demand, rather than scientific literature, may often drive design trends. Granting patent protection to advances thatwould occur in the ordinary course without real innovation retardsprogress and may, for patents combining previously known elements,deprive prior inventions of their value or utility.
If they get ZFS working, as is the rumour, and it's not buggy, then I think they may have a killer feature on their hands.
Even Microsoft shops might be inclined to test this out for a NAS box. One of the big reasons why people by netapp boxes is for the snapshot and snapmirror capabilities. With ZFS, OSX would have very similar capabilities for a lot less $$.
Sarbox, as being practiced these days, are not best practices, except at the largest of companies. A lot of it is crap, and we're going to rolled over by more nimble competitors if we don't watch out.
You know what, sometimes people are going to steal. And when you find that out, you prosecute. I'm sure there were plenty of laws that the Enron guys could have been charged with regardless of Sarbox.
I don't think the controls at my company have been improved one bit because Joan in AP can't see the AR screens. Actually, it's worse now, because Joan can take over in a pinch in AR, all in the irrational fear that if she's given access to some information that's not part of her regular function, she's suddenly going to steal.
And a little change to a webpage now takes 3 months (I'm talking a piece of text!). But, it is Sarbox compliant!
Yeah, I reall think the vagueness is the worst part. Then it all comes down to what kind of company you work for, and what kind of IT department you have. If they are the controlling type, then the vagueness will lead them to slow things down to a crawl, all under the heading of compliance. It is an extremely frustrating thing to watch and participate in. Up is down. Black is white.
If you have a more flexible group, then the vagueness might help.
I'll give you 1 order of magnitude more, into the low billions of valid keys.
And my definition of valid is very specific. Valid means to me: the key is internally valid, meaning it passes its own checksum logic and the OS thinks so (which doesn't imply a successful activation), AND a key that is actually on one of MSFTs activation servers and could be activated.
There's no reason for there to be any more valid keys (using this definition), then the amount of vista that MSFT expects to ship in the next year or so.
Do you really think they expect to sell 100's of billions of copies of vista in the next year or so? That's a stretch, even for Ballmer.
I did read the article. I didn't go to the site the article points to because I would need to create a login. But, if I read the article and take it at face value, it clearly talks about taking the key that has been 'cracked', and the using it to activate, by which the author means try to activate it against MSFTs servers. Why else does the author talk about the legitimate customers being pissed? If this attack required no connection with MSFT, then there is no issue with the legit customers. Their key will work too.
Just getting the key doesn't solve the problem. You have to get the key, and then get the other side of the pair that goes along with it. Of course, that could be brute forced as well, as I think you're saying. BUT that's not what the author is talking about.
as someone who has worked on systems such as these (oh the inhumanity!) we have looked at this particular attack vector. Yes, it is possible. But, when you consider the size of the activation code domain (quadrillions or more of combinations), with the number of legitimate keys (hundreds of millions), and the fact that each request takes some amount of time (a few seconds), it's not too big of a risk. A risk? yes. But there are lots of risks. This is just another one to be put on the list, watched, and mitigated against (as others have said, with blocked IPs and so forth).
Had he patented it, he would be just as bad as the current crop of patents that simply computerize previously used methods.
Don't forget: the idea of the spreadsheet has an analog equivalent. Big companies would actually draw spreadsheets on huge blackboards for planning purposes, and there would be rules and formulas for how different 'cells' calculated based on other 'cells' on the blackboard.
He's talking about chilled water, not cold water, though chilled water is cold.
Chilled water is the water that the campus's aircon units use to cool the air in the buildings. The chilled water is pumped from a central plant where there are massive things called 'chillers'.
I can only assume that HVAC controls companies are starting to use IP with their controls. used to be all custom.
Still scary putting it all on the same net, though.
I've have done a lot of thinking about Carr's original article, and I only 1/2 agree with him. I think he's absolutely correct for non strategic things. But, if it's something strategic, that you're really supposed to be good at, then how can you just use a packaged app? You are ensuring you are going to be mediocre at that particular thing.
For example, I work for a software company. I wouldn't dream of using packaged development apps / case tools (think Rational). if we can't do it better than them, we shouldn't be in business.
I've been doing this shit for 14 years, and in that time, even with GUIs and Plug-and-Play, and DHCP, and all the other niceties, in sum total, the complexity I face has increased year over year, not decreased.
Of course, the technology has gotten easier to install and maintain, but there's a lot more of it now, and it has infiltrated all aspects of the business world to where it really is counted on more than it once was.
I just didn't see that level of dependency 14 years ago.
Everyone blasted Darl last week for his challenging use of the english language.
To be fair, I must say that Linus's piece is not very cogent, either. At the end of it, I'm left wondering what he's really trying to say. Is he saying that Darl is right (in a sense), that copyright does require profit motive, but the GPL has it because people are exchanging copyrights? On one level, that seems to agree with Darl, doesn't it?
I'm confused. I think Linus should leave this one to all those EFF lawyers.
Find out where the DEC guys who wrote FX32 are working. If they are at apple, you have your answer.
FX32, for those that don't know, was an add-on to NT for Alpha, that ran x86 binaries natively. And it was awesome. Although this will be sort of the reverse of that, the mindset is the same.
Slashdot Mirror
At the end of the full ruling is this little chestnut:
We build and create by bringing to the tangible and palpable reality around us new works based on instinct, simple logic, ordinary inferences, extraordinary ideas, and sometimes even genius. These advances, once part of our shared knowledge, define a new threshold from which innovation starts once more. And as progress beginning from higher levels of achievement is expected in the normal course, the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws. Were it otherwise patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts. See U. S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 8.
IANAL, but this ruling seems so clear and unabiguous, I've got to believe it will put a dramatic damper in patent troll activity. The decision (I've only read the summary) seems to be fairly even-handed. The old teaching-suggestion-motivation test might be a reasonable test to use in some cases, but not at the expense of common sense.
I think the justices 'got it'.
from the ruling:
Inventions usually rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost necessarily will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known. Helpful insights, however, need not become rigid and mandatory formulas. If it is so applied, the TSM test is incompatiblewith this Court's precedents. The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against confining the obviousness analysis by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasizing the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. In many fields there may be little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and market demand, rather than scientific literature, may often drive design trends. Granting patent protection to advances thatwould occur in the ordinary course without real innovation retardsprogress and may, for patents combining previously known elements,deprive prior inventions of their value or utility.
i already do. Am I cool?
I know they are doing very well financially, but they are a one trick pony until proven otherwise.
Now, that trick (search with ads) happens to be a cash cow, but it's still one trick.
I am unconvinced that google's going to take over the world.
If they get ZFS working, as is the rumour, and it's not buggy, then I think they may have a killer feature on their hands.
Even Microsoft shops might be inclined to test this out for a NAS box. One of the big reasons why people by netapp boxes is for the snapshot and snapmirror capabilities. With ZFS, OSX would have very similar capabilities for a lot less $$.
we do have control of the cashbox.
we can track if Joan steals. She's logging in as herself, but they won't give her access to AR anymore.
SO, you know what? On the day they really need help in AR, she's going to login as the AR clerk.
Now you have exactly the problem you mentioned! Who is responsible for the theft now? Who knows.
No, it isnt.
Sarbox, as being practiced these days, are not best practices, except at the largest of companies. A lot of it is crap, and we're going to rolled over by more nimble competitors if we don't watch out.
You know what, sometimes people are going to steal. And when you find that out, you prosecute. I'm sure there were plenty of laws that the Enron guys could have been charged with regardless of Sarbox.
I don't think the controls at my company have been improved one bit because Joan in AP can't see the AR screens. Actually, it's worse now, because Joan can take over in a pinch in AR, all in the irrational fear that if she's given access to some information that's not part of her regular function, she's suddenly going to steal.
And a little change to a webpage now takes 3 months (I'm talking a piece of text!). But, it is Sarbox compliant!
Whoop-de-effing-do.
Yeah, I reall think the vagueness is the worst part. Then it all comes down to what kind of company you work for, and what kind of IT department you have. If they are the controlling type, then the vagueness will lead them to slow things down to a crawl, all under the heading of compliance. It is an extremely frustrating thing to watch and participate in. Up is down. Black is white.
If you have a more flexible group, then the vagueness might help.
I'll give you 1 order of magnitude more, into the low billions of valid keys.
And my definition of valid is very specific. Valid means to me: the key is internally valid, meaning it passes its own checksum logic and the OS thinks so (which doesn't imply a successful activation), AND a key that is actually on one of MSFTs activation servers and could be activated.
There's no reason for there to be any more valid keys (using this definition), then the amount of vista that MSFT expects to ship in the next year or so.
Do you really think they expect to sell 100's of billions of copies of vista in the next year or so? That's a stretch, even for Ballmer.
No one said it can't be done. But, with the brute force required, it's just a risk to be managed. Nothing more, nothing less.
OK
I stand corrected. I just found the like you're talking about. It's all client side.
Not much you can do about that.
Though, regarding those comments about affecting other legitimate users of Vista: it shouldn't affect them.
I did read the article. I didn't go to the site the article points to because I would need to create a login. But, if I read the article and take it at face value, it clearly talks about taking the key that has been 'cracked', and the using it to activate, by which the author means try to activate it against MSFTs servers. Why else does the author talk about the legitimate customers being pissed? If this attack required no connection with MSFT, then there is no issue with the legit customers. Their key will work too.
Just getting the key doesn't solve the problem. You have to get the key, and then get the other side of the pair that goes along with it. Of course, that could be brute forced as well, as I think you're saying. BUT that's not what the author is talking about.
as someone who has worked on systems such as these (oh the inhumanity!) we have looked at this particular attack vector. Yes, it is possible. But, when you consider the size of the activation code domain (quadrillions or more of combinations), with the number of legitimate keys (hundreds of millions), and the fact that each request takes some amount of time (a few seconds), it's not too big of a risk. A risk? yes. But there are lots of risks. This is just another one to be put on the list, watched, and mitigated against (as others have said, with blocked IPs and so forth).
Had he patented it, he would be just as bad as the current crop of patents that simply computerize previously used methods.
Don't forget: the idea of the spreadsheet has an analog equivalent. Big companies would actually draw spreadsheets on huge blackboards for planning purposes, and there would be rules and formulas for how different 'cells' calculated based on other 'cells' on the blackboard.
It was not a novel idea, he just computerized it.
Nope. Should be Jobs's.
The whole 'leave the last S off if the last letter in the name is S' is not correct. The extra S should always be there.
I know, we should never criticize Slashdot about grammar.
But, can you at least proof your headlines?
Just buy the Elements of Style. 100 pages or so. Buy it. Read it. Know it.
does it flood?
Perhaps they are using the river water for their cooling towers?
He's talking about chilled water, not cold water, though chilled water is cold.
Chilled water is the water that the campus's aircon units use to cool the air in the buildings. The chilled water is pumped from a central plant where there are massive things called 'chillers'.
I can only assume that HVAC controls companies are starting to use IP with their controls. used to be all custom.
Still scary putting it all on the same net, though.
I've have done a lot of thinking about Carr's original article, and I only 1/2 agree with him. I think he's absolutely correct for non strategic things. But, if it's something strategic, that you're really supposed to be good at, then how can you just use a packaged app? You are ensuring you are going to be mediocre at that particular thing.
For example, I work for a software company. I wouldn't dream of using packaged development apps / case tools (think Rational). if we can't do it better than them, we shouldn't be in business.
I used to worry about this, but I don't any more.
I've been doing this shit for 14 years, and in that time, even with GUIs and Plug-and-Play, and DHCP, and all the other niceties, in sum total, the complexity I face has increased year over year, not decreased.
Of course, the technology has gotten easier to install and maintain, but there's a lot more of it now, and it has infiltrated all aspects of the business world to where it really is counted on more than it once was.
I just didn't see that level of dependency 14 years ago.
and then ask him about it in a couple of years when it *hasn't* come true.
Isn't this the same old tired cliche: 'back in the day, they used to give the software away... now it's the other way round!'
And, 'I'm such a perceptive genius, even the richest man in the world agrees with me!'
Nothing new here, move along.
No it doesn't. You need to apply MS04-011, which is very much post-SP1.
the only ones who make money in these ridiculous suits are the lawyers.
Track how much the law firms involved keep in legal fees, and then you'll know in whose interest these cases are really brought.
Everyone blasted Darl last week for his challenging use of the english language.
To be fair, I must say that Linus's piece is not very cogent, either. At the end of it, I'm left wondering what he's really trying to say. Is he saying that Darl is right (in a sense), that copyright does require profit motive, but the GPL has it because people are exchanging copyrights? On one level, that seems to agree with Darl, doesn't it?
I'm confused. I think Linus should leave this one to all those EFF lawyers.
30% of enterprise desktops running Linux by 2006? Please. Makes me doubt other things he says if he's so quick with hyperbole like this.
Find out where the DEC guys who wrote FX32 are working. If they are at apple, you have your answer.
FX32, for those that don't know, was an add-on to NT for Alpha, that ran x86 binaries natively. And it was awesome. Although this will be sort of the reverse of that, the mindset is the same.