If you shine a laser dot onto someones pants, you trick them into thinking they have a spot on their pants and they drop them. Then when the spot is on their underwear, they think THAT is where the stain is and drop those.
...
I'm guessing at that point you just go in with conventional weapons since the enemy will be standing there with no pants.
It's not how YOU see the situation that matters. It is how the COURTS would see the situation. For that, you need to look at precedent and consult an attorney.
You: Your honor, l33tD00d_74 on slashdot said it would be ok to do it.
Actually, total cost of ownership will be higher using a PC vs. a Mac, due to the amount of time spent maintaining the system. Loss productive time due to you running patches and updates on Windows, redoing lost work due to the system hanging -- it adds up!
I run Illustrator, Photoshop, and Premier on a PC running Windows 2000.
I don't seem to suffer any productivity losses due to maintenance, running patches or system hangs. I know it is common belief that all Windows systems crash and are horribly buggy, but it doesn't have to be that way.
1) I'm behind a good corporate firewall. So patches for things other than web browser exploits are downloaded and will finish installation at next reboot - which I do about every other week on the weekend, when I'm not here. 2) I have yet to get a mail worm because I have my mail client set to not run code. Additionally, I don't let it display HTML mail so that it doesn't send pings back to spammers. 3) Bad video drivers and bad memory are the two of the biggest culprits for system instability. I'm not into hardcore gaming, so I install the latest stable videocard drivers. I'm more than happy to live with the last stable version, and sacrifice the extra 3.5FPS in Quake. For memory, just don't buy junk. 4) Re: web browser exploits. If it is serious enough, I may install the patch immediately and reboot. But mostly, they're not serious (due to my IE security settings, which are fairly tight) and can wait until the next planned reboot. Additionally, my primary browser is Phoenix, so most of my browsing isn't with IE. Either way, patches for this tend to come along no more than every month (at best), so it may add one "unplanned" reboot to the mix - so, there I lose 5 minutes a month, I'll give you that.
So if you prefer Macs, fine. That's great. I started computer graphic design on Macs (well, Atari's actually, but they're no longer around). But for you to make a claim that MY productivity on a PC is impaired is just ridiculous. There are a great many people who run PCs (Windows) every day without issue.
Do I like everything Microsoft does? No.
Do I think things could be better? Yes.
Am I horribly crippled due to my machine? Nope.
I'm glad YOU are more productive on your Mac, but don't make the blanket assertion that everybody on a PC is suffering productivity. It's just simply not the case.
If someone wants a VCR, why wouldn't they by a VCR? It astounds me that someone would buy a PVR if all they were interested in was a VCR.
I can answer that, as I've wanted one, but have no interest in the "we'll find what you like" service.
1) Pause live TV.
By the time we get our daugher to bed, it is almost always 8:15 - 8:20. If I tape the show, I then do something else for 40 minutes, as I don't want to watch the end of the show without seeing the beginning. With a PVR, I could start it at 8:20 and be caught up with live tv by 9:00
2) Random access to shows on tape.
I record mostly to timeshift. I don't need to archive. I'm not horribly worried about quality (as long as it's viewable). So when I tape, I tend to re-use a few tapes over and over until they wear out. If I tape something, but don't get to it right away I may need to tape something else. I'll either put it on the same tape (after the first show) or get a new tape. Now I either have multiple tapes laying around, or I end up watching my shows in "reverse order" so that I can re-use the tape if need be without writing over unwatched programs.
With a PVR I could put stuff in and watch it when I want to watch it.
--
I'd still like one, but they're just expensive, and I have no interest in paying a monthly fee. Until last month, I was only paying for very basic cable. I don't need a service to automatically look at all the programming when I only have 5 channels of anything worthwhile to worry about.
Yes, you can get a capture card cheaper... but it requires there be working drivers for not only the system you run now, but the one you run in a couple years.
The Canopus ADVC100 (which I own) or the other "bridge" type products require no drivers other your computer having a working Firewire setup the same as you'd have with a DV cam.
--
BTW. These products are not TV tuner cards. They only convert an input video source. If you want TV capture, they're not the right solution.
Are you planning on making your fridge world visible? If not, your appliances could all sit behind NAT and you'd still only need a single IP address for your entire house.
I wouldn't want to get home and find out I've been H4X0R3D and have a freezer full of rotten food, so I don't think I'd ever give them world visible addresses.
--
Not that IPv6 is a bad thing, but this probably wouldn't significantly grow the total number of world routable addresses much, as they'd be on private nets.
Reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode (from the version that ran in the 80's)
Aliens come to Earth and tell us that they seeded our planet years ago... but are disappointed in us because we have this "small talent for war with all our petty border skirmishes and such" and will wipe us out in a few days.
World leaders feverishly work to hammer out their differences in the days before the aliens return.
When they return, they are handed a huge treaty as we stand back and proudly proclaim "Peace in our time."
Wouldn't the better option be to make your application expire a certain number of days after installation UNLESS a code is entered? The theory being that when you recive payment, you provide the code.
The outcome for you is the same. If you don't get paid, the system locks them out. The outcome for the client is that honest, paying clients don't have hidden (exploitable) backdoors living in their deployed system.
The only test it seems to have some issue with is the W3CDOM test where it creates form fields on the fly.
It creates the fields, but the radio buttons don't seem to accept a click. This may have to do with the fact that the radio buttons don't have a name attribute. I've noticed before that IE (at least mine) doesn't like unnamed radio buttons (as that's how it knows how to group them).
Otherwise, the other tests worked quite well.
--
Using Mozilla/Phoenix on win - the 'Import XML' test fails on my system.
From the Phoenix JS console: Error: xmlDoc.getElementsByTagName("apple")[0] has no properties Source File: http://developer.apple.com/internet/javascript/tes ts/import.html Line: 31
I'd like the ability to lock the sales guys from altering Powerpoint presentations. When they want a new slide they can come back, instead of "whipping one up" with the horrible graphics they get off their "20 bazillion clip art images" CDs.
Seems they don't know how to re-apply templates to new slides either. Fonts all mismatched and screwed up... the list goes on.
Network Solutions takes the cake
on
Stupid Security
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
How about the "Fax us the change request on company letterhead" for making changes when you don't have the admin password.
Like nobody could possibly fake that.
--
When transferring a domain to another party, I had to have the form notarized, then fax it in. What's the point of the notary seal (embossed) when I'm going to fax it?
Looks like a business oportunity for someone in a state that has low or no taxes for forwarding goods to real addresses.
Let's see... someone buying a few DVDs will want to circumvent the ~$2.50 tax on his order (depending on your tax rate - $30 @ 8% rounded up) so he'll have it sent to this company who will need to charge an additional shipping charge to get it to you and (if they want to stay in business) charge a little extra to cover their employee costs and such.
Sad to see the article's author flat-out claim that '... a proliferation of free music-swapping services on the Internet has led to a decline in CD sales.'
Why is that sad? It's probably true to a degree.
It's sad because it is stated as if it is fact. You even state that it is "probably true" - not that it IS true.
While I agree, the ability to swap songs for free has probably had an effect on the sales of music - they are coming right out and saying that it does. Basically, if they repeat something long enough, they can start stating it as fact.
What legal counsel? Do you think I have an IP lawyer on retainer just in case someone sues me over my Free Software?
Unless you know the ins-and-outs of patent law yourself, you'd need to hire an attorney to do your research and filing of your patent application (if you wanted a patent). So I don't see how this is different.
Get a patent == HAVE to hire an attorney Tech disclosure == MAY have to hire an attorney if somebody sues.
I'm suggesting sonething entirely different: a project that would identify inventions in existing Free Software and preemptively file patent applications on them.
Couldn't be done. If they've been in the PD for more than a year the patent shouldn't grant anyway. So whoever you are trying to prevent from using the innovation would be able to locate prior art to bust your patent.
Also, this "project" wouldn't be the inventor, so who would be filing for the patent? The project can't do it for itself, and if it did it for the inventor (and paid for it) the inventor could turn around and say 'screw you, thank you for paying for my patent application, but now everybody pay up.'
--
Technical disclosure is an extensively used process by MANY companies. If you don't want to use it for yourself, that's great. But don't think it's because it is some new, hairbrained idea in which the 'bugs' haven't been worked out yet.
The other advantage of disclosure over patenting is that the language you can use in a disclosure can be much broader than in a patent application, since disclosures aren't bound by the same levels of 'enablement' that must be present in a patent.
Without the patent, a company can commercialize the technology even if it is protected by the GPL. They just can't copy the code and call it theirs, but they can re-implement the technology in new code and sell it as theirs.
You can't patent code. You CAN patent a business method (much to the dismay of MANY).
The method would remain unchanged, so they couldn't get a patent. You're right that they could write brand-spanking new code that does the exact same thing as the old code (to get around the GPL), but what does that get them? They can copyright the new code, but if it just does what the original code does, then anybody else could just use the original code and not the new proprietary code.
This would still mean that anybody would be free to implement the idea themselves freely.
As I originally stated. If your intent is to free the idea, a patent isn't necessary. If you want to restrict it (even just to some) then that's when a patent can be useful.
The evidence indicates that the examiners no longer look for prior art in the literature. They probably do search for prior patents, though. Thus a patent is the best "technical disclosure".
You're right in that they'll most likely find a prior patent first. That doesn't negate the fact that other forms of publishing are valid. Companies like IBM or Motorola wouldn't go to the trouble of publishing their TDBs if this were the case.
How am I to come up with the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars required to pay your firm to present that defense for me?
If you publish in a public venue, you shouldn't need to have defense other than your legal counsel. Our pubs, for example, can be searched online (with datestamps) and the contents are also published in a paper-based journal that is sent to an increasing number of libraries (including the USPTO). You would use this in the same way you'd present evidence of an article in a magazine or trade journal.
Patents are much cheaper than lawsuits. If he patents his invention before anyone else does he is much less likely to be sued.
Patents aren't CHEAP, however. If you can prevent the patent in the first place (cheaply) all the better. There's also a good chance that waving prior art in front of somebody threatening you would shut them up. They'd rather leave you alone than risk bringing attention to the fact their patent can be busted. At least this way they can squeeze licensing fees out of others who don't know about the prior art.
think that a Free Software patent-pool of software patents dedicated to the public domain would be an _excellent_ idea. Someone has to fund it, though.
We had a joint venture with the Foresight Group a while back for such a thing. It was paid by grants from the Foresight Group and was dedicated to free publishing of technology related to open source software and nanotechnology.
IANAL - but I work at an intellectual property publishing company (around a number of lawyers) so I've had to learn quite a bit about IP law and practice.
First off, we need to clarify what patents DO and DON'T DO for you.
The only thing a patent really does for you, is gives you the right to exclude others from using an invention. The way in which you can exclude them is by (civil) lawsuit (or threat of a lawsuit). There is NO reason to obtain a patent UNLESS you want to enforce it by excluding others from using an invention.
If all you want to do is ensure your/anybody's right to use an invention, you want to make sure future patents aren't granted to others - or failing that - that if they are, you have adequate proof that the invention was part of the public knowledge prior to the patent application which gives you the right to use it.
To do this, you DON'T need a patent yourself. All you need to do is "pollute the waters" by publishing prior art. In a perfect world, if a future application with similar technology crosses a patent examiner's desk - he'll find your prior art and reject the patent. Since prior art isn't always found, a patent may issue, but that prior art can be used in your defense when you are accused of infringement by others.
Publishing information for the express purpose of adding to the pool of 'prior art' is a process used by lots of companies, and is commonly known as 'technical disclosure' or 'defensive publication'.
At the risk of sounding like a corporate shill (bye bye karma) - you can read more information about how to do this on the website for the company I work for. (I wrote most of it, so I hate repeating myself here).
Whether you use the services (Prior Art Database) there or not doesn't matter to me - I don't get commission;) - but I think you'll find some useful information about this topic.
It really sounds like technical disclosure is what you want. You may still get a cease and desist letter from somebody in the future, but you'll have evidence to back up your ability to use the invention yourself. That is all that having a patent would do for you as well. But unlike a patent, technical disclosures are much cheaper to produce, and should provide the protection you're looking for.
I've seen variations of this selling in the stores for automated locks for pet doors. There's a little magnetic key that goes in the collar that triggers the locking mechanism so that your pet can activate the door, but other things do not.
The reason I bring this up is not to compare your kids to animals;) - but that this might be a set of equipment that can be easily hacked apart to make bracelets or something similar for your kids. Not sure what they cost, but I'd imagine it is easily within the "two weeks pay" limit.
Since kids are bigger than your average cat, I'd imagine they'd have to hold the bracelet to the sensor as opposed to just being in proximity to the door, but should still be workable nonetheless. My guess is that the circuitry isn't incredibly advanced, as it is designed for pet-size doors, therefore the security is probably pretty light (ie. limited number of codes - if any "codes" at all) which trigger the lock. You're not worried about a person getting through that 6"x10" hole, and raccoons aren't very good with electronics.
Should be worth a look as a starting point, though.
I wouldn't suggest getting one of the high-end pieces of software yet. Since your wife hasn't gotten into this field yet, its not even certain she'll like it.
You can use software like Hash Animation Master (hash site seems to be down - linking to a vendor) or Truespace (older versions) as a way of getting some easier-to-use tools for only a couple hundred dollars. This will allow her to get her feet wet and see how much work is really involved in putting together even the simplest animation - which is a good way to tell if this is something for her or not.
If she likes it, both of these programs can turn out decent output, though she probably won't be making feature length films. The concepts learned will translate to more sophisticated packages in the future. Even though the interfaces change, the skill in learning how to model, light, and convincingly move your characters is not application specific.
As someone else has mentioned, if she wants to learn on pro software, Maya is available for free download, but it is a crippled version. Everything will be watermarked. OK for learning, but often the best way to learn is in producing things for others, which you wouldn't do with watermarked output.
--
Browse your local bookstore. Many 3d books come with CDs with trial versions of software.
--
Much of what she'll need to know doesn't involve the computer. Like I said earlier, knowing how to do things like light a scene is essential.
I don't have the ISBNs handy (so no links, sorry) but look into books like:
Digital Character Animation by George Maistri
The Illusion of Life
Digital Lighting & Rendering
--
Also, look at local colleges. They may offer a course in animation. This is good if she'd rather learn in an instructor-led environment.
Not saying it hasn't been done, but I can't imagine why any jury would allow the mail trick to hold up in court.
I can easily mail an unsealed empty envelope to myself (with enough postage to cover additional non-existent weight)... then down the line, just drop something into the envelope and seal it.
It'll have a postmark from 4 years ago - be sealed - but have content I created yesterday.
Failing that, unless it is an envelope that cannot be opened without destroying it, either steaming it or freezing it will likely let me open it, change the contents, and re-seal it.
--
Since most individuals don't need protection granular to a single day, I'd suggest saving up a week/months worth at a time and doing the newspaper thing.
Or, if you have that high of volume, and need daily granularity - I'd suggest a corporate solution. If you're that worried about your IP, it must be valuable enough to not play games with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you watch the Simpsons?
...
If you shine a laser dot onto someones pants, you trick them into thinking they have a spot on their pants and they drop them. Then when the spot is on their underwear, they think THAT is where the stain is and drop those.
I'm guessing at that point you just go in with conventional weapons since the enemy will be standing there with no pants.
Wow. Back in college, I didn't realize so many of the guys in my dorm had biodiesel engines in their room.
I don't see how that's different.
... case dismissed.
It's not how YOU see the situation that matters. It is how the COURTS would see the situation. For that, you need to look at precedent and consult an attorney.
You: Your honor, l33tD00d_74 on slashdot said it would be ok to do it.
Judge: Oh, in that case
The entire theory that Adobe is now "preferring" the PC platform is based on the fact that there's a page called pcpreferred.html on Adobe's site.
:)
Oh, you mean it's
PCpreferred.html
and not
PCPreferred.html
There goes my theory that it was a page set up for referrals to Adobe software by your Primary Care Physician.
Actually, total cost of ownership will be higher using a PC vs. a Mac, due to the amount of time spent maintaining the system. Loss productive time due to you running patches and updates on Windows, redoing lost work due to the system hanging -- it adds up!
I run Illustrator, Photoshop, and Premier on a PC running Windows 2000.
I don't seem to suffer any productivity losses due to maintenance, running patches or system hangs. I know it is common belief that all Windows systems crash and are horribly buggy, but it doesn't have to be that way.
1) I'm behind a good corporate firewall. So patches for things other than web browser exploits are downloaded and will finish installation at next reboot - which I do about every other week on the weekend, when I'm not here.
2) I have yet to get a mail worm because I have my mail client set to not run code. Additionally, I don't let it display HTML mail so that it doesn't send pings back to spammers.
3) Bad video drivers and bad memory are the two of the biggest culprits for system instability. I'm not into hardcore gaming, so I install the latest stable videocard drivers. I'm more than happy to live with the last stable version, and sacrifice the extra 3.5FPS in Quake. For memory, just don't buy junk.
4) Re: web browser exploits. If it is serious enough, I may install the patch immediately and reboot. But mostly, they're not serious (due to my IE security settings, which are fairly tight) and can wait until the next planned reboot. Additionally, my primary browser is Phoenix, so most of my browsing isn't with IE. Either way, patches for this tend to come along no more than every month (at best), so it may add one "unplanned" reboot to the mix - so, there I lose 5 minutes a month, I'll give you that.
So if you prefer Macs, fine. That's great. I started computer graphic design on Macs (well, Atari's actually, but they're no longer around). But for you to make a claim that MY productivity on a PC is impaired is just ridiculous. There are a great many people who run PCs (Windows) every day without issue.
Do I like everything Microsoft does? No.
Do I think things could be better? Yes.
Am I horribly crippled due to my machine? Nope.
I'm glad YOU are more productive on your Mac, but don't make the blanket assertion that everybody on a PC is suffering productivity. It's just simply not the case.
If someone wants a VCR, why wouldn't they by a VCR? It astounds me that someone would buy a PVR if all they were interested in was a VCR.
I can answer that, as I've wanted one, but have no interest in the "we'll find what you like" service.
1) Pause live TV.
By the time we get our daugher to bed, it is almost always 8:15 - 8:20. If I tape the show, I then do something else for 40 minutes, as I don't want to watch the end of the show without seeing the beginning. With a PVR, I could start it at 8:20 and be caught up with live tv by 9:00
2) Random access to shows on tape.
I record mostly to timeshift. I don't need to archive. I'm not horribly worried about quality (as long as it's viewable). So when I tape, I tend to re-use a few tapes over and over until they wear out. If I tape something, but don't get to it right away I may need to tape something else. I'll either put it on the same tape (after the first show) or get a new tape. Now I either have multiple tapes laying around, or I end up watching my shows in "reverse order" so that I can re-use the tape if need be without writing over unwatched programs.
With a PVR I could put stuff in and watch it when I want to watch it.
--
I'd still like one, but they're just expensive, and I have no interest in paying a monthly fee. Until last month, I was only paying for very basic cable. I don't need a service to automatically look at all the programming when I only have 5 channels of anything worthwhile to worry about.
Yes, you can get a capture card cheaper ... but it requires there be working drivers for not only the system you run now, but the one you run in a couple years.
The Canopus ADVC100 (which I own) or the other "bridge" type products require no drivers other your computer having a working Firewire setup the same as you'd have with a DV cam.
--
BTW. These products are not TV tuner cards. They only convert an input video source. If you want TV capture, they're not the right solution.
You may want to look at one of these things. ... but you could use it for other things.
They're primarily designed for digital video editing stations
They go for around $30 at Amazon.
If you're using it with Windows, they have templates for common applications - but you can make your own.
For other OSes, not sure what you'd need to do.
Make sure to boot the virtual system without the BASIC cartridge installed (or emulate the XL/XE with basic disabled)
Otherwise, I've run in Atari800Win Plus without problems.
Why would you need IPv6?
Are you planning on making your fridge world visible? If not, your appliances could all sit behind NAT and you'd still only need a single IP address for your entire house.
I wouldn't want to get home and find out I've been H4X0R3D and have a freezer full of rotten food, so I don't think I'd ever give them world visible addresses.
--
Not that IPv6 is a bad thing, but this probably wouldn't significantly grow the total number of world routable addresses much, as they'd be on private nets.
Reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode (from the version that ran in the 80's)
... but are disappointed in us because we have this "small talent for war with all our petty border skirmishes and such" and will wipe us out in a few days.
Aliens come to Earth and tell us that they seeded our planet years ago
World leaders feverishly work to hammer out their differences in the days before the aliens return.
When they return, they are handed a huge treaty as we stand back and proudly proclaim "Peace in our time."
The alien laughs.
"No, you misunderstood. We breed warriors."
Wouldn't the better option be to make your application expire a certain number of days after installation UNLESS a code is entered? The theory being that when you recive payment, you provide the code.
The outcome for you is the same. If you don't get paid, the system locks them out. The outcome for the client is that honest, paying clients don't have hidden (exploitable) backdoors living in their deployed system.
Running IE6 on w2k, it fares quite well.
s ts/import.html
The only test it seems to have some issue with is the W3CDOM test where it creates form fields on the fly.
It creates the fields, but the radio buttons don't seem to accept a click. This may have to do with the fact that the radio buttons don't have a name attribute. I've noticed before that IE (at least mine) doesn't like unnamed radio buttons (as that's how it knows how to group them).
Otherwise, the other tests worked quite well.
--
Using Mozilla/Phoenix on win - the 'Import XML' test fails on my system.
From the Phoenix JS console:
Error: xmlDoc.getElementsByTagName("apple")[0] has no properties
Source File: http://developer.apple.com/internet/javascript/te
Line: 31
I'd like the ability to lock the sales guys from altering Powerpoint presentations. When they want a new slide they can come back, instead of "whipping one up" with the horrible graphics they get off their "20 bazillion clip art images" CDs.
... the list goes on.
Seems they don't know how to re-apply templates to new slides either. Fonts all mismatched and screwed up
How about the "Fax us the change request on company letterhead" for making changes when you don't have the admin password.
Like nobody could possibly fake that.
--
When transferring a domain to another party, I had to have the form notarized, then fax it in.
What's the point of the notary seal (embossed) when I'm going to fax it?
Looks like a business oportunity for someone in a state that has low or no taxes for forwarding goods to real addresses.
... someone buying a few DVDs will want to circumvent the ~$2.50 tax on his order (depending on your tax rate - $30 @ 8% rounded up) so he'll have it sent to this company who will need to charge an additional shipping charge to get it to you and (if they want to stay in business) charge a little extra to cover their employee costs and such.
Let's see
Sounds like a winning business plan to me.
The Stonecutter episode was good if for no other reason than getting to hear Patrick Stewart describe the one initiation ritual.
"This one is 'the paddling of the swollen ass
No matter what they did, the list wouldn't be complete. It's hard to boil the series down to 25 best.
It's sad because it is stated as if it is fact. You even state that it is "probably true" - not that it IS true.
While I agree, the ability to swap songs for free has probably had an effect on the sales of music - they are coming right out and saying that it does. Basically, if they repeat something long enough, they can start stating it as fact.
What legal counsel? Do you think I have an IP lawyer on retainer just in case someone sues me over my Free Software?
Unless you know the ins-and-outs of patent law yourself, you'd need to hire an attorney to do your research and filing of your patent application (if you wanted a patent). So I don't see how this is different.
Get a patent == HAVE to hire an attorney
Tech disclosure == MAY have to hire an attorney if somebody sues.
I'm suggesting sonething entirely different: a project that would identify inventions in existing Free Software and preemptively file patent applications on them.
Couldn't be done. If they've been in the PD for more than a year the patent shouldn't grant anyway. So whoever you are trying to prevent from using the innovation would be able to locate prior art to bust your patent.
Also, this "project" wouldn't be the inventor, so who would be filing for the patent? The project can't do it for itself, and if it did it for the inventor (and paid for it) the inventor could turn around and say 'screw you, thank you for paying for my patent application, but now everybody pay up.'
--
Technical disclosure is an extensively used process by MANY companies. If you don't want to use it for yourself, that's great. But don't think it's because it is some new, hairbrained idea in which the 'bugs' haven't been worked out yet.
The other advantage of disclosure over patenting is that the language you can use in a disclosure can be much broader than in a patent application, since disclosures aren't bound by the same levels of 'enablement' that must be present in a patent.
Without the patent, a company can commercialize the technology even if it is protected by the GPL. They just can't copy the code and call it theirs, but they can re-implement the technology in new code and sell it as theirs.
You can't patent code. You CAN patent a business method (much to the dismay of MANY).
The method would remain unchanged, so they couldn't get a patent. You're right that they could write brand-spanking new code that does the exact same thing as the old code (to get around the GPL), but what does that get them? They can copyright the new code, but if it just does what the original code does, then anybody else could just use the original code and not the new proprietary code.
This would still mean that anybody would be free to implement the idea themselves freely.
As I originally stated. If your intent is to free the idea, a patent isn't necessary. If you want to restrict it (even just to some) then that's when a patent can be useful.
The evidence indicates that the examiners no longer look for prior art in the literature. They probably do search for prior patents, though. Thus a patent is the best "technical disclosure".
You're right in that they'll most likely find a prior patent first. That doesn't negate the fact that other forms of publishing are valid. Companies like IBM or Motorola wouldn't go to the trouble of publishing their TDBs if this were the case.
How am I to come up with the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars required to pay your firm to present that defense for me?
If you publish in a public venue, you shouldn't need to have defense other than your legal counsel. Our pubs, for example, can be searched online (with datestamps) and the contents are also published in a paper-based journal that is sent to an increasing number of libraries (including the USPTO). You would use this in the same way you'd present evidence of an article in a magazine or trade journal.
Patents are much cheaper than lawsuits. If he patents his invention before anyone else does he is much less likely to be sued.
Patents aren't CHEAP, however. If you can prevent the patent in the first place (cheaply) all the better. There's also a good chance that waving prior art in front of somebody threatening you would shut them up. They'd rather leave you alone than risk bringing attention to the fact their patent can be busted. At least this way they can squeeze licensing fees out of others who don't know about the prior art.
think that a Free Software patent-pool of software patents dedicated to the public domain would be an _excellent_ idea. Someone has to fund it, though.
We had a joint venture with the Foresight Group a while back for such a thing. It was paid by grants from the Foresight Group and was dedicated to free publishing of technology related to open source software and nanotechnology.
NOBODY used it. It was discontinued.
IANAL - but I work at an intellectual property publishing company (around a number of lawyers) so I've had to learn quite a bit about IP law and practice.
;) - but I think you'll find some useful information about this topic.
First off, we need to clarify what patents DO and DON'T DO for you.
The only thing a patent really does for you, is gives you the right to exclude others from using an invention. The way in which you can exclude them is by (civil) lawsuit (or threat of a lawsuit). There is NO reason to obtain a patent UNLESS you want to enforce it by excluding others from using an invention.
If all you want to do is ensure your/anybody's right to use an invention, you want to make sure future patents aren't granted to others - or failing that - that if they are, you have adequate proof that the invention was part of the public knowledge prior to the patent application which gives you the right to use it.
To do this, you DON'T need a patent yourself. All you need to do is "pollute the waters" by publishing prior art. In a perfect world, if a future application with similar technology crosses a patent examiner's desk - he'll find your prior art and reject the patent. Since prior art isn't always found, a patent may issue, but that prior art can be used in your defense when you are accused of infringement by others.
Publishing information for the express purpose of adding to the pool of 'prior art' is a process used by lots of companies, and is commonly known as 'technical disclosure' or 'defensive publication'.
At the risk of sounding like a corporate shill (bye bye karma) - you can read more information about how to do this on the website for the company I work for. (I wrote most of it, so I hate repeating myself here).
Whether you use the services (Prior Art Database) there or not doesn't matter to me - I don't get commission
It really sounds like technical disclosure is what you want. You may still get a cease and desist letter from somebody in the future, but you'll have evidence to back up your ability to use the invention yourself. That is all that having a patent would do for you as well. But unlike a patent, technical disclosures are much cheaper to produce, and should provide the protection you're looking for.
I've seen variations of this selling in the stores for automated locks for pet doors. There's a little magnetic key that goes in the collar that triggers the locking mechanism so that your pet can activate the door, but other things do not.
;) - but that this might be a set of equipment that can be easily hacked apart to make bracelets or something similar for your kids.
The reason I bring this up is not to compare your kids to animals
Not sure what they cost, but I'd imagine it is easily within the "two weeks pay" limit.
Since kids are bigger than your average cat, I'd imagine they'd have to hold the bracelet to the sensor as opposed to just being in proximity to the door, but should still be workable nonetheless. My guess is that the circuitry isn't incredibly advanced, as it is designed for pet-size doors, therefore the security is probably pretty light (ie. limited number of codes - if any "codes" at all) which trigger the lock. You're not worried about a person getting through that 6"x10" hole, and raccoons aren't very good with electronics.
Should be worth a look as a starting point, though.
Good luck.
You can use software like Hash Animation Master (hash site seems to be down - linking to a vendor) or Truespace (older versions) as a way of getting some easier-to-use tools for only a couple hundred dollars. This will allow her to get her feet wet and see how much work is really involved in putting together even the simplest animation - which is a good way to tell if this is something for her or not.
If she likes it, both of these programs can turn out decent output, though she probably won't be making feature length films. The concepts learned will translate to more sophisticated packages in the future. Even though the interfaces change, the skill in learning how to model, light, and convincingly move your characters is not application specific.
As someone else has mentioned, if she wants to learn on pro software, Maya is available for free download, but it is a crippled version. Everything will be watermarked. OK for learning, but often the best way to learn is in producing things for others, which you wouldn't do with watermarked output.
--
Browse your local bookstore. Many 3d books come with CDs with trial versions of software.
--
Much of what she'll need to know doesn't involve the computer. Like I said earlier, knowing how to do things like light a scene is essential.
I don't have the ISBNs handy (so no links, sorry) but look into books like:
--
Also, look at local colleges. They may offer a course in animation. This is good if she'd rather learn in an instructor-led environment.
Not saying it hasn't been done, but I can't imagine why any jury would allow the mail trick to hold up in court.
... then down the line, just drop something into the envelope and seal it.
I can easily mail an unsealed empty envelope to myself (with enough postage to cover additional non-existent weight)
It'll have a postmark from 4 years ago - be sealed - but have content I created yesterday.
Failing that, unless it is an envelope that cannot be opened without destroying it, either steaming it or freezing it will likely let me open it, change the contents, and re-seal it.
--
Since most individuals don't need protection granular to a single day, I'd suggest saving up a week/months worth at a time and doing the newspaper thing.
Or, if you have that high of volume, and need daily granularity - I'd suggest a corporate solution. If you're that worried about your IP, it must be valuable enough to not play games with it.