Seems to me that the proper reaction to the ability to enfore a law ought not be to stop enforcing it. If they willy-nilly grant patents and extend the intentions of patent law (see granting patants on business models) they have little right to complain about workload. If they stop revieing patents methodically as they have then you wind up in a mess because everone is suing claiming patent infringment. Yet more work for the USPTO. At least if you went the other way and only reviewed the truely novel inventions then you leave it up to indivudual inventors to protect their intellectual property instaed of lumping the responsibility on the already overburdened legal system. If some idiot can look at your invention and duplicate it because it was too simple then I suggest it's too obvious to be patented. Things like bottle openers and anything easily deducible should not be granted these rights. More broadly, the current patent system does not suit its intended purpose and is far more damaging to society than helpful. In the end I do blame the patent office and its current leadership for broadening the scope of patentable IP. they should have done the opposite. The reason they didn't? It was purely for personal greed and power. there is an inherent conflict of interrest when the head of the USPTO, big business and all lawyers involved on both sides stand to profit from granting sleezy patents. Power and/or money.
These guys Go-Emerchant have the cheapest and easiest system I've seen so far. $40/month gets you a merchant account and secure payment gateway. There are several configuration options available. They charge $40/month plus 2.49% plus 30 cents per transaction. No mus, no fuss, no liablilty for losing someones credit card info. They click on a link on you website and the item is added to their shopping cart. You can even add the link to emails and they can click on the email link to order.
The US Patent office is the root of all this evil. The head of the PTO sits at hand of the highest bidder. The Clinton PTO has rewtieen Patent law, essentially ensuring that big business can KILL any compeitor by enforcing bogus patents and copyrights. Expect to see the current politically appinted head of the PTO to sit on the boards of many of these monopolies he has created, cashing in on his corruption when he gets out of office. Withou a corrupt Patent office RAMBUS wouldn't have a leg to stand on. without a corrupt PTO business models wouldn't be patentable. Without a corrupt PTO Aureal would be solvent. Without a corrupt Justice Department MS couldn't be smug about the Apellate court letting them off the hook. May Clinton and his corrupt political appointees burn in hell. Connnect the dots here folks.
This is the reason Internic changed its registration agreements to say that it owns all domains. That way it can auction the domains in the event that you don't pay registrar fees instead of returning it to the public domain. I call it theft pure and simple. How can companies like PETA claim to own the rights to PETA.org and have a it upheld in court and then Internic can auction off someone else's Domain/Trademark to the highest bidder?
"despite the best efforts of the open-source movement to "crush" others"
Does the air around you crush you? Does the sun in the sky crush you? OpenSource simply is. ESR is saying that whatever obstacles are put in place, the desire for free expression embodied as OpenSource will prevail. Goverments and big business could put all their efforts into stemming the flow of free thought or the spread of the internet, but if by nothing more that sheer volume OpenSource will prevail. It is a reality and any amount of legislation, litigation or brute force won't stop it. No more than such actions have stopped free thought and expression. Get a clue.
What is more irritating is the wasted human effort spent trying to stop it. And when the government is doing the wasting it really bugs me because they think they are doing it in my best interests.
Since the Federal system is suppsoed to handle intrastate trade and State systems hand interstate trade, doesn't this fall solely into the Federal Category? Otherwise, what's to stop say Virginia from charging a tax on all American citizens who use the internet because we got Internic and AOL. States like California are already very agressive on claiming tax on residents of other states, this could get really fun before its over.
Could they pull this off by claiming 100% compatibility with existing Java code, thus allowing them to claim that you can port any application to CPound by simply recompiling? I did an Ask Slashdot on somthing similar once. I asked if you could reverse engineer an entire programming language like Vb using the same function calls and syntax but change the backend functions. Too bad it never got picked up. This may be exactly what microsoft did. We'll find out when we get the details.
"The text is available on my Web site, Mr. Warnock. In a PDF file.
Adobe Systems has sued Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig for violating the Digital Copyright Act (UCITA). Press reporters quote Adobe Chariman John Warnock saying,"Just because some commie pinko teaches at Harvard doesn't mean he can go around violating the lawful agreement he entered into by using our product." Questioned further in the incedent Mr Warnock further explained that the Harvard Professor had maligned Adobe Systems and Himself in an online editorial. When asked about UCITA violating Mr Lessig's free speech rights Warnock replied, "This ain't about free speech. Its about responsible speech and following the law."
Mr. Lessig couldn't immediaetly be reached for comment, but one of his students reported his comments when the he was served a Court Summons during a class. The student though he heard the professor mutter, "What, the truck?" but he wan't certain.
OpenDWG started out when a competitor, Vivio stopped trying to make a competitor for AutoCAD called Intellicad and instead suddely quit and handed over the source code to what they had accomplished to the OpenDWG Alliance. Now the source code to IntelliCAD is essentially free (but restricted). It tends to be very bug prone but is getting better. Several proprietary DLL's are needed for it to render and function fully.
As far as reverse engineering the file format, its all but impossible. Now that UCITA is here it will get even tougher. I just hope AutoCAD knows to not shooting itself in the foot by suing its own users. If the peoblem ever amounted to a threat to AutoCAD's market share there would probably be quite a backlash.
You already opt-in to advertisements by choosing the websites you chose. Aside from that it is very effective to just turn pictures off and simply text-browse. That way you never download or see the annoying ads.
Start top down web agreements. Company A produces a product. Company B Sells and distributes the product and comany C's advertise and provide market information/news. Much like the Linux=>VALinux and other Linux producers=>Andover=>/Slashdot or Freshmeat setup. In the auto industry it could be Auto Manufacturer=>Online Car Seller or Dealership=>Auto Trade magazine. Not really anything revoloutaionary, just formalizing what is already in place.
The Nikon Coolpix has a viewfinder that rotates independent of the lens/body. And the Coolpix (now up to the 990, 3MegaPix) is pretty consistently rated one of the best by digicam users. See DCResource for more info.
Wont this be a slow medium for writing pictures to disk? No to mention a battery sucker? What about those poor saps buying a new Camera to replace their old ones who find out the hard way that find out their CD-Reader won't read CD-Rs? Don't say it wont happen. Check the newsgroups, a ton of CD-Readers as fast as 24X can't read em. I know, almost every PC in our company has a creppy CD that won't read CD-R s. I have heard that you may be able to install a UDF? software program to solve the problem, but who knows?
Can someone with a clue answer this. What type of matter is used as the source for the plasma? What do they turn into plasma? How much would it take to get to Mars?
Great, yet another distro that tosses out a barebones version so they can claim to be a Linux company, then sell the real thing with all their proprietary crap. How about a goodwill gesture, change the license to ancient versions of Unix to the GPL. Open up the ancient Unix Archive.
I'm not sure what you mean by ethically. Do you quote references from every instructor you ever had or programming book you read when to write your code? Its not unethical to learn from another's methodology. In fact I'm positive its true that 90% of all source code comes from the programmer rehashing the same routines. It would be unethical to cut-and-paste someone else's work. But learning and reimplementing their methodolgy isn't. Source code usually falls under the copyright laws so just because you follow the same plot doesn't constitute copyright infringement. In the book worlk, there hasn't been an origional ploy in the last 200 years. Programming still offers some chance at origionality, but not much.
Can't wait till these hit the stores. Cut to scene of runner running down alley. Man stops at wall at end of alley. Cut to scene of camera facing up from the ground at large monolithic wall. Man smiles, and touches small Swoosh Gecko logo on shoes. Message flashes across screen "Life full of obstacles? Get Traction with Geckos." Cut to scen of camera rotating around man as he walks up the wall.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me that the proper reaction to the ability to enfore a law ought not be to stop enforcing it. If they willy-nilly grant patents and extend the intentions of patent law (see granting patants on business models) they have little right to complain about workload. If they stop revieing patents methodically as they have then you wind up in a mess because everone is suing claiming patent infringment. Yet more work for the USPTO. At least if you went the other way and only reviewed the truely novel inventions then you leave it up to indivudual inventors to protect their intellectual property instaed of lumping the responsibility on the already overburdened legal system. If some idiot can look at your invention and duplicate it because it was too simple then I suggest it's too obvious to be patented. Things like bottle openers and anything easily deducible should not be granted these rights. More broadly, the current patent system does not suit its intended purpose and is far more damaging to society than helpful. In the end I do blame the patent office and its current leadership for broadening the scope of patentable IP. they should have done the opposite. The reason they didn't? It was purely for personal greed and power. there is an inherent conflict of interrest when the head of the USPTO, big business and all lawyers involved on both sides stand to profit from granting sleezy patents. Power and/or money.
These guys Go-Emerchant have the cheapest and easiest system I've seen so far. $40/month gets you a merchant account and secure payment gateway. There are several configuration options available. They charge $40/month plus 2.49% plus 30 cents per transaction. No mus, no fuss, no liablilty for losing someones credit card info. They click on a link on you website and the item is added to their shopping cart. You can even add the link to emails and they can click on the email link to order.
The US Patent office is the root of all this evil. The head of the PTO sits at hand of the highest bidder. The Clinton PTO has rewtieen Patent law, essentially ensuring that big business can KILL any compeitor by enforcing bogus patents and copyrights. Expect to see the current politically appinted head of the PTO to sit on the boards of many of these monopolies he has created, cashing in on his corruption when he gets out of office. Withou a corrupt Patent office RAMBUS wouldn't have a leg to stand on. without a corrupt PTO business models wouldn't be patentable. Without a corrupt PTO Aureal would be solvent. Without a corrupt Justice Department MS couldn't be smug about the Apellate court letting them off the hook. May Clinton and his corrupt political appointees burn in hell. Connnect the dots here folks.
This is the reason Internic changed its registration agreements to say that it owns all domains. That way it can auction the domains in the event that you don't pay registrar fees instead of returning it to the public domain. I call it theft pure and simple. How can companies like PETA claim to own the rights to PETA.org and have a it upheld in court and then Internic can auction off someone else's Domain/Trademark to the highest bidder?
"despite the best efforts of the open-source movement to "crush" others"
Does the air around you crush you? Does the sun in the sky crush you? OpenSource simply is. ESR is saying that whatever obstacles are put in place, the desire for free expression embodied as OpenSource will prevail. Goverments and big business could put all their efforts into stemming the flow of free thought or the spread of the internet, but if by nothing more that sheer volume OpenSource will prevail. It is a reality and any amount of legislation, litigation or brute force won't stop it. No more than such actions have stopped free thought and expression. Get a clue.
What is more irritating is the wasted human effort spent trying to stop it. And when the government is doing the wasting it really bugs me because they think they are doing it in my best interests.
Since the Federal system is suppsoed to handle intrastate trade and State systems hand interstate trade, doesn't this fall solely into the Federal Category? Otherwise, what's to stop say Virginia from charging a tax on all American citizens who use the internet because we got Internic and AOL. States like California are already very agressive on claiming tax on residents of other states, this could get really fun before its over.
Could they pull this off by claiming 100% compatibility with existing Java code, thus allowing them to claim that you can port any application to CPound by simply recompiling? I did an Ask Slashdot on somthing similar once. I asked if you could reverse engineer an entire programming language like Vb using the same function calls and syntax but change the backend functions. Too bad it never got picked up. This may be exactly what microsoft did. We'll find out when we get the details.
Just wondering.
"The text is available on my Web site, Mr. Warnock. In a PDF file.
Adobe Systems has sued Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig for violating the Digital Copyright Act (UCITA). Press reporters quote Adobe Chariman John Warnock saying ,"Just because some commie pinko teaches at Harvard doesn't mean he can go around violating the lawful agreement he entered into by using our product." Questioned further in the incedent Mr Warnock further explained that the Harvard Professor had maligned Adobe Systems and Himself in an online editorial. When asked about UCITA violating Mr Lessig's free speech rights Warnock replied, "This ain't about free speech. Its about responsible speech and following the law."
Mr. Lessig couldn't immediaetly be reached for comment, but one of his students reported his comments when the he was served a Court Summons during a class. The student though he heard the professor mutter, "What, the truck?" but he wan't certain.
I was gonna mention that but its kind of redundent. MS owns everything including 10% of the company I work for.
As far as reverse engineering the file format, its all but impossible. Now that UCITA is here it will get even tougher. I just hope AutoCAD knows to not shooting itself in the foot by suing its own users. If the peoblem ever amounted to a threat to AutoCAD's market share there would probably be quite a backlash.
Same ol' same ol'. The only difference is using the customer's computer to do their work.
You already opt-in to advertisements by choosing the websites you chose. Aside from that it is very effective to just turn pictures off and simply text-browse. That way you never download or see the annoying ads.
Start top down web agreements. Company A produces a product. Company B Sells and distributes the product and comany C's advertise and provide market information/news. Much like the Linux=>VALinux and other Linux producers=>Andover=>/Slashdot or Freshmeat setup. In the auto industry it could be Auto Manufacturer=>Online Car Seller or Dealership=>Auto Trade magazine. Not really anything revoloutaionary, just formalizing what is already in place.
And so does Pig Latin
The Nikon Coolpix has a viewfinder that rotates independent of the lens/body. And the Coolpix (now up to the 990, 3MegaPix) is pretty consistently rated one of the best by digicam users. See DCResource for more info.
Wont this be a slow medium for writing pictures to disk? No to mention a battery sucker? What about those poor saps buying a new Camera to replace their old ones who find out the hard way that find out their CD-Reader won't read CD-Rs? Don't say it wont happen. Check the newsgroups, a ton of CD-Readers as fast as 24X can't read em. I know, almost every PC in our company has a creppy CD that won't read CD-R s. I have heard that you may be able to install a UDF? software program to solve the problem, but who knows?
Thanks for the explaination. Appreciated.
Can someone with a clue answer this. What type of matter is used as the source for the plasma? What do they turn into plasma? How much would it take to get to Mars?
Great, yet another distro that tosses out a barebones version so they can claim to be a Linux company, then sell the real thing with all their proprietary crap. How about a goodwill gesture, change the license to ancient versions of Unix to the GPL. Open up the ancient Unix Archive.
Q. Do you know what Linux is?
A. I assume so, yes.
Q. You assume you know?
A. As much as anybody knows what Linux is.
pNot much depth to this article. What about the argument that its a cat and mouse game?
1->New technology for distributing IP property invented
2->new system to thwart IP theft invented
3->Goto 1
I'm not sure what you mean by ethically. Do you quote references from every instructor you ever had or programming book you read when to write your code? Its not unethical to learn from another's methodology. In fact I'm positive its true that 90% of all source code comes from the programmer rehashing the same routines. It would be unethical to cut-and-paste someone else's work. But learning and reimplementing their methodolgy isn't. Source code usually falls under the copyright laws so just because you follow the same plot doesn't constitute copyright infringement. In the book worlk, there hasn't been an origional ploy in the last 200 years. Programming still offers some chance at origionality, but not much.
Only they aren't reprogrammable
Can't wait till these hit the stores. Cut to scene of runner running down alley. Man stops at wall at end of alley. Cut to scene of camera facing up from the ground at large monolithic wall. Man smiles, and touches small Swoosh Gecko logo on shoes. Message flashes across screen "Life full of obstacles? Get Traction with Geckos." Cut to scen of camera rotating around man as he walks up the wall.