Won't work. The chip is entirely enclosed in insulating plastic. In order to be affected by ESD it would have to have leads that would allow the discharge to flow through it. It has none.
No need for either broad-spectrum high-power RF or microwaves. It's easy enough to find out what frequencies the RFID tags use (usually fairly low frequencies). A relatively low-power transmitter operating on the frequency to which the device is tuned would fry it without arc-welding your zippers.
Of course, such a transmitter would probably be declared a "DMCA circumvention device"...
> Assuming this passes the farmer test (it's not > just bullshit in a bag), how can there be doubts > it's illegal.
There can also be no doubt that there would never be a criminal prosecution. The best we could hope for would be that the ISPs would file a lawsuit and get an injunction ordering them to stop.
> The existance of a P2P client doesn't a criminal > make, especially since the example given in the > article by the l33t hacker is a perfectly legal > file: the public MP3s (written to celebrate each > OpenBSD release).
The RIAA objects to the existence of such music: they make no money from it. Their goal is more ambitious than just stopping unauthorized copying. They want to make distribution of music outside their control impossible.
> I'd be interested to know whether release on > SourceForge would count as publication (and > therefore defensive publication) - the software > has been available there for quite awhile now.
I'd think it would convince a judge (though IANAL), but is there any chance at all that a patent examiner would see it there? They seem to do little research.
> I suppose I'm the one to do the research on this > one...
Please post your results. I'd love to see an opinion as to whether or not release of Free Software constitutes effective prior art
> If you are going to license indiscriminately, > there's not much use in patenting.
The point is to establish irrefutable prior art, and place it where the examiners are likely to see it.
> Consider simply registering your method with a > notary or similar. Then when you get challenged > for patent infringement you can use your > notarized testimony as prior art.
That would be completely useless. We are discussing patents, not copyrights. Prior art must be public.
> Couldn't be done. If they've been in the PD for > more than a year the patent shouldn't grant > anyway.
Of course it "shouldn't". So what? The fact is that software patents for which prior art exists are granted regularly.
> So whoever you are trying to prevent from using > the innovation would be able to locate prior art > to bust your patent.
You misunderstand. The whole point is to dedicate the patent to the public domain in order to make sure that no one _is_ able to prevent anyone from using the innovation. Thus busting the patent is meaningless.
> But don't think it's because it is some new, > hairbrained idea in which the 'bugs' haven't > been worked out yet.
I've known about technical disclosure for a long time, possibly for longer than you have. However, the recent behavior of the patent office makes me distrust it.
> 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.'
The inventor would, of course, assign the patent to the project, just as other inventors regularly assign their patents to companies.
> 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.
Disclosure certainly would be preferable to patenting (for one thing, in the case of Free Software it could be done without the active cooperation of the inventor) IF the examiners could be trusted to find and honor the disclosure. Can you assure me that they would?
> If you publish in a public venue, you shouldn't > need to have defense other than your legal > counsel.
What legal counsel? Do you think I have an IP lawyer on retainer just in case someone sues me over my Free Software? I repeat, How am I to come up with the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars required to pay an attorney to present that defense for me?
> 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.
There's a better chance that they will call my bluff and force me to withdraw my software due to lack of money to defend myself.
> At least this way they can squeeze licensing > fees out of others who don't know about the > prior art.
They aren't likely to be too successful at that if they allow me to continue to distribute Free Software that implements the invention.
> 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.
I'm suggesting sonething entirely different: a project that would identify inventions in existing Free Software and preemptively file patent applications on them.
BTW has any court ever ruled that release of Free Software source constitutes disclosure?
> It's reserved for that purpose alone, so you > cannot use that part of the spectrum.
Not merely reserved for that purpose: reserved for certain politically well-connected people. The fact is that the scarcity of spectrum is artificial and has been for at least 70 years.
> Furthermore, how else do you propose they > broadcast signals?
I propose that in return for the right to broadcast signals into my home I should, at minimum, be allowed to access those signals.
> You can't just declare that since the mechanism > for their transmission is accessible to you that > you have a right to access it.
Why the hell not? In fact, the law in the US was once exactly that: everyone had the right to receive (though not necessarily copy the contents of) any radio signal.
If broadcasters want to keep their stuff secret they can encrypt it. If someone figures out how to break their encryption, tough luck.
> Did I say "public" or did I say "free"? Because > unless you're not paying taxes, they aren't the > same thing.
US public television could get along fine without its relatively small government subsidy.
There is also no technical reason why we couldn't have large numbers of small low-power stations funded in all sorts of imaginative ways. The present system exists only for political reasons.
> 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.
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".
> 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.
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?
> But unlike a patent, technical disclosures are > much cheaper to produce, and should provide the > protection you're looking for.
Patents are much cheaper than lawsuits. If he patents his invention before anyone else does he is much less likely to be sued.
I 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.
> These companies are providing you entertainment > at no cost to you.
These companies are pumping their rf into my home without my permission.
> They do this because they're paid by advertisers.
That's their problem.
> Why shouldn't they be opposed to commercial > skipping?
Oppose away, but as long as they can spew their rf all over me I should be able to demodulate it and look at whatever parts of it I please.
> If everyone is skipping the ads, free TV is > going to go away.
Public television will vanish if everyone skips the ads on commercial tv? Sure.
> Either you'll be forced to watch ads (like the > unskipable previews on some DVDs) or you'll > have to pay for your TV programming (e.g. HBO). > There are no other solutions.
Yes there are. You can not watch tv at all. Which is what I do right now.
> Why the heck are they dumping it? Why not sell > the salt?
They aren't producing salt. They are producing water that is somewhat saltier than seawater. To produce salt they would need to remove almost as much water as they would starting with plain seawater, and they would produce far more salt than the local market could consume.
> People act like microsoft is the bad guys in this > situation, but why don't they just buy a liscence > to make Linux on XBox?
Got a billion dollars to donate to the cause? I'd guess Microsoft would want at least that much for such a license.
> It seems the LinuXbox developers would be the > bad guys for developing software on a platform > you are susposed to pay royalies on for.
"Supposed" by who? If I own the bloody box I can damn well do anything I please with it, including prying out chips, soldering in different ones, and running any software I want (I don't own an XBox, of course).
> Of course, this stirs of lots of things, and > just because the platform isn't a free platform > where anything can be developed on for free, > doesn't make it right to develop for it > anyways.
Nonsense. They can develop for whatever they please.
No need for P2P. It's perfectly legal to put this stuff up on Web sites in Europe. Of course, the RIAA will try to make US ISPs block access to these sites, but this will give the US telecommunications industry more incentive to oppose the RIAA's agenda.
In fact, it would be illegal to break DRM even if the material in question was already in the public domain when it was put into the DRM protected form.
Slashdot Mirror
Won't work. The chip is entirely enclosed in insulating plastic. In order to be affected by ESD it would have to have leads that would allow the discharge to flow through it. It has none.
No need for either broad-spectrum high-power RF or microwaves. It's easy enough to find out what frequencies the RFID tags use (usually fairly low frequencies). A relatively low-power transmitter operating on the frequency to which the device is tuned would fry it without arc-welding your zippers.
Of course, such a transmitter would probably be declared a "DMCA circumvention device"...
> Assuming this passes the farmer test (it's not
> just bullshit in a bag), how can there be doubts
> it's illegal.
There can also be no doubt that there would never be a criminal prosecution. The best we could hope for would be that the ISPs would file a lawsuit and get an injunction ordering them to stop.
> The existance of a P2P client doesn't a criminal
> make, especially since the example given in the
> article by the l33t hacker is a perfectly legal
> file: the public MP3s (written to celebrate each
> OpenBSD release).
The RIAA objects to the existence of such music: they make no money from it. Their goal is more ambitious than just stopping unauthorized copying. They want to make distribution of music outside their control impossible.
> It's junk, like the quad-browser yesterday.
Very likely.
> Since patents cover ideas,...
Patents do not cover ideas. They cover inventions (modulo stupidity on the part of the examiners).
Yes, were the USPTO not staffed with ignorant bunglers.
They are talking about the Linux _kernel_. It's GPL, so any "replacement of SCO code in a hurry" would be immediately available to all distributions.
And IBM would be much more likely to finance the work than Red Hat. Hell, IBM might just solve the problem by buying SCO.
Most likely, though, the kernel hackers would do the work with no need for any special corporate funding at all.
> If a business or individual that was actually
> going to pay for the software gets it for free,
> then Microsoft loses money.
They fail to _gain_ money. Not the same thing at all.
> I'd be interested to know whether release on
> SourceForge would count as publication (and
> therefore defensive publication) - the software
> has been available there for quite awhile now.
I'd think it would convince a judge (though IANAL), but is there any chance at all that a patent examiner would see it there? They seem to do little research.
> I suppose I'm the one to do the research on this
> one...
Please post your results. I'd love to see an opinion as to whether or not release of Free Software constitutes effective prior art
> If you are going to license indiscriminately,
> there's not much use in patenting.
The point is to establish irrefutable prior art, and place it where the examiners are likely to see it.
> Consider simply registering your method with a
> notary or similar. Then when you get challenged
> for patent infringement you can use your
> notarized testimony as prior art.
That would be completely useless. We are discussing patents, not copyrights. Prior art must be public.
> Couldn't be done. If they've been in the PD for
> more than a year the patent shouldn't grant
> anyway.
Of course it "shouldn't". So what? The fact is that software patents for which prior art exists are granted regularly.
> So whoever you are trying to prevent from using
> the innovation would be able to locate prior art
> to bust your patent.
You misunderstand. The whole point is to dedicate the patent to the public domain in order to make sure that no one _is_ able to prevent anyone from using the innovation. Thus busting the patent is meaningless.
> But don't think it's because it is some new,
> hairbrained idea in which the 'bugs' haven't
> been worked out yet.
I've known about technical disclosure for a long time, possibly for longer than you have. However, the recent behavior of the patent office makes me distrust it.
> 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.'
The inventor would, of course, assign the patent to the project, just as other inventors regularly assign their patents to companies.
> 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.
Disclosure certainly would be preferable to patenting (for one thing, in the case of Free Software it could be done without the active cooperation of the inventor) IF the examiners could be trusted to find and honor the disclosure. Can you assure me that they would?
> If you publish in a public venue, you shouldn't
> need to have defense other than your legal
> counsel.
What legal counsel? Do you think I have an IP lawyer on retainer just in case someone sues me over my Free Software? I repeat, How am I to come up with the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars required to pay an attorney to present that defense for me?
> 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.
There's a better chance that they will call my bluff and force me to withdraw my software due to lack of money to defend myself.
> At least this way they can squeeze licensing
> fees out of others who don't know about the
> prior art.
They aren't likely to be too successful at that if they allow me to continue to distribute Free Software that implements the invention.
> 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.
I'm suggesting sonething entirely different: a project that would identify inventions in existing Free Software and preemptively file patent applications on them.
BTW has any court ever ruled that release of Free Software source constitutes disclosure?
> It's reserved for that purpose alone, so you
> cannot use that part of the spectrum.
Not merely reserved for that purpose: reserved for certain politically well-connected people. The fact is that the scarcity of spectrum is artificial and has been for at least 70 years.
> Furthermore, how else do you propose they
> broadcast signals?
I propose that in return for the right to broadcast signals into my home I should, at minimum, be allowed to access those signals.
> You can't just declare that since the mechanism
> for their transmission is accessible to you that
> you have a right to access it.
Why the hell not? In fact, the law in the US was once exactly that: everyone had the right to receive (though not necessarily copy the contents of) any radio signal.
If broadcasters want to keep their stuff secret they can encrypt it. If someone figures out how to break their encryption, tough luck.
> Did I say "public" or did I say "free"? Because
> unless you're not paying taxes, they aren't the
> same thing.
US public television could get along fine without its relatively small government subsidy.
There is also no technical reason why we couldn't have large numbers of small low-power stations funded in all sorts of imaginative ways. The present system exists only for political reasons.
> 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.
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".
> 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.
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?
> But unlike a patent, technical disclosures are
> much cheaper to produce, and should provide the
> protection you're looking for.
Patents are much cheaper than lawsuits. If he patents his invention before anyone else does he is much less likely to be sued.
I 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.
> These companies are providing you entertainment
> at no cost to you.
These companies are pumping their rf into my home without my permission.
> They do this because they're paid by advertisers.
That's their problem.
> Why shouldn't they be opposed to commercial
> skipping?
Oppose away, but as long as they can spew their rf all over me I should be able to demodulate it and look at whatever parts of it I please.
> If everyone is skipping the ads, free TV is
> going to go away.
Public television will vanish if everyone skips the ads on commercial tv? Sure.
> Either you'll be forced to watch ads (like the
> unskipable previews on some DVDs) or you'll
> have to pay for your TV programming (e.g. HBO).
> There are no other solutions.
Yes there are. You can not watch tv at all. Which is what I do right now.
Copyright infringement is not theft.
> Um, do you mind if I point out that it's only
> copyright infringement if someone makes money off
> it without paying royalties?
I wish that was true, but it isn't.
> On the other hand, if I don't charge you, then I
> have NOT violated copyright.
I wish that was true, but it isn't.
> Of course, following the radio model, the music
> companies should've been paying Napster to host
> songs and promote the bands, a la payola.
Look up "compulsory licensing" and "ASCAP and BMI".
> Why the heck are they dumping it? Why not sell
> the salt?
They aren't producing salt. They are producing water that is somewhat saltier than seawater. To produce salt they would need to remove almost as much water as they would starting with plain seawater, and they would produce far more salt than the local market could consume.
> People act like microsoft is the bad guys in this
> situation, but why don't they just buy a liscence
> to make Linux on XBox?
Got a billion dollars to donate to the cause? I'd guess Microsoft would want at least that much for such a license.
> It seems the LinuXbox developers would be the
> bad guys for developing software on a platform
> you are susposed to pay royalies on for.
"Supposed" by who? If I own the bloody box I can damn well do anything I please with it, including prying out chips, soldering in different ones, and running any software I want (I don't own an XBox, of course).
> Of course, this stirs of lots of things, and
> just because the platform isn't a free platform
> where anything can be developed on for free,
> doesn't make it right to develop for it
> anyways.
Nonsense. They can develop for whatever they please.
They'll be fighting the telecommunications industry. It's an order of magnitude or more larger and more powerful than the music industry.
And they'll be right.
> But I can't really imagine that the original
> beast doesn't contain such a clause.
It doesn't.
> It would be quite shortsighted.
You are assuming that it is an unintentional oversight.
Looks like it should be very effective in keeping blind people out, though.
They have US copyright in the US and European copyright in Europe. Doesn't matter where the work was created.
No need for P2P. It's perfectly legal to put this stuff up on Web sites in Europe. Of course, the RIAA will try to make US ISPs block access to these sites, but this will give the US telecommunications industry more incentive to oppose the RIAA's agenda.
In fact, it would be illegal to break DRM even if the material in question was already in the public domain when it was put into the DRM protected form.