The problem with this system is that it has to be put in locations with strong wave action. Generally, those are places where there is a lot of wild life, not to mention surfers. The picture doesn't exactly make it look attractive & I wouldn't want one in my back yard. I think the NIMBY (not in my backyard) folks will kill this, if the oil giants won't.
On the other hand, the potential of placing these types of turbines in the ocean not near the shoreline is very tempting. Creating an off-shore variant, especially one that is entirely under water, reduces the impact on the ecology, and the view.
The other alternative is to replace harbor walls or water-breaks with these generators. If you do that for commercial harbors, you will get the benefit, without the cost.
Overall, this is a great idea. Although it was originally invented in the 1970's, so it's an old idea. It's just been implemented for the first time.
Well, the case was filed with an ITC administrative judge. That is NOT a real court. So, they can refile in a real court, and get a real judge. Sorry. IAL.
Thalia
Although judge shopping is not considered acceptable, a litigant is allowed to drop a case. Furthermore, an ITC judge can not prevent Rambus from suing in a "real court."
Remember that the ITC, International Trade Commission" was set up to investigate cases in which imports are alleged to damage materially domestic industry and to make recommendations to the President. They are not a "real court."
Rambus can fairly decide that it wishes to bring the case in a U.S. Court, instead of within the ITC. In a real court, they control the discovery process, etc. In the ITC, the ITC advocate does most of the work, and the person who originally brought the ITC complaint is basically left out of the loop.
I think the judge was just peeved that he didn't get to investigate the case. But he certainly can not dismiss this "administrative action" with prejudice, to prevent a barrier to Rambus refiling the case elsewhere.
Thalia
Dune may be over... but you can find the book...
on
Dune: House Harkonnen
·
· Score: 1
It's never impossible to get a book. You can find a used copy of the Dune Encyclopedia, if you are willing to pay for it. The best site for this is BookFinder which is a search engine that allows you to search many used book stores. I found copies of the Dune Encyclopedia from about $50 to about $250. So, if you are truly obsessed, you can find anything.
New Mexico had problems because their ballot includes a single punch which indicates that the person wishes to vote the "straight party ticket" for whichever party they select. This means that they do not wish to individually indicate their selections.
The problem develops when "voters chose to vote a straight party ticket, but also chose at least one candidate from another party, election officials said. "
In other words, if I select that I want to vote "straight Democratic Party ticket" and then also punch a vote for Bush for President, the machine would get confused. That was the problem.
In any case, I think we've had as much Election coverage as anyone can stomach... so, let's just wait it out.
Salon had a story on this a few months ago. They say that "Piret's research team has secured a North American patent on a secret formulation of sodium lauryl sulfate, in which it exists as a liquid at room temperature, but when applied to the body (i.e., the genitals) changes to a gel." There are a couple of things wrong with this.
First, there is no such animal as a "North American Patent" there are Canadian patents, and there are U.S. patents, but there are no "North American patents."
Second, you can not get a patent for "a secret formulation", since in order to obtain the patent, the formulation must be disclosed.
So, the above data is obviously wrong. Hope you didn't get all riled up.
I do expect that there is a patent application pending for this. However, that is not necessarily a problem, if the patent is licensed, either for a nominal fee or free. So, don't get annoyed before you have all the facts.
Well, actually, the Patent Office still will be sending you Office Actions in paper format. You will still be expected to respond to all of their paper with more paper. The only thing that has changed is that the initial filing may be electronic. But, I'm willing to bet you that the electronic filing is printed out & converted for paper for further processing.
If you've ever seen a file wrapper (or file history -- which includes all of the interactions between the Patent Office and the applicant/attorney) you'll see an immense number of papers back & forth. Because of the importance of having documentation (the Patent Office regularly loses files & asks you to send them your copy) I expect that most people will continue to have paper files. Sorry guys.
On the other hand, the electronic filing should considerably reduce the overhead for scanning. Right now, in addition to the paper copies, all documents that are sent to the PTO are scanned in (they spent an immense amount of money on OCR) by PTO personell, and placed in an electronic copy of the file. From now on, the applicant will be providing both the electronic and paper versions. Not much of a change.
Or, as they say, the king is dead, long live the king. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
The fact is, Roe v. Wade was upheld 5-4 in the last battle. So, if ONE Supreme Court justice is replaced by another yes-man like Clarence Thomas, abortion rights are history. If you look at the last major abortion opinion, Stenberg v. Carhart, you will find the following:
Five justices who voted to strike down the law restricting abortions: Breyer (delivered opinion), joined by Stephens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Souter. Notice that the two appointees of Clinton's, Breyer and Ginsburg, are solidly in the pro-choice camp.
Four justices voted to uphold the abortion restriction: Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. Every one of these justices was appointed by a Republican. And, of course, Mr. Thomas was appointed by Bush, Sr.
Now, Justice O'Connor is sick (she has ovarian cancer), and justice Stephens is getting quite aged. It is very likely that one of these two liberal/middle-of-the-road justices will retire in the next four years. On the other hand, all of the conservative justices are young & healthy. So, the fact is your vote will affect a woman's right to choose.
Does anyone even bother reading the article? This is to use open source to develop further molecular modelling software. Of course, such software would be useful for nanotech, but that's not the point. This type of technology already exists, see for example the Catalogue of Molecular Biology Programs, some of which are open source, like Garlic, and MMTK.
The actual creation of nanotech can't be open sourced, since the requirement to create it can not be bought off the shelf. (Well, if you have a few million, you probably could buy it.) The primary prerequisite for open source research is that the materials are relatively cheaply and easily available to the general public.
Thalia
I will just send out letters apologizing for (non-existent) spam, and telling them that it was a technical error... and, at the end of the letter, I will include the spam, just so they'll recognize it when they see it.
The text of the draft Convention can be
found on here.
They do welcome comments,
By releasing the latest draft of the treaty, the Council of Europe seeks to enhance the consultation process with interested parties, whether public or private. It particularly encourages business and civil society organisations to come forward and share their comments with the experts involved in the negotiations before the text eventually becomes final. Commentaries are welcome on : daj@coe.int
So, instead of bitching here, Slashdot should create a communal comment, indicating the worries that we, as a community have.
Thalia
The part that's confusing me about this CNN report is the blandly put statement that "Black holes are so dense they create gravity so strong that even light cannot escape their surface, making them nearly impossible to see. Kormendy said the black hole at the center of the galaxy is not pulling in other stars."
So, how come it's not pulling in stars? Is there some other force out there? My understanding of black holes was that they sucked in everything... even stars. Of course, according to this other article on CNN, that could be because of the winds... anyway, it seems like a cool discovery.
Thalia
If you can't be found, I can guarantee that the first place they'll go is to your ISP. Your ISP will then promptly either disclose who you are or shut you down. This is not a useful solution. You simply can't be public and be hidden. Don't even try.
The best solution is to ask posters not to post copyrighted material (I suggest to make it even more obvious, that your "submit" button actually includes a statement to the effect of "the material I am about to submit is my work, and is not copyrighted by anyone else." This should remove much of the onus. You can also set up a copyright/license/trade secret dispute resolution policy. The policy should be short and to the point. (Namely, that you as the site owner have the right to remove any post, arbitrarily. And that you will remove posts that violate anyone else's rights.)
The reality is that as a content carrier, you become liable only if you get a cease & desist from a lawyer. (a letter that basically says "stop it.") This letter should specifically identify the copyright, trade secret, or license being violated, and the specific post. At that point, you are obligated to take action (as the Netcom case demonstrated.)
So, how do you respond to a cease & desist?
First, you contact the original poster, and ask them about whether the complainer has a point. If the material was posted anonymously, just take it down, without asking the poster. If the poster responds, then you can have him/her and the copyright owner duke it out, and you can just duck. In most cases, the discussion is pretty short, because the copyright owner should show a registered copyright, and that should end the discussion.
Of course, you can always talk to a lawyer. And if the RTC comes after you, I suggest that you do.
Thalia
IAAL, but this is not legal advice. I don't even know what state you're living in...
The realistic, and easy, solution to this is for Annoy.com not to keep track of its users at all. After all, an ISP that is not aware of information can not be forced to reveal it. Then, when the cops show up, all the ISP has to say is "Sorry guys, we do not collect any information about our users. There is no way to find out who sent what piece of email." End of the story... The cops can then attempt to obtain a wire tap, to find out about future nasty-grams sent from the ISP, but that's more difficult, and usually has to go through a federal judge.
I don't have an issue with targetted advertising, I just don't want to pay for it. If TiVo wanted to provide me with a free box that showed me targeted advertising, I would be willing to buy that. But for me to pay for something that is used for advertising seems a bit strange. Of course, people purchase clothing with advertising slogans all the time... very strange...
I am also curious whether they show more advertising to those who skip adverts. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.
As targeting becomes more precise, they can also attempt to make the advertising blend into the show for those folks who fast forward through all the ads.
In the long run, the reason we object to targetted advertising is because its sole goal is to waste more of your time watching stupid ads. This, for most of us, is not a useful way of spending time...
If you read the document they're asking you to sign it will say something to the effect of:
"I have reviewed and understood the contents of this patent application, including the claim(s). I do not know and do not believe that the claimed invention was ever known or used in the United States of America before my invention thereof, or patented or described in any printed publication in any country before my invention thereof or more than one year prior to this application."
You are signing this under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which can punish false statements by fines/imprisonment. So, if you truly do not believe that it's an invention, then you should *not* sign. In fact, you must refuse to sign. However, you should have a good reason. Otherwise, your employer can take you to court to force you to comply with your employment agreement.
Also note that you have an obligation to disclose all references (articles, other patents, products, etc.) that you believe are relevant prior art to your invention. So, if you have a reason why you think the patent is too broad, and you know of prior inventions, then you should disclose that as well.
If you're only hesitating because you don't like patents, then you should sign... and if you really hate it, find a job that doesn't involve invention, or in which your employers agree with you about patents.
Thalia
P.S. The preceding is not legal advice. Follow at your own risk.
Don't knock the telescope. After all, what other useful thing do you know that the U.N. has spent money on?
The telescope will (at least theoretically) be looking for other planets, not just intelligent life. Finding other (possibly human-habitable) planets is a good long term goal. It should make the paranoid (who think that earth will not survive mankind) happy.
It's also supposed to be useful to seek the faint radiation emitted 10-12 billion years ago when the first stars and galaxies formed after the big bang. That should make scientist happy.
But I bet the telescope was sold to the UN by the theory that "it will also allow astronomers to plot in detail the courses of asteroids and comets that threaten to collide with the Earth. Professor Peter Wilkinson, a senior astronomer at Jodrell Bank, Britain's renowned radio telescope centre, said that the SKA could enable humanity to protect itself from their impact." That should make the common man (not to mention the politicos) happy.
It's pretty common for universities to test products/software/policies that the government wants to issue. That's how they get those grants, you know. For example, my school was involved in determining the privacy implications of the Intelligent Transportion System.
The publishing restriction is quite common, as is the requirement that they be screened. The real issue is the middle restriction, that "Researchers may examine only those matters the government wants examined." This means that the government can basically say "look at this irrelevant stuff only, and tell us whether it works." The university would not be able to actually examine the product as a whole. That is a restriction that few researchers are willing to live with. It basically renders any opinion worthless. So, I'm with those researchers that are unwilling to do this. I don't think they're going to find a reputable university to do the review... of course, there are many third/fourth tier universities that will do backflips for the grant money.
I agree with many of the above comments that in fact those who reverse engineered the software are not in violation of any rights (except potentially patents, which we have not yet seen.)
HOWEVER, the Open Source community should act to encourage behavior that we like. We like the fact that these guys give away their hardware, so we can play with it. So, instead of inane childish heckling, we should try to work with them. If I were a company reading this material, I would certainly try to refuse selling anything to folks in the Open Source community, and certainly try to make all my $ in selling hardware. After all, according to these guys, I can't have any rights in my software. That is not behavior that we should encourage.
So, grow up, try to deal with the real world, and praise these guys for at least making their hardware available. Because otherwise, next time you want to pick up something at Radio Shack, they'll make you sign a license.
Yes, you too can contribute to the world, by preventing this patent from being issued. How? It's easy.
/rant on
All of you who think that this patent is obvious should stop your belly aching and act! It's easy. The patent has not yet issued. In the U.S. there is a rule (37 C.F.R. 1.56) which obliges a patentee to disclose ALL prior art of which he or she is aware. So, find some prior art, and mail it to the company. They will then be obliged to disclose this prior art to the Patent Office. If they fail to do so, the patent may be invalidated under Rule 56. How's that for an easy solution?
/rant off
Of course, it's nice if you can prove that you sent it, so registered mail is preferred.
Btw, if you actually look at the IBM patent site (www.patents.ibm.com) you will find old IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletins which disclose very similar things. Imagine that...
Actually, the U.S. Olympic committee, the national branch of the International Olympic Committee, which will be enforcing this on U.S. athletes, is not a govermental actor. (See San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. U.S.O.C., 483 U.S. 522 (1987)) Thus, the First Amendment does not apply to the U.S.O.C. (See an excellent article by
Prof. Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law School.
So, unfortunately we're stuck with the clap-trap the Olympic committee wants to feed us.
Personally, I'll boycott the
"official everything" of the Olympics, and watch for write-ups after the fact from either observers (because the audience are not restricted from writing) or the athletes after the fact.
Thalia
Publishing to prevent patents is not original. If you want to look into details, the term of art for this is "defensive publication."
If a company decides that something is a good idea, but not good enough to patent, they publish in a rather obscure journal. You can find copies of the journal in any patent library, at the PTO, and in most law school libraries.
Currently, according to IBM, the defensive publication of choice is:
Research Disclosure, published by Emsworth Design, Inc., 147 West 24th Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10011 (212) 366-4363 - Attention: Tony Drobinski.
The EC (and the U.S.) permit reverse engineering to access the non-protected portions of the data. In other words, merely having permission to reverse engineer does NOT give you permission to copy any code, or infringe any copyrights or trademarks. I expect that HackersQuest is still in trouble.
The EULA specifically permits using the CD software "solely in connection with playing the Game via an authorized and fully-paid Account." So, if you're using the CD to play on the emulator, you're in violation of clause 7 of the EULA.
And, HackerQuest is in violation of clause 9, which specifically states:
"You may not use our intellectual property rights contained in the Game or the Software to create or provide any other means through which the Game may be played by others, as through server emulators."
Thus, if HackerQuest used any of the original code (copyrighted), or any of the characters or names (trademarked) owned by Sony, they can be sued under this license, and are likely to be found in violation. Of course, they could also be in violation of the copyright, and I expect Sony registered the copyright. In that case, HackerQuest could be in the hole for $150,000 statutory damages for each instance of copying code. (See 17 USC Section 504, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/504.html, and note that the statutory damages have been increased recently http://www.pma-online.org/newsletr/apr9-00.html).
On the other hand, EverQuest hasn't been enforcing this license. For example, the license also says "You may not sell or auction any EverQuest characters, items, coin or copyrighted material." Of course, if you go to Ebay you'll find tons of EverQuest stuff for sale.
You're confusing apples and oranges, or rather patents and copyrights.
In patents, no one cares whether you ever saw the other invention, or whether you made a copy. The first person to invent a new thing can exclude all others (for 20 years from filing +/-) from making that thing. The fact that the second inventor never even heard of the first one is irrelevant.
In copyrights, on the other hand, provides protection to a new creative expression. Software has been held to be a creative expression. In copyright the burden of proof is on the copyright holder to prove that the alleged copier had access to the copyrighted material, and that there are substantial similarities between the original and the alleged copy. Then, the alleged copier can attempt to prove that he or she came up with the expression without copying.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this system is that it has to be put in locations with strong wave action. Generally, those are places where there is a lot of wild life, not to mention surfers. The picture doesn't exactly make it look attractive & I wouldn't want one in my back yard. I think the NIMBY (not in my backyard) folks will kill this, if the oil giants won't.
On the other hand, the potential of placing these types of turbines in the ocean not near the shoreline is very tempting. Creating an off-shore variant, especially one that is entirely under water, reduces the impact on the ecology, and the view.
The other alternative is to replace harbor walls or water-breaks with these generators. If you do that for commercial harbors, you will get the benefit, without the cost.
Overall, this is a great idea. Although it was originally invented in the 1970's, so it's an old idea. It's just been implemented for the first time.
Thalia
Well, the case was filed with an ITC administrative judge. That is NOT a real court. So, they can refile in a real court, and get a real judge. Sorry. IAL. Thalia
Although judge shopping is not considered acceptable, a litigant is allowed to drop a case. Furthermore, an ITC judge can not prevent Rambus from suing in a "real court." Remember that the ITC, International Trade Commission" was set up to investigate cases in which imports are alleged to damage materially domestic industry and to make recommendations to the President. They are not a "real court." Rambus can fairly decide that it wishes to bring the case in a U.S. Court, instead of within the ITC. In a real court, they control the discovery process, etc. In the ITC, the ITC advocate does most of the work, and the person who originally brought the ITC complaint is basically left out of the loop. I think the judge was just peeved that he didn't get to investigate the case. But he certainly can not dismiss this "administrative action" with prejudice, to prevent a barrier to Rambus refiling the case elsewhere. Thalia
Thalia
New Mexico had problems because their ballot includes a single punch which indicates that the person wishes to vote the "straight party ticket" for whichever party they select. This means that they do not wish to individually indicate their selections.
The problem develops when "voters chose to vote a straight party ticket, but also chose at least one candidate from another party, election officials said. "
In other words, if I select that I want to vote "straight Democratic Party ticket" and then also punch a vote for Bush for President, the machine would get confused. That was the problem.
In any case, I think we've had as much Election coverage as anyone can stomach... so, let's just wait it out.
Thalia
First, there is no such animal as a "North American Patent" there are Canadian patents, and there are U.S. patents, but there are no "North American patents."
Second, you can not get a patent for "a secret formulation", since in order to obtain the patent, the formulation must be disclosed.
Third, I did a search of the U.S. Patent Office and of the Canadian Patent Office, and found no patents issued to Jocelyne Piret.
So, the above data is obviously wrong. Hope you didn't get all riled up.
I do expect that there is a patent application pending for this. However, that is not necessarily a problem, if the patent is licensed, either for a nominal fee or free. So, don't get annoyed before you have all the facts.
Thalia
Well, actually, the Patent Office still will be sending you Office Actions in paper format. You will still be expected to respond to all of their paper with more paper. The only thing that has changed is that the initial filing may be electronic. But, I'm willing to bet you that the electronic filing is printed out & converted for paper for further processing.
If you've ever seen a file wrapper (or file history -- which includes all of the interactions between the Patent Office and the applicant/attorney) you'll see an immense number of papers back & forth. Because of the importance of having documentation (the Patent Office regularly loses files & asks you to send them your copy) I expect that most people will continue to have paper files. Sorry guys.
On the other hand, the electronic filing should considerably reduce the overhead for scanning. Right now, in addition to the paper copies, all documents that are sent to the PTO are scanned in (they spent an immense amount of money on OCR) by PTO personell, and placed in an electronic copy of the file. From now on, the applicant will be providing both the electronic and paper versions. Not much of a change.
Or, as they say, the king is dead, long live the king. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Thalia
The fact is, Roe v. Wade was upheld 5-4 in the last battle. So, if ONE Supreme Court justice is replaced by another yes-man like Clarence Thomas, abortion rights are history. If you look at the last major abortion opinion, Stenberg v. Carhart , you will find the following:
Five justices who voted to strike down the law restricting abortions: Breyer (delivered opinion), joined by Stephens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Souter. Notice that the two appointees of Clinton's, Breyer and Ginsburg, are solidly in the pro-choice camp.
Four justices voted to uphold the abortion restriction: Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. Every one of these justices was appointed by a Republican. And, of course, Mr. Thomas was appointed by Bush, Sr.
Now, Justice O'Connor is sick (she has ovarian cancer), and justice Stephens is getting quite aged. It is very likely that one of these two liberal/middle-of-the-road justices will retire in the next four years. On the other hand, all of the conservative justices are young & healthy. So, the fact is your vote will affect a woman's right to choose.
Hope that clears up the confusion,
Thalia
Does anyone even bother reading the article? This is to use open source to develop further molecular modelling software. Of course, such software would be useful for nanotech, but that's not the point. This type of technology already exists, see for example the Catalogue of Molecular Biology Programs, some of which are open source, like Garlic, and MMTK. The actual creation of nanotech can't be open sourced, since the requirement to create it can not be bought off the shelf. (Well, if you have a few million, you probably could buy it.) The primary prerequisite for open source research is that the materials are relatively cheaply and easily available to the general public. Thalia
I will just send out letters apologizing for (non-existent) spam, and telling them that it was a technical error... and, at the end of the letter, I will include the spam, just so they'll recognize it when they see it.
I see a new business model here! Can I patent it?
Thalia
The text of the draft Convention can be found on here. They do welcome comments, By releasing the latest draft of the treaty, the Council of Europe seeks to enhance the consultation process with interested parties, whether public or private. It particularly encourages business and civil society organisations to come forward and share their comments with the experts involved in the negotiations before the text eventually becomes final. Commentaries are welcome on : daj@coe.int So, instead of bitching here, Slashdot should create a communal comment, indicating the worries that we, as a community have. Thalia
The part that's confusing me about this CNN report is the blandly put statement that "Black holes are so dense they create gravity so strong that even light cannot escape their surface, making them nearly impossible to see. Kormendy said the black hole at the center of the galaxy is not pulling in other stars." So, how come it's not pulling in stars? Is there some other force out there? My understanding of black holes was that they sucked in everything... even stars. Of course, according to this other article on CNN, that could be because of the winds... anyway, it seems like a cool discovery. Thalia
If you can't be found, I can guarantee that the first place they'll go is to your ISP. Your ISP will then promptly either disclose who you are or shut you down. This is not a useful solution. You simply can't be public and be hidden. Don't even try.
The best solution is to ask posters not to post copyrighted material (I suggest to make it even more obvious, that your "submit" button actually includes a statement to the effect of "the material I am about to submit is my work, and is not copyrighted by anyone else." This should remove much of the onus. You can also set up a copyright/license/trade secret dispute resolution policy. The policy should be short and to the point. (Namely, that you as the site owner have the right to remove any post, arbitrarily. And that you will remove posts that violate anyone else's rights.)
The reality is that as a content carrier, you become liable only if you get a cease & desist from a lawyer. (a letter that basically says "stop it.") This letter should specifically identify the copyright, trade secret, or license being violated, and the specific post. At that point, you are obligated to take action (as the Netcom case demonstrated.)
So, how do you respond to a cease & desist?
First, you contact the original poster, and ask them about whether the complainer has a point. If the material was posted anonymously, just take it down, without asking the poster. If the poster responds, then you can have him/her and the copyright owner duke it out, and you can just duck. In most cases, the discussion is pretty short, because the copyright owner should show a registered copyright, and that should end the discussion.
Of course, you can always talk to a lawyer. And if the RTC comes after you, I suggest that you do.
Thalia
IAAL, but this is not legal advice. I don't even know what state you're living in...
The realistic, and easy, solution to this is for Annoy.com not to keep track of its users at all. After all, an ISP that is not aware of information can not be forced to reveal it. Then, when the cops show up, all the ISP has to say is "Sorry guys, we do not collect any information about our users. There is no way to find out who sent what piece of email." End of the story... The cops can then attempt to obtain a wire tap, to find out about future nasty-grams sent from the ISP, but that's more difficult, and usually has to go through a federal judge.
Thalia
I don't have an issue with targetted advertising, I just don't want to pay for it. If TiVo wanted to provide me with a free box that showed me targeted advertising, I would be willing to buy that. But for me to pay for something that is used for advertising seems a bit strange. Of course, people purchase clothing with advertising slogans all the time... very strange...
I am also curious whether they show more advertising to those who skip adverts. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.
As targeting becomes more precise, they can also attempt to make the advertising blend into the show for those folks who fast forward through all the ads.
In the long run, the reason we object to targetted advertising is because its sole goal is to waste more of your time watching stupid ads. This, for most of us, is not a useful way of spending time...
Thalia
If you read the document they're asking you to sign it will say something to the effect of:
"I have reviewed and understood the contents of this patent application, including the claim(s). I do not know and do not believe that the claimed invention was ever known or used in the United States of America before my invention thereof, or patented or described in any printed publication in any country before my invention thereof or more than one year prior to this application."
You are signing this under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which can punish false statements by fines/imprisonment. So, if you truly do not believe that it's an invention, then you should *not* sign. In fact, you must refuse to sign. However, you should have a good reason. Otherwise, your employer can take you to court to force you to comply with your employment agreement.
Also note that you have an obligation to disclose all references (articles, other patents, products, etc.) that you believe are relevant prior art to your invention. So, if you have a reason why you think the patent is too broad, and you know of prior inventions, then you should disclose that as well.
If you're only hesitating because you don't like patents, then you should sign... and if you really hate it, find a job that doesn't involve invention, or in which your employers agree with you about patents.
Thalia
P.S. The preceding is not legal advice. Follow at your own risk.
Don't knock the telescope. After all, what other useful thing do you know that the U.N. has spent money on?
The telescope will (at least theoretically) be looking for other planets, not just intelligent life. Finding other (possibly human-habitable) planets is a good long term goal. It should make the paranoid (who think that earth will not survive mankind) happy.
It's also supposed to be useful to seek the faint radiation emitted 10-12 billion years ago when the first stars and galaxies formed after the big bang. That should make scientist happy.
But I bet the telescope was sold to the UN by the theory that "it will also allow astronomers to plot in detail the courses of asteroids and comets that threaten to collide with the Earth. Professor Peter Wilkinson, a senior astronomer at Jodrell Bank, Britain's renowned radio telescope centre, said that the SKA could enable humanity to protect itself from their impact." That should make the common man (not to mention the politicos) happy.
So, everyone is happy...
Thalia
It's pretty common for universities to test products/software/policies that the government wants to issue. That's how they get those grants, you know. For example, my school was involved in determining the privacy implications of the Intelligent Transportion System.
The publishing restriction is quite common, as is the requirement that they be screened. The real issue is the middle restriction, that "Researchers may examine only those matters the government wants examined." This means that the government can basically say "look at this irrelevant stuff only, and tell us whether it works." The university would not be able to actually examine the product as a whole. That is a restriction that few researchers are willing to live with. It basically renders any opinion worthless. So, I'm with those researchers that are unwilling to do this. I don't think they're going to find a reputable university to do the review... of course, there are many third/fourth tier universities that will do backflips for the grant money.
Thalia
I agree with many of the above comments that in fact those who reverse engineered the software are not in violation of any rights (except potentially patents, which we have not yet seen.)
HOWEVER, the Open Source community should act to encourage behavior that we like. We like the fact that these guys give away their hardware, so we can play with it. So, instead of inane childish heckling, we should try to work with them. If I were a company reading this material, I would certainly try to refuse selling anything to folks in the Open Source community, and certainly try to make all my $ in selling hardware. After all, according to these guys, I can't have any rights in my software. That is not behavior that we should encourage.
So, grow up, try to deal with the real world, and praise these guys for at least making their hardware available. Because otherwise, next time you want to pick up something at Radio Shack, they'll make you sign a license.
Thalia
Yes, you too can contribute to the world, by preventing this patent from being issued. How? It's easy.
/rant on
All of you who think that this patent is obvious should stop your belly aching and act! It's easy. The patent has not yet issued. In the U.S. there is a rule (37 C.F.R. 1.56) which obliges a patentee to disclose ALL prior art of which he or she is aware. So, find some prior art, and mail it to the company. They will then be obliged to disclose this prior art to the Patent Office. If they fail to do so, the patent may be invalidated under Rule 56. How's that for an easy solution?
/rant off
Of course, it's nice if you can prove that you sent it, so registered mail is preferred.
Btw, if you actually look at the IBM patent site (www.patents.ibm.com) you will find old IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletins which disclose very similar things. Imagine that...
Thalia
Actually, the U.S. Olympic committee, the national branch of the International Olympic Committee, which will be enforcing this on U.S. athletes, is not a govermental actor. (See San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. U.S.O.C., 483 U.S. 522 (1987)) Thus, the First Amendment does not apply to the U.S.O.C. (See an excellent article by Prof. Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law School. So, unfortunately we're stuck with the clap-trap the Olympic committee wants to feed us. Personally, I'll boycott the "official everything" of the Olympics, and watch for write-ups after the fact from either observers (because the audience are not restricted from writing) or the athletes after the fact. Thalia
If a company decides that something is a good idea, but not good enough to patent, they publish in a rather obscure journal. You can find copies of the journal in any patent library, at the PTO, and in most law school libraries.
This was the purpose of the IBM Technical Bulletin.
Currently, according to IBM, the defensive publication of choice is:
Research Disclosure, published by Emsworth Design, Inc., 147 West 24th Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10011 (212) 366-4363 - Attention: Tony Drobinski.
Thalia
The EC (and the U.S.) permit reverse engineering to access the non-protected portions of the data. In other words, merely having permission to reverse engineer does NOT give you permission to copy any code, or infringe any copyrights or trademarks. I expect that HackersQuest is still in trouble.
Thalia
The EULA specifically permits using the CD software "solely in connection with playing the Game via an authorized and fully-paid Account." So, if you're using the CD to play on the emulator, you're in violation of clause 7 of the EULA.
And, HackerQuest is in violation of clause 9, which specifically states:
"You may not use our intellectual property rights contained in the Game or the Software to create or provide any other means through which the Game may be played by others, as through server emulators."
Thus, if HackerQuest used any of the original code (copyrighted), or any of the characters or names (trademarked) owned by Sony, they can be sued under this license, and are likely to be found in violation. Of course, they could also be in violation of the copyright, and I expect Sony registered the copyright. In that case, HackerQuest could be in the hole for $150,000 statutory damages for each instance of copying code. (See 17 USC Section 504, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/504.html, and note that the statutory damages have been increased recently http://www.pma-online.org/newsletr/apr9-00.html).
On the other hand, EverQuest hasn't been enforcing this license. For example, the license also says "You may not sell or auction any EverQuest characters, items, coin or copyrighted material." Of course, if you go to Ebay you'll find tons of EverQuest stuff for sale.
You're confusing apples and oranges, or rather patents and copyrights.
In patents, no one cares whether you ever saw the other invention, or whether you made a copy. The first person to invent a new thing can exclude all others (for 20 years from filing +/-) from making that thing. The fact that the second inventor never even heard of the first one is irrelevant.
In copyrights, on the other hand, provides protection to a new creative expression. Software has been held to be a creative expression. In copyright the burden of proof is on the copyright holder to prove that the alleged copier had access to the copyrighted material, and that there are substantial similarities between the original and the alleged copy. Then, the alleged copier can attempt to prove that he or she came up with the expression without copying.
Hope that clarifies it all.
Thalia