The music industry is not uncertain, it will most likely always be strong.
I get your point, although an uncertain future doesn't have to mean a non-existant one, but rather one with changed dynamics.
Also, as a minor nitpick to your nitpick, I wouldn't say that the "music industry" will necessarily be strong, but rather that the "music market" will be. The demand for music isn't going anywhere, but the economics might revert back to where they've been for most of history.
Perhaps most accurately, it is the music distribution industry that has the most uncertain future, not the market for music itself. This is the distinction that needs to be made over and over again in order to effectively counter the RIAA while still supporting the artists.
If they weren't stuck in multi-year contracts then maybe a bunch of rich artists would consider banding together, but who in their right mind would start a big label right now? Sure, they'll keep getting ripped off if they stay with the majors, but that's probably less risky then trying to start their own label in a market with an uncertain future.
On top of that, how many stories do you hear about artists either mismanaging their personal fortunes or getting screwed over by those who do? I'm sure that most of the few artists who still happen to have bundles of money are pretty spooked about taking any further risks and would prefer to just sit on what they have and maybe release a couple of "Best of Albums" while they still can.
Better to look to the next generation of self produced net savvy artists to go it alone or follow some kind of co-op arrangement with other independent bands. They've got nothing to lose, and won't mind making a fraction of what the traditional aspiring superstars expected to make. Expect the first one of these guys to make it really big (fame but maybe not fortune) to cause bigger ripples than Napster ever did.
Except, of course, that method and class names like "Main" must be capitalized in C# but not in Java. Perhaps educators simply miss this feature from past teaching languages like Pascal. Always good for wasting part of a lesson on, and perhaps for one or two sneaky "find the error" bonus questions.
I personally agree with your preference for a different business model, but that doesn't make the existing one wrong. Your statement that a photographer could offer a choice is the best alternative. Advocating the freedom to choose terms is always a better simply saying one model is wrong and one way or another would be better, such as "they should only ever charge for their time".
In this case, work for hire has drawbacks that need to be considered. Although people choose photographers based on reputation, paying them less upfront gives them additional comfort since there is even more incentive for the photographer to earn more money by producing quality prints. In many ways, this traditional payment model is precisely what makes them professional photographers rather than skilled tradespeople (whether they count as artists is actually beside the point). Many people would rather pay for good results than pay by the hour and potentially end up with crap. The prevalence of this model also serves to discourage fly-by-night operations.
It bothers me when flexible pricing terms are not available. For an economically justifiable price, I should be able to get any terms I want for any service or product. If suppliers are unreasonable or picky about their terms, then I should be able to use the free market to find someone else. Whether and to what degree this flexibility exists should be the true measurement of market health.
I love mine, though I don't use the extra pockets very often. In addition to being very comfortable, even the regular pockets are supported with extra stiching and mesh so you can put objects like cellphones and keys in them without them sticking out, looking bulky, or jiggling around too much.
I call them my "geek pants". If I was a kid still I'd probably call them "super agent pants" because of all the secret pockets.
For the Frank Herbert fans out there, perhaps the new ones could be called "no-pants" (okay, that's a stretch, they only block radiation, not prescience). How about "radioactive containment pants", "prophylactic pants" or "hypocondriac pants"?
Franklin Loufrani, who is credited with creating the original smiley...
Actually, as mentioned in a few of your links, the late Harvey Ball is widely credited as originally inventing the smiley in 1963 for a local insurance company, and his smiley face design became popular in the sixties and seventies. Sometimes they are even known as "Harvey balls". He was paid $45 dollars for his creation but was happy to see it so widely used for free. The story then takes on a ring familiar to slashdotters...
Loufrani was a french journalist who claims to have independently come up with the smiley in 1968 and proceeded to trademark it in over 80 countries and has made millions from licensing and litigation. In the US I believe that Loufrani's trademark is for Ball's happy face with the word "SMILEY" under it.
Ball was quite upset when he found out a few years ago that Loufrani was claiming credit for the design and was threatening companies like "Joe Boxer" with lawsuits. Rather than taking a chance in court to firmly place the smiley in the public domain, before he passed away last year he started World Smile Corporation, which holds its own trademark for a smiley face with his signature and donates all proceeds to charity.
Great theory, but wrong China. OpenFind was developed and is based out of Taiwan. Could be wrong, but I doubt that the mainland authorities would go to such lengths to help out a Taiwanese venture.
it's only 5 days since slashdot reported that the rumors of chinese blocking of google were false..
Maybe I'm feeding a troll, but it's only 2 days since CNN reported that AltaVista has now been blocked in a addition to Google. Also, it's actually been 5 days since most of the Slashdot readers in China disagreed with the anonymous poster who claimed the initial reports were false.
One way to do it is to alternate typing your letters with your left hand, and hitting the left-arrow key with your right hand.
So s-left-l-left-a-left-s-left-h-left-d-left-o-left-t becomes "todhsals". You can type backwards pretty quickly this way, but it's probably also a good way to get repetitive stress syndrome so I wouldn't really recommend it to any aspiring Leonardo da Vinci's.
I wonder how it works for Chinese since it's traditionally written from the bottom of the page, starting on the right hand side. Do they do even have this functionality on computers?
I dont know who they were, but this is what they said:
"I took a drive in a vehicle once, and we went 200mph on the desert in New Mexico... then I drove it and we went 200mph again. Then I looked inside the hood, and I saw something the size of a shoebox... I figured it must have been nuclear."
Sounds like the front trunk of a Lamborghini or possibly a Porsche. Both have models that can reach 200mph and both put their trunks under the hood, with just enough room for a shoebox. Sometimes crazy people and their spammer friends buy these to race around in New Mexico, usually after raising a bunch of money in a perpetual motion scam and starting a new life in the desert.
"The very essence of the technology to be demonstrated is the capability to keep the batteries "topped up" at all times with the "on board" device invented by Carl B. Tilley."
I bet this so-called device is an internal combustion engine. They said it didn't need "recharging" but they never said anything about refuelling.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong! Can't you read the story? It's very clear that the "on-board device" that is "the very essence of the technology" is a faulty wheel bearing that was strategically "invented" by Mr. Tilley the day before in his "laboratory". This device enables the car's batteries to remain "topped up" at all times, mostly while parked in the pits or his garage. The car is also able to travel for "hundreds of miles" without recharging, usually while being towed back to his home after the awesome power of his mighty "faulty wheel bearing" invention is demonstrated to potential investors. I for one, can't wait to see the patent...
...of the migrations, 24% were from Unix, but 31% were from Windows.
On first reading I was wondering what operating systems could possibly make up the missing 45%, but it's not 31% and 24% of the *migrations* but of the total new Linux servers:
"For those that have recently purchased new Linux servers, 31 percent were adding capacity, 31 percent were replacing Windows systems, 24 percent were replacing Unix and 14 percent were replacing other operating systems."
So as a percentage of migrations, nearly half are Linux replacing Windows (maybe over 50% replacing MS systems including DOS):
45% Windows to Linux 35% Unix to Linux 20% Other to Linux
People can not apply the phrase on a computer on the back of every tried and true business model and expect to get royalties or the ability to sue the bejesus out of people.
Oh yeah, well I'm going to claim:
"1. A method of commerce comprising:
creating a first trade channel for a predetermined good or service between a first entity and second entity, using, at least in part, an interconnected network of computers; and
eliminating, simultaneously or nearly simultaneously, a second trade channel for said predetermined good or service between said first entity and a third entity."
Oh wait, that's already been done in "Methods and Systems for Commerce" just one of the many business method patents that reference the auction patent, which appears to be one of the pioneers of just slapping "on a computer" or "over the internet" or "using an electronic database" onto an existing business model to come up with a patent. Look for these guys to start suing EVERYONE.
Most of the referencing patents were filed at the height of the dot com boom and are just being approved now, including ones from priceline and lendingtree. Expect to see a whole lot more of these lawsuits as troubled and bankrupt companies, and their creditors and investors, start preying on the dot com survivors and other established businesses with their newly approved patents.
This is how I read it as well. Most of the independent claims are pretty explicit in that they define the system as having to include client peripherals such as bar code scanners and/or digital cameras and/or printers etc.
Also, I think the guy tried too hard to use "patentese" to obfuscate the obviousness of his concept. I think he lost some of the meaning his the translation to "apparatus [of wordy double speak description]" when he was just describing an ordinary computer. Either that or maybe he was really trying to describe a system of proprietary terminals (like Bloomberg machines) in which case this probably shouldn't have such broad applicability.
Even if the patent covers the entire concept of online auctions as we know them, I wonder how practical it really is? eBay may provide the auction infrastructure but sellers and buyers are responsible for whether and how they scan pictures, enter text, and print copies. How is eBay expected to know and be responsible for whether a particular customer owns a printer or scanner?
On the other hand, eBay did want to buy this patent. Was this a precautionary action against frivolous lawsuits or did they intend to use it against competitors? They'll have a tough time convincing a court that it should be declared invalid if it can be convincingly argued that they were hoping to buy it to launch lawsuits of their own.
Also, have you noticed just how many "Greatest Hits" and "Best of..." albums are coming out? Even from relatively new groups and from artists have put out several in the last few years. I think most of the established artists know that the writing is on the wall and are probably looking to cash out while they can. Most of the motivation is probably monetary, and due to pressure from the labels, but I'm hoping that some of those artists are doing this to wrap up their existing contracts in anticipation of a new model to come.
For those complaining about Prince's spelling - it doesn't really matter. Not many people will actually read the words of his article, but the fact that he's made his general position clear is pretty important. He's still remembered as a big star by enough of the general public that adding his name to the growing list of disgruntled artists is a good thing. More importantly he's pretty well respected by artists across a range of genres, right down to and including today's disposable bubble gum popstars (who will probably be the first to rebel en masse, once they are dropped for the next big thing and/or they try to grow into their older more artistic wannabe phase).
Sure, Prince is coming out and saying this when he really has nothing to lose (in fact, he's probably counting on a new model for future revenue). But sooner or later rich and poor artists alike will need to wake up to the new reality.
CiteSeer is great but mostly links to articles published elsewhere. A better example (physics, math, computer science, and nonlinear systems) is lanl.arxiv.org (also at xxx.lanl.gov). Does anyone know a good history of this database and how these disciplines have seemed to escape from published journals as being the only available source for published articles?
Actually, from what I understand, electric vehicles were never really expected to succeed and each of the big automakers purposefully limited performance, features, and production numbers. Now before you lump me in with the big-oil-bush-presidency conspiracy theorists, let me tell you why this is actually a good thing.
Initially, EV development was influenced by government pressure and companies did try to market these vehicles to niche markets. However, once the car companies realized that battery technology was already mature and has already had years and years and billions of dollars thrown at development, they pretty well gave up on pure electric vehicles as the future of the automobile. However, they did not immediately give up on their EV programs (EV1, Th!nk, etc.). Apart from political reasons, why is this?
Well, the most promising technologies (hybrids, fuel cells) were still out on the horizon but shared many simularities with battery driven vehicles. EV technology was mature enough to be put on the road immediately so they could learn about the issues they would run into with these cars. However, if they offered a particularly attractive EV with lots of features then Joe Average might buy one and become very frustrated with the beta level technology, swear off ever buying any future hybrid or fuel cell car, and tell all his friends how much they suck. Instead, they limited the market to early adopters who wouldn't be turned off by the problems of bleeding edge technology. This is also why the first hybrids had such long waiting lists and were only offered in very basic, unsexy models. Again, they intentionally restricted supply for trial purposes and made sure that only real geeks would ever buy them.
Effectively, they used enthusiasts to fund the testing of their new technologies in real world conditions without risking widespread customer dissatisfaction and without the expense of designing normal creature comforts. Now, with real production model hybrids, the early programs have served their purpose and the limited functionality models have less catchet with enthusiasts, so the manufacturers are removing them from the road to avoid confusing the average consumer.
Coming soon to the CS department "Software engineering principles of version 2 and version 3 software.
Oh, that's easy. Version 2 will be bigger and slower than version 1, and version 3 will be bigger and slower than version 2.
...and don't forget, if they're proprietary products, Version 2 will be more expensive than Version 1, and Version 3 will be even more expensive and no longer compatible with version 1.
Umm... If this patent is so obvious, why hasn't anyone thought of it before?
You're confusing novelty and obviousness. According the USPTO definition it is very possible that no one has ever thought of an invention but that it would be obvious to someone skilled in the art and therefore unpatentable.
Yes, the specific steps taken to implement this technology are simple. But, why should that prevent getting a patent? Say I invent a new mousetrap, the basic compopnents (levers, springs) have been used elsewhere, but I combine them into a new & unique design. By your reasoning, I should not be eligible for a patent.
No, by my reasoning you should be eligible for a patent. My argument is that many software patents are granted to inventions that combine existing components into non-novel and/or non-obvious configurations, such as a standard software architecture or model. These should not be granted anything but possibly very narrow patents on the particular implementation.
But calling a patent obvious just because it uses obvious technologies in novel ways is very flawed reasoning.
I agree, but that was never my argument. For example, an obvious change to a communications technology is to replace a wireless system with a wired one. This might be a novel idea in that no one has ever done this, but it would be an obvious variation to any electrical engineer. Remember also that patent examiners only generally consider published prior art. Many obvious inventions are things that have been considered but have never been published in scientific literature or patent documents. For instance, when developing an application, a team will consider multiple possible architectures (wired vs. wireless, local client vs. remote server, etc.) but will proceed with and document only one or two variations. The other versions they throw out may have been obvious and no longer novel, but since they have not been published they are not considered prior art. However, an experienced examiner should be able to recognize that a novel (i.e., no prior art) invention, might merely be a variation of existing system that should have been obvious to one skilled in the art. For a variety of reasons, this doesn't seem to happen as often as it should.
If the EFF starts taking Verizon's money - or, even, if they just accept logistical assistance or cooperate in education or lobbying with Verizon, might the EFF be reluctant to raise a holler when Verizon tries something scummy?
Maybe, but that can happen to any organization at anytime. I think it just all depends on the individuals involved and their level of integrity. Also, organizations naturally tend to become less radical over time and almost by definition they become more mainstream as they become more successful, so yeah, it may be that the EFF will be less apt to rock the boat one day but I think that day's still a ways away.
In this case I think its important that not only are Verizon and the telcos on the same side as the EFF but that they're also giving due credit to them. Until recently, this whole debate has been pretty well off the radar screen for most people and considered to be on the fringe by others. The battle between large corporate players now gives the entire debate better visibility while the EFF gives their side some underdog/grassroots type credibility that should appeal to the public. I hope they can use this opportunity to raise their profile as a voice for consumers and society. The media certainly likes to put a David vs. Goliath spin on an issue and the EFF vs. Disney should fit the bill better than Verizon vs. Mickey Mouse.
You're right, in principle there should be no real distinction between what is obvious in software vs. non-software patents. The distinction that I've tried to make is only that *in practice* software generally uses fairly standard or derivative architectures that can (and are intended to be) applied to a wide variety of elements and processes. Also, that examiners actually appear to hold software patents to a lower standard by allowing essentially the exact same technology to be patented over and over again, just for different applications. It's like patenting the invention of a car and then someone else patenting the use your car on dirt roads and someone else patenting the use of your car on asphalt when your obvious intention was that a car could be used anywhere.
As long as a fairly typical architecture is used, even a very novel configuration of software elements should not generally be considered unobvious unless perhaps existing features are used in a particularly novel way and/or if the results achieved are quite unexpected. Even then, my biggest concern with software patents is that they seem to be unusually broad compared to non-software patents and are much closer to patenting ideas and applications than inventions and embodiments.
I do admit to having the benefit of hindsight - I certainly hadn't thought of this "idea" before - but hindsight only addresses novelty, not obviousness. If you had asked me (or better yet, someone with more experience in the art of database architecturing and e-mail) to come up with half a dozen ways of forwarding e-mail then I have no doubt I would have considered something close to their method in a matter of minutes. Their first claim covers what is clearly and obviously one of only a very finite number of ways you can do this using standard methods.
Another book that is more directly related to this behavior is Per Bak's "How Nature Works". Bak demonstrates how many systems in nature, including earthquakes, highway traffic, and evolution, are governed by very similar power laws and he proposes that these systems naturally evolve to a state of "self organized criticality" as is mentioned in the article.
A simplistic model that he uses to describe this principle is a conical pile of sand that is built up by dropping one particle at a time. The pile will build and build and then experience surface avalanches apparently set off by only a single piece of additional sand. The frequency and size of these also follow the same type of power law. Self organized criticality is really a updated version of catastrophe theory and theories involving constraints. I'm still not sure if Wolfram has really shed any new light on this area, but some of his work might be used to explore the fundamental cause behind this apparently common principle.
I believe that some of these ideas are already used quite practically. For instance, knowledge that traffic jams can be caused without any external cause (accidents etc.) can provide insight into whether changing speed limits or adding additional lanes can ease congestion (or worsen it). Models and simulations can be built and sometimes the answers are found to be contrary to common sense.
Yes, software patents are bad, but this one isn't as bad as the article makes it out to be.... it doesn't come anywhere near patenting traditional email forwarding.
I think this type of patent is actually much worse than the kind that might have allowed traditional email forwarding to be patented. This patent is very typical of what makes most software patents so bad. The vast majority of software patents that make it to the front page of slashdot seem to have the exact same "M.O." or recipe. Most seem to describe obvious examples of using a database to store information, relate information, and then perform an automated action based on the linked information.
None of the component actions are ever really innovative or are even claimed to be (forwarding e-mail for instance). Instead, these patents claim that by using a database to automate a common or obvious process they are proposing a new and innovative solution. Other bad patents simply claim that using networks or the internet with existing processes achieves the same goal.
I think the examiners wrongly treat these patents like non-software patents that combine two or more existing elements or technologies in a new way that produces unobvious results. The difference is that software patents whose main innovation is the use of a database (or a network) are not only comprised of existing and obvious elements but they are also being combined in an existing and very obvious way. Databases are specifically designed to store and relate information and to allow for automated actions to be performed. Pre-existing elements using a pre-existing architecture or application should not so easily be classified as either novel or unobvious.
Slashdot Mirror
The music industry is not uncertain, it will most likely always be strong.
I get your point, although an uncertain future doesn't have to mean a non-existant one, but rather one with changed dynamics.
Also, as a minor nitpick to your nitpick, I wouldn't say that the "music industry" will necessarily be strong, but rather that the "music market" will be. The demand for music isn't going anywhere, but the economics might revert back to where they've been for most of history.
Perhaps most accurately, it is the music distribution industry that has the most uncertain future, not the market for music itself. This is the distinction that needs to be made over and over again in order to effectively counter the RIAA while still supporting the artists.
If they weren't stuck in multi-year contracts then maybe a bunch of rich artists would consider banding together, but who in their right mind would start a big label right now? Sure, they'll keep getting ripped off if they stay with the majors, but that's probably less risky then trying to start their own label in a market with an uncertain future.
On top of that, how many stories do you hear about artists either mismanaging their personal fortunes or getting screwed over by those who do? I'm sure that most of the few artists who still happen to have bundles of money are pretty spooked about taking any further risks and would prefer to just sit on what they have and maybe release a couple of "Best of Albums" while they still can.
Better to look to the next generation of self produced net savvy artists to go it alone or follow some kind of co-op arrangement with other independent bands. They've got nothing to lose, and won't mind making a fraction of what the traditional aspiring superstars expected to make. Expect the first one of these guys to make it really big (fame but maybe not fortune) to cause bigger ripples than Napster ever did.
Is it just me or does this look alot like Java?
Except, of course, that method and class names like "Main" must be capitalized in C# but not in Java. Perhaps educators simply miss this feature from past teaching languages like Pascal. Always good for wasting part of a lesson on, and perhaps for one or two sneaky "find the error" bonus questions.
Give me an example of a known and mature application created in C#?
This is the only one I could find, although I think it's a port.
using System;
class Hello {
public static void Main() {
Console.WriteLine("Hello World");
}
}
I personally agree with your preference for a different business model, but that doesn't make the existing one wrong. Your statement that a photographer could offer a choice is the best alternative. Advocating the freedom to choose terms is always a better simply saying one model is wrong and one way or another would be better, such as "they should only ever charge for their time".
In this case, work for hire has drawbacks that need to be considered. Although people choose photographers based on reputation, paying them less upfront gives them additional comfort since there is even more incentive for the photographer to earn more money by producing quality prints. In many ways, this traditional payment model is precisely what makes them professional photographers rather than skilled tradespeople (whether they count as artists is actually beside the point). Many people would rather pay for good results than pay by the hour and potentially end up with crap. The prevalence of this model also serves to discourage fly-by-night operations.
It bothers me when flexible pricing terms are not available. For an economically justifiable price, I should be able to get any terms I want for any service or product. If suppliers are unreasonable or picky about their terms, then I should be able to use the free market to find someone else. Whether and to what degree this flexibility exists should be the true measurement of market health.
I love mine, though I don't use the extra pockets very often. In addition to being very comfortable, even the regular pockets are supported with extra stiching and mesh so you can put objects like cellphones and keys in them without them sticking out, looking bulky, or jiggling around too much.
I call them my "geek pants". If I was a kid still I'd probably call them "super agent pants" because of all the secret pockets.
For the Frank Herbert fans out there, perhaps the new ones could be called "no-pants" (okay, that's a stretch, they only block radiation, not prescience). How about "radioactive containment pants", "prophylactic pants" or "hypocondriac pants"?
Franklin Loufrani, who is credited with creating the original smiley...
Actually, as mentioned in a few of your links, the late Harvey Ball is widely credited as originally inventing the smiley in 1963 for a local insurance company, and his smiley face design became popular in the sixties and seventies. Sometimes they are even known as "Harvey balls". He was paid $45 dollars for his creation but was happy to see it so widely used for free. The story then takes on a ring familiar to slashdotters...
Loufrani was a french journalist who claims to have independently come up with the smiley in 1968 and proceeded to trademark it in over 80 countries and has made millions from licensing and litigation. In the US I believe that Loufrani's trademark is for Ball's happy face with the word "SMILEY" under it.
Ball was quite upset when he found out a few years ago that Loufrani was claiming credit for the design and was threatening companies like "Joe Boxer" with lawsuits. Rather than taking a chance in court to firmly place the smiley in the public domain, before he passed away last year he started World Smile Corporation, which holds its own trademark for a smiley face with his signature and donates all proceeds to charity.
After all, smiles just want to be free...
Great theory, but wrong China. OpenFind was developed and is based out of Taiwan. Could be wrong, but I doubt that the mainland authorities would go to such lengths to help out a Taiwanese venture.
it's only 5 days since slashdot reported that the rumors of chinese blocking of google were false..
Maybe I'm feeding a troll, but it's only 2 days since CNN reported that AltaVista has now been blocked in a addition to Google. Also, it's actually been 5 days since most of the Slashdot readers in China disagreed with the anonymous poster who claimed the initial reports were false.
One way to do it is to alternate typing your letters with your left hand, and hitting the left-arrow key with your right hand.
t becomes "todhsals". You can type backwards pretty quickly this way, but it's probably also a good way to get repetitive stress syndrome so I wouldn't really recommend it to any aspiring Leonardo da Vinci's.
So s-left-l-left-a-left-s-left-h-left-d-left-o-left-
I wonder how it works for Chinese since it's traditionally written from the bottom of the page, starting on the right hand side. Do they do even have this functionality on computers?
Actually...
It just got "dettodhsals"!
"The very essence of the technology to be demonstrated is the capability to keep the batteries "topped up" at all times with the "on board" device invented by Carl B. Tilley."
I bet this so-called device is an internal combustion engine. They said it didn't need "recharging" but they never said anything about refuelling.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong! Can't you read the story? It's very clear that the "on-board device" that is "the very essence of the technology" is a faulty wheel bearing that was strategically "invented" by Mr. Tilley the day before in his "laboratory". This device enables the car's batteries to remain "topped up" at all times, mostly while parked in the pits or his garage. The car is also able to travel for "hundreds of miles" without recharging, usually while being towed back to his home after the awesome power of his mighty "faulty wheel bearing" invention is demonstrated to potential investors. I for one, can't wait to see the patent...
...of the migrations, 24% were from Unix, but 31% were from Windows.
On first reading I was wondering what operating systems could possibly make up the missing 45%, but it's not 31% and 24% of the *migrations* but of the total new Linux servers:
"For those that have recently purchased new Linux servers, 31 percent were adding capacity, 31 percent were replacing Windows systems, 24 percent were replacing Unix and 14 percent were replacing other operating systems."
So as a percentage of migrations, nearly half are Linux replacing Windows (maybe over 50% replacing MS systems including DOS):
45% Windows to Linux
35% Unix to Linux
20% Other to Linux
Oh yeah, well I'm going to claim:
Oh wait, that's already been done in "Methods and Systems for Commerce" just one of the many business method patents that reference the auction patent, which appears to be one of the pioneers of just slapping "on a computer" or "over the internet" or "using an electronic database" onto an existing business model to come up with a patent. Look for these guys to start suing EVERYONE.
Most of the referencing patents were filed at the height of the dot com boom and are just being approved now, including ones from priceline and lendingtree. Expect to see a whole lot more of these lawsuits as troubled and bankrupt companies, and their creditors and investors, start preying on the dot com survivors and other established businesses with their newly approved patents.
This is how I read it as well. Most of the independent claims are pretty explicit in that they define the system as having to include client peripherals such as bar code scanners and/or digital cameras and/or printers etc.
Also, I think the guy tried too hard to use "patentese" to obfuscate the obviousness of his concept. I think he lost some of the meaning his the translation to "apparatus [of wordy double speak description]" when he was just describing an ordinary computer. Either that or maybe he was really trying to describe a system of proprietary terminals (like Bloomberg machines) in which case this probably shouldn't have such broad applicability.
Even if the patent covers the entire concept of online auctions as we know them, I wonder how practical it really is? eBay may provide the auction infrastructure but sellers and buyers are responsible for whether and how they scan pictures, enter text, and print copies. How is eBay expected to know and be responsible for whether a particular customer owns a printer or scanner?
On the other hand, eBay did want to buy this patent. Was this a precautionary action against frivolous lawsuits or did they intend to use it against competitors? They'll have a tough time convincing a court that it should be declared invalid if it can be convincingly argued that they were hoping to buy it to launch lawsuits of their own.
Also, have you noticed just how many "Greatest Hits" and "Best of..." albums are coming out? Even from relatively new groups and from artists have put out several in the last few years. I think most of the established artists know that the writing is on the wall and are probably looking to cash out while they can. Most of the motivation is probably monetary, and due to pressure from the labels, but I'm hoping that some of those artists are doing this to wrap up their existing contracts in anticipation of a new model to come.
For those complaining about Prince's spelling - it doesn't really matter. Not many people will actually read the words of his article, but the fact that he's made his general position clear is pretty important. He's still remembered as a big star by enough of the general public that adding his name to the growing list of disgruntled artists is a good thing. More importantly he's pretty well respected by artists across a range of genres, right down to and including today's disposable bubble gum popstars (who will probably be the first to rebel en masse, once they are dropped for the next big thing and/or they try to grow into their older more artistic wannabe phase).
Sure, Prince is coming out and saying this when he really has nothing to lose (in fact, he's probably counting on a new model for future revenue). But sooner or later rich and poor artists alike will need to wake up to the new reality.
CiteSeer is great but mostly links to articles published elsewhere. A better example (physics, math, computer science, and nonlinear systems) is lanl.arxiv.org (also at xxx.lanl.gov). Does anyone know a good history of this database and how these disciplines have seemed to escape from published journals as being the only available source for published articles?
Actually, from what I understand, electric vehicles were never really expected to succeed and each of the big automakers purposefully limited performance, features, and production numbers. Now before you lump me in with the big-oil-bush-presidency conspiracy theorists, let me tell you why this is actually a good thing.
Initially, EV development was influenced by government pressure and companies did try to market these vehicles to niche markets. However, once the car companies realized that battery technology was already mature and has already had years and years and billions of dollars thrown at development, they pretty well gave up on pure electric vehicles as the future of the automobile. However, they did not immediately give up on their EV programs (EV1, Th!nk, etc.). Apart from political reasons, why is this?
Well, the most promising technologies (hybrids, fuel cells) were still out on the horizon but shared many simularities with battery driven vehicles. EV technology was mature enough to be put on the road immediately so they could learn about the issues they would run into with these cars. However, if they offered a particularly attractive EV with lots of features then Joe Average might buy one and become very frustrated with the beta level technology, swear off ever buying any future hybrid or fuel cell car, and tell all his friends how much they suck. Instead, they limited the market to early adopters who wouldn't be turned off by the problems of bleeding edge technology. This is also why the first hybrids had such long waiting lists and were only offered in very basic, unsexy models. Again, they intentionally restricted supply for trial purposes and made sure that only real geeks would ever buy them.
Effectively, they used enthusiasts to fund the testing of their new technologies in real world conditions without risking widespread customer dissatisfaction and without the expense of designing normal creature comforts. Now, with real production model hybrids, the early programs have served their purpose and the limited functionality models have less catchet with enthusiasts, so the manufacturers are removing them from the road to avoid confusing the average consumer.
Umm... If this patent is so obvious, why hasn't anyone thought of it before?
You're confusing novelty and obviousness. According the USPTO definition it is very possible that no one has ever thought of an invention but that it would be obvious to someone skilled in the art and therefore unpatentable.
Yes, the specific steps taken to implement this technology are simple. But, why should that prevent getting a patent? Say I invent a new mousetrap, the basic compopnents (levers, springs) have been used elsewhere, but I combine them into a new & unique design. By your reasoning, I should not be eligible for a patent.
No, by my reasoning you should be eligible for a patent. My argument is that many software patents are granted to inventions that combine existing components into non-novel and/or non-obvious configurations, such as a standard software architecture or model. These should not be granted anything but possibly very narrow patents on the particular implementation.
But calling a patent obvious just because it uses obvious technologies in novel ways is very flawed reasoning.
I agree, but that was never my argument. For example, an obvious change to a communications technology is to replace a wireless system with a wired one. This might be a novel idea in that no one has ever done this, but it would be an obvious variation to any electrical engineer. Remember also that patent examiners only generally consider published prior art. Many obvious inventions are things that have been considered but have never been published in scientific literature or patent documents. For instance, when developing an application, a team will consider multiple possible architectures (wired vs. wireless, local client vs. remote server, etc.) but will proceed with and document only one or two variations. The other versions they throw out may have been obvious and no longer novel, but since they have not been published they are not considered prior art. However, an experienced examiner should be able to recognize that a novel (i.e., no prior art) invention, might merely be a variation of existing system that should have been obvious to one skilled in the art. For a variety of reasons, this doesn't seem to happen as often as it should.
If the EFF starts taking Verizon's money - or, even, if they just accept logistical assistance or cooperate in education or lobbying with Verizon, might the EFF be reluctant to raise a holler when Verizon tries something scummy?
Maybe, but that can happen to any organization at anytime. I think it just all depends on the individuals involved and their level of integrity. Also, organizations naturally tend to become less radical over time and almost by definition they become more mainstream as they become more successful, so yeah, it may be that the EFF will be less apt to rock the boat one day but I think that day's still a ways away.
In this case I think its important that not only are Verizon and the telcos on the same side as the EFF but that they're also giving due credit to them. Until recently, this whole debate has been pretty well off the radar screen for most people and considered to be on the fringe by others. The battle between large corporate players now gives the entire debate better visibility while the EFF gives their side some underdog/grassroots type credibility that should appeal to the public. I hope they can use this opportunity to raise their profile as a voice for consumers and society. The media certainly likes to put a David vs. Goliath spin on an issue and the EFF vs. Disney should fit the bill better than Verizon vs. Mickey Mouse.
You're right, in principle there should be no real distinction between what is obvious in software vs. non-software patents. The distinction that I've tried to make is only that *in practice* software generally uses fairly standard or derivative architectures that can (and are intended to be) applied to a wide variety of elements and processes. Also, that examiners actually appear to hold software patents to a lower standard by allowing essentially the exact same technology to be patented over and over again, just for different applications. It's like patenting the invention of a car and then someone else patenting the use your car on dirt roads and someone else patenting the use of your car on asphalt when your obvious intention was that a car could be used anywhere.
As long as a fairly typical architecture is used, even a very novel configuration of software elements should not generally be considered unobvious unless perhaps existing features are used in a particularly novel way and/or if the results achieved are quite unexpected. Even then, my biggest concern with software patents is that they seem to be unusually broad compared to non-software patents and are much closer to patenting ideas and applications than inventions and embodiments.
I do admit to having the benefit of hindsight - I certainly hadn't thought of this "idea" before - but hindsight only addresses novelty, not obviousness. If you had asked me (or better yet, someone with more experience in the art of database architecturing and e-mail) to come up with half a dozen ways of forwarding e-mail then I have no doubt I would have considered something close to their method in a matter of minutes. Their first claim covers what is clearly and obviously one of only a very finite number of ways you can do this using standard methods.
Another book that is more directly related to this behavior is Per Bak's "How Nature Works". Bak demonstrates how many systems in nature, including earthquakes, highway traffic, and evolution, are governed by very similar power laws and he proposes that these systems naturally evolve to a state of "self organized criticality" as is mentioned in the article.
A simplistic model that he uses to describe this principle is a conical pile of sand that is built up by dropping one particle at a time. The pile will build and build and then experience surface avalanches apparently set off by only a single piece of additional sand. The frequency and size of these also follow the same type of power law. Self organized criticality is really a updated version of catastrophe theory and theories involving constraints. I'm still not sure if Wolfram has really shed any new light on this area, but some of his work might be used to explore the fundamental cause behind this apparently common principle.
I believe that some of these ideas are already used quite practically. For instance, knowledge that traffic jams can be caused without any external cause (accidents etc.) can provide insight into whether changing speed limits or adding additional lanes can ease congestion (or worsen it). Models and simulations can be built and sometimes the answers are found to be contrary to common sense.
Yes, software patents are bad, but this one isn't as bad as the article makes it out to be .... it doesn't come anywhere near patenting traditional email forwarding.
I think this type of patent is actually much worse than the kind that might have allowed traditional email forwarding to be patented. This patent is very typical of what makes most software patents so bad. The vast majority of software patents that make it to the front page of slashdot seem to have the exact same "M.O." or recipe. Most seem to describe obvious examples of using a database to store information, relate information, and then perform an automated action based on the linked information.
None of the component actions are ever really innovative or are even claimed to be (forwarding e-mail for instance). Instead, these patents claim that by using a database to automate a common or obvious process they are proposing a new and innovative solution. Other bad patents simply claim that using networks or the internet with existing processes achieves the same goal.
I think the examiners wrongly treat these patents like non-software patents that combine two or more existing elements or technologies in a new way that produces unobvious results. The difference is that software patents whose main innovation is the use of a database (or a network) are not only comprised of existing and obvious elements but they are also being combined in an existing and very obvious way. Databases are specifically designed to store and relate information and to allow for automated actions to be performed. Pre-existing elements using a pre-existing architecture or application should not so easily be classified as either novel or unobvious.