Anytime I hear of a study being performed on "actual users," I know the product is behind the times. If there is no leader who is willing to put their cojones on the line and say what the interface should be, then there is no actual leadership, just engineering through committee. The android product is a perfect example of this: fine for most, imperfect for all.
There's no conspiracy behind closed doors. This isn't about Microsoft trying to stifle any free software initiative. The answer is much more simple: money. Get a couple of investors together, hire a few experienced patent attorneys, buy up some mid-1990s internet patents, and then start suing the world. For the trolls, it's all about return on investment, nothing more.
It will most certainly show up in the next court case. The simple sound bite makes Lee appear to be obstinate and unreasonable, something most judges don't like.
Do you really think 99% of people out there really care what happens with their data or their rights? Instagram's decline has nothing to do with the TOS or privacy policy. It service based on a fad. The fad is no longer cool. Instagram is over.
I bike back and forth to work when it isn't raining. But I feel that the only way to not get fat at a desk job is basically to skip every meal that your stomach can stomach. It's annoying.
Are you pleased with the current progress of adoption of FOSS software? There is no question that it is better than it was in the early 1990s, but over the past 5 years, we seem to been sliding back to a more closed-source non-free world. Facebook sets up a huge walled gardens with no visibility to the code inside. Android (probably the most popular linux distribution around) is "open source" but is certainly not free. The SDK is released under a BSD license, with no obligation to make changes public, so no one really knows what's running on their phone above the kernel layer.
But more fundamentally, it seems that we are sliding back into a crazed money-making internet culture that is less about experimentation, excellent engineering, and sharing, and more about selling out to the first venture capitalist that comes your way.
If all the communication is encrypted using SSL, which not only encrypts but authenticates all data, I don't see how a poisoned javascript file can get passed to the client.
I assume you are referring to the Patent Number 6,081,835. It was issued in 2000, but it was filed in March 1997. Further, it claims priority to an April 1996 English patent. Therefore, to invalidate it, Google/AOL will have to find something prior to April 1995, one year before the priority date. I'm sure the patent is bogus, but it isn't too easy to beat.
Moral of the Story: Never hire a Harvard law professor as a defense attorney. They are more interested in making precedent and a name for themselves than protecting the interests of their client.
Patents are not monopolies. If you patent light bulbs and then I patent halogen light bulbs, neither of us can make halogen light bulbs without the other's permission. Patents do not give you a right to do anything, they only give you the right to stop others from doing something.
Re:interestingly lawyers do this anyway
on
Hacking the Law
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The terms "and," "or," "may," and "shall" are relatively straightforward and do not receive much attention from lawyers. Terms like "reasonable," "harm," "intentional," and "negligent" tend to suck up much more of their time.
You think that free system could actually exist without regulation? Who would hold the auction? How would you make it fair? How would you enforce that "anybody" had access? How would you stop people from misrepresenting the deal? These are the types of things the SEC is doing and should be doing more.
Is Intellectual Property Good or Bad? Lots of people on this thread seem to come down pretty hard on one side or another (mostly the latter). But I think when pressed most would agree that sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad. For a good introduction on fleshing out the good and the bad of intellectual property, I highly recommend Fisher's "Theories of Intellectual Property," available for free online here: http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/tfisher/iptheory.html
It goes through the justifications for intellectual property and can help you think clearly about when it is bad. It can help you justify the feeling that most people have that a patent troll is "bad" but a lone inventor that patents his invention is "good." Even if you don't think the lone inventor should get the patent, I think the article can help you explain why.
Copyright did not come into existence "to replace the old system of patronage of the arts." It was originally intended so that printers could hold onto their monopoly. Learn your history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
Something like that already exists (maybe not with all the bells and whistles).
Take a look at http://www.articleonepartners.com/
However, in this space, hiring a few real experts in the field is often more effective than crowd-sourcing a thousand laymen.
If banks are releasing confidential information to the press, imagine the confidential information they're releasing to their buddies and other insiders. Bankers are corrupt and insider trading is rampant. Another reason Wall Street needs more regulation rather than less.
Ha... defense contractors probably write more custom software than google, apple, and microsoft combined. You just don't see any of it, until of course you see it go bang on the late night news.
Slashdot Mirror
Anytime I hear of a study being performed on "actual users," I know the product is behind the times. If there is no leader who is willing to put their cojones on the line and say what the interface should be, then there is no actual leadership, just engineering through committee. The android product is a perfect example of this: fine for most, imperfect for all.
There's no conspiracy behind closed doors. This isn't about Microsoft trying to stifle any free software initiative. The answer is much more simple: money. Get a couple of investors together, hire a few experienced patent attorneys, buy up some mid-1990s internet patents, and then start suing the world. For the trolls, it's all about return on investment, nothing more.
It will most certainly show up in the next court case. The simple sound bite makes Lee appear to be obstinate and unreasonable, something most judges don't like.
Do you really think 99% of people out there really care what happens with their data or their rights? Instagram's decline has nothing to do with the TOS or privacy policy. It service based on a fad. The fad is no longer cool. Instagram is over.
I bike back and forth to work when it isn't raining. But I feel that the only way to not get fat at a desk job is basically to skip every meal that your stomach can stomach. It's annoying.
You can view the Complaint and all of the exhibits here:
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/International_Trade_Commission/337-2926/Certain_Wireless_Communication_Equipment_and_Articles_Therein/499826/1/
Disclosure: this is my site.
App Engine itself is closed! It's telling that google isn't involved much with any open cloud initiatives.
Are you pleased with the current progress of adoption of FOSS software? There is no question that it is better than it was in the early 1990s, but over the past 5 years, we seem to been sliding back to a more closed-source non-free world. Facebook sets up a huge walled gardens with no visibility to the code inside. Android (probably the most popular linux distribution around) is "open source" but is certainly not free. The SDK is released under a BSD license, with no obligation to make changes public, so no one really knows what's running on their phone above the kernel layer.
But more fundamentally, it seems that we are sliding back into a crazed money-making internet culture that is less about experimentation, excellent engineering, and sharing, and more about selling out to the first venture capitalist that comes your way.
If all the communication is encrypted using SSL, which not only encrypts but authenticates all data, I don't see how a poisoned javascript file can get passed to the client.
I assume you are referring to the Patent Number 6,081,835. It was issued in 2000, but it was filed in March 1997. Further, it claims priority to an April 1996 English patent. Therefore, to invalidate it, Google/AOL will have to find something prior to April 1995, one year before the priority date. I'm sure the patent is bogus, but it isn't too easy to beat.
Reading Mueller is like watching Fox News, definitely love to hate it.
Moral of the Story: Never hire a Harvard law professor as a defense attorney. They are more interested in making precedent and a name for themselves than protecting the interests of their client.
Patents are not monopolies. If you patent light bulbs and then I patent halogen light bulbs, neither of us can make halogen light bulbs without the other's permission. Patents do not give you a right to do anything, they only give you the right to stop others from doing something.
The terms "and," "or," "may," and "shall" are relatively straightforward and do not receive much attention from lawyers. Terms like "reasonable," "harm," "intentional," and "negligent" tend to suck up much more of their time.
Ahh, slashdot, the bastion of well-reasoned legal advice.
You think that free system could actually exist without regulation? Who would hold the auction? How would you make it fair? How would you enforce that "anybody" had access? How would you stop people from misrepresenting the deal? These are the types of things the SEC is doing and should be doing more.
Is Intellectual Property Good or Bad? Lots of people on this thread seem to come down pretty hard on one side or another (mostly the latter). But I think when pressed most would agree that sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad. For a good introduction on fleshing out the good and the bad of intellectual property, I highly recommend Fisher's "Theories of Intellectual Property," available for free online here: http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/tfisher/iptheory.html
It goes through the justifications for intellectual property and can help you think clearly about when it is bad. It can help you justify the feeling that most people have that a patent troll is "bad" but a lone inventor that patents his invention is "good." Even if you don't think the lone inventor should get the patent, I think the article can help you explain why.
Copyright did not come into existence "to replace the old system of patronage of the arts." It was originally intended so that printers could hold onto their monopoly. Learn your history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
Where have you seen that claim? Code that's freely available over the net can definitely be prior art.
Something like that already exists (maybe not with all the bells and whistles). Take a look at http://www.articleonepartners.com/ However, in this space, hiring a few real experts in the field is often more effective than crowd-sourcing a thousand laymen.
And donating $99 gets you a really cool hat!
If banks are releasing confidential information to the press, imagine the confidential information they're releasing to their buddies and other insiders. Bankers are corrupt and insider trading is rampant. Another reason Wall Street needs more regulation rather than less.
GPL does nothing to stop third-parties from asserting patents. The outcome would not have changed if Google GPLed android.
Ha... defense contractors probably write more custom software than google, apple, and microsoft combined. You just don't see any of it, until of course you see it go bang on the late night news.
Better yet... one-corporation-one-million votes!!!!