Apparently you can play AAC/mp4 files in other players, namely Quicktime player. If you change the extension of the Itunes file from.m4a to.mp4 it will play fine in Quicktime player. Although I have not tried it, I would be surprised if you could not then transcode the.mp4 file to mp3 or WMA with DBpoweramp or similar and upload to minidisc, mp3 player, etc.
Can anyone concur?
Thanks to another Slashdot poster for this discovery.
Established that equality includes such things as sexual orientation, so I would be surprised if the same protection did not extend to genetic disposition.
Now, many disagree with the Vriend Decision, but the Supreme Court simply interpreted s.15 (section 15, equality rights) in the broadest sense. It is hard to say that we are all equal when one can discriminate because of sexual orientation, that is, how can you deny housing or employment to homosexuals based solely on that criteria when the same behaviour with respect to age, sex or race is unconstitional. Similarly, we have freedom of speech, yet the Charter does not define what content is protected and what is not.
Already in Canada courts have interpreted our rights regarding genetic testing based on the Vriend decision. I believe CN Rail was ruled against when they attempted to discriminate against an employee based on a genetic test. I cannot recall the specific case.
The film is showing in three Imax theatres in three cities in all of Canada -- Halifax, Winnipeg and London (couple hours west of Toronto). What gives? Famous Players has spent millions placing Imax theatres in just about every Silver City/Metropolis multiplex they've built. Cities like Vancouver and Calgary have more than one Imax theatre, Vancouver alone has four or five of them. So much so that it is common place to see a feature film in an Imax theatre. I recently watched Underworld in an Imax theatre and there are benefits, larger and closer to the screen, generally beefier sound, food is permitted, etc. The movie is projected on the Imax screen with the aspect ratio intact, the film is simply projected on the larger screen in the same width and height.
It is quite common for popular movies to spill over to the Imax theatre when the demand seems to justify it as the most common theatre company here in Canada, Famous Players, has built Imax theatres in most of their multiplex theatre locations. I have seen quite a few movies on an Imax screen because of this policy. I find it bizarre that the film would not be seen on more of these Imax screens initially in more populated cities like Vancouver or Toronto than Winnipeg and Halifax. The Imax web site does point out that more Imax locations will follow the initial release so I look forward to it here in Calgary on Imax eventually.
I saw the "Making Of..." special on TV and that was enough for me.
I assume that Newline wanted to keep the length down to allow more screenings per day. More screenings = more revenue. This is a bonus for theatres as well since they will sell more concessions for each screening.
Would have helped if I actually saw the bonus materials, never bothered, I was too hyped to watch the extended versions to care.
I would buy the extended versions in a heartbeat, but I am waiting until all the extended versions will be available as a set, which I assume is a given.
If you're in for a penny you're in for pound, as the saying goes. What difference is 20-30 minutes going to make on a 3 hour movie? Are people simply going to walk out at exactly 3 hours?
The extra footage added to Fellowship really fleshed out the story and brought it closer to the book.
Liquor regulations in BC were recently amended to permit 4 AM closings from 2 AM, with municipal permission.
Vancouver city council has permitted bars along Granville street to remain open to 4 AM and bar owners are very happy about increased revenue. At the same time they want to be seen as good neighbours and reduce crime related to the later closings. So it is part PR move and part reality check.
I moved to Calgary two years ago now and am quite used to a similar procedure that has been in place at the busier bars such as Cowboys, which can be quite rowdy at times. Not all bars use the license scanning system, but many do, and I have yet to see a pub or lounge that does. A friend of mine had a few too many, caused a disturbance and was barred from Coyote's for a time thanks to the system. Frankly, he deserved it and the system worked. I would assume that the same would apply in Vancouver, the rowdier bars will implement the system while pubs and lounges will not.
Apparently they have metal detectors in some bars in Winnipeg, but none of the bars I visited on my trip had them. Again, probably those places that experience trouble from rowdy guests use them. I have never seen metal detectors in any bar in Canada that I have been to.
I believe at one time USPTO required working models but this requirement was eliminated many years ago; the USPTO rarely makes this request now. The various European patent offices must have similar rules.
Some may argue that requiring a working model will discourage smaller inventors from patenting their ideas. If the requirements were flexible enough to permit a working model to be supplied to the patent office within the patent application time frame of several years then I think that problem would be overcome.
I realize that requiring model models for some patents may seem cumbersome for the patent office, but honestly, I can't think of any other way to weed out patents for such intangibles as one-click purchasing and the like.
"Neil MacCORMICK (Greens/EFA, Scotland) warned against possible "leakage" from genuine protection of computer implemented inventions to companies being able to patent computer software. He stated that the present system, where genuine inventions are patentable and software is protected by copyright worked well. The responsibility, he underlined, lay with the Commission to find a balance between over and under protection for inventions."
This is exactly the problem with the directive to begin with. What exactly is the point of "legalizing software patents" if software itself cannot be patented?
I am not asking for software to be patentable, far from it, but I fail to see the need for this entire exercise if the end result will be patent rules that are substantially similar to the current rules with more complicated language.
It is good to see that at least one MEP understands that no matter how persuasive the language, patent applicants will attempt to find ways to patent the supposedly unpatentable. "Systems" and "processes" in a patent will cover such obvious ideas as one click purchasing and on-line auctions. If anything, this entire directive has done nothing but muddy the waters about what is and what is not patentable, something patent inspectors and the public do not want or need.
Will Canada allow shipping through the North-West Passage? I do not believe that the area now covered in sea ice could be considered International Waters. Maybe someone could clarify.
Would Canada want shipping traffic traversing what is becoming one of the last great wilderness areas of the world? The area is already under pressure with mining, oil and gas and loss of habitat.
Is it really economically viable to send goods by ship that can otherwise be sent by rail to Eastern sea ports? Obviously oil from northern sources could potentially be shipped to Europe; do they even ship crude oil from North America to be processed elsewhere? I suppose the greatest benefit would be to ships transporting goods from Europe to Asia and vice versa.
I can offer some opinions on why broadband in Canada is so highly adopted:
- Cable and DSL providers have fought for market share throughout Canada, mainly by leapfrogging the other into markets the other had not. I am consistently surprised at the DSL availibilty here in Alberta, a province with a population density similar to Montana or North Dakota. Dial up simply does not exist anymore with price plans for basic broadband starting from US$15/month (C$25/month) for either cable or DSL. I can have cable broadband installed in seven days or DSL installed in three. Those are actual install windows, not theoretical.
- Regulatory environment that seems to have fostered both competion and wide adoption of broadband services. We have partly deregulated local service, deregulated long distance service and a regulatory equivalent to the FCC (CRTC) that seems genuinely interested in growing broadband services into remote markets.
- The reliance on telecommunications that has become a social phenomenon. I can't remember the last time I used dial up service, it was literally two years ago. EVERYONE has high speed, it's just assumed (and Kazaa). Maybe we have nothing better to do in the colder months than surf the Net for porn and legal MP3s.
- Even with competition the markets in Canada are no where near as fragmented as the US. We really have four or five companies that have divided their territories into Western Canada and Eastern Canada. You will find a major DSL or cable provider in either Western (Telus for DSL, Shaw for Cable) or Eastern Canada (Bell for DSL, Rogers for Cable) but not both. Our geography and population simply cannot support more players, it's just not feasible. Consequently, you have four or five business plans and not fifty or one hundred.
Audio Cassettes (40 minutes or more in length): 29 cents CD-R or CD-RW: 21 cents CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc: 77 cents
So the actual levy on CD-R/RW is 21 cents, not 77 cents.
I believe the Copyright Board is considering a proposed increase in the levy on CD-R/RW to 59 cents per CD and applying the levy to hard drives, blank DVDs and memory cards. No decision has been made and I honestly believe the Copyright board will back down from the proposed levy on hard drives and other computer related media since industry outcry has been substantial. The obvious benefit to the levy is I can legally borrow and make a copy of a friend's CD for my own personal use and know that I am not committing a crime.
Many people in Canada are also not aware that you can apply for an exemption from the levy if your primary use of the levied media falls under certain categories. So companies such as the one I work for have an exemption from the levy since we only use blank CDs for in-house software.
I understand fully that software on its own cannot be patented. What you do not understand is that software as part of a system or process can be patented.
In my case I gave a real world example, a computer controlled saw in a mill. The saw and associated components including the software AS ONE UNIT can be patented. My point in singling out the patent of LZW compression is that there is no accompanying system, so I am at a loss to understand how and why this patent was granted.
"The difficulty with software is that programs generally centre around the use of mathematics and algorithms. It is clear that a software-related invention must do more than merely perform a calculation and must be more than an algorithm embodied in software. Otherwise, it will fall into the category of a "mere scientific principle or abstract theorem" and therefore be unpatentable..
The test for determining whether a software related invention is patentable was set out in Schlumberger Canada Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents (1981), 56 C.P.R.(2d) 204 (F.C.A.). The test considers, what (if anything), according to the application, has been discovered. The court held that if the invention was merely the discovery that by making certain calculations according to certain formulae, useful information could be extracted from certain measurements, then the application should be refused on the basis that it lacked patentable subject matter under section 2 of the Patent Act. Essentially, the court suggested that if the program interacted with physical objects other than the computer in a novel, useful and inventive way, the invention was patentable. In response to Schlumberger and related decisions, the Patent Office developed new guidelines, used by the Patent Office Examiners to assess the patentability of computer related subject matter. The guidelines are as follows:
1.Computer programs per se are not patentable; 2.Processes which are unapplied mathematical calculations, even if expressed in words rather than in mathematical symbols, are not patentable; 3.A process and/or computer program which merely produces information for mental interpretation by a human being is not patentable, nor does the process or program confer novelty upon the apparatus which uses it; 4.Claims drawn up in terms of means plus function which merely produce intellectual data are not patentable; 5.New and useful processes incorporating a computer program, and apparatus incorporating a programmed computer, are directed to patentable subject matter if the computer related matter has been integrated with another practical system that falls within an area which is traditionally patentable; and 6.The presence of a programmed general purpose computer or a program for such a computer does not lend patentability to, nor subtract patentability from, an apparatus or process."
Thus, if a computer program is used to interact with a system or as part of a process, ie. electronically controlled sawmill machinery, then the software could be patented. Which raises the question on how the LZW algorithm was granted a patent in Canada (patent 1223965) as it clearly is nothing more than an algorithm.
Yes, redudant but I want to to re-inforce what is being said here, these are not diamonds of industrial quality these are full sized manufactured gem quality diamonds. If you had read the article you would have seen a table full of the things, specifically replicas of rare yellow diamonds that were indistguishable from the real thing when assessed by a diamond expert (he was not amused).
The article went on to point out the potential for diamond based circuits, specifically the ability to resist heat, and the possible advance in computer speed this would permit.
Anyone who is anyone is familiar with DeBeers and diamonds, they control most of the market and have managed to fend off the influx of diamonds from Canada, Russia and other countries. Manufactured diamonds would reduce or eliminate the monopoly on diamond distribution that DeBeers uses to create an artifical shortage of diamond supplies to keep prices high.
Forgetting for a second that this is the Sun, one of the bastions of journalistic integrity (sic), let's assume the proposal is legitimate.
First, the monitoring of citizens fundamentally alters the ethos of government, specifically democratic government, since it shifts the base of power away from citizens and places it firmly with the government.
Second, strict enforcement of traffic laws, without consideraton for circumstance, is not justice.
That is the question that springs to my mind regarding licence agreements.
What if your toaster contained a EULA that modified the warranty terms from state law, or you had no warranty, or that any liability on the part of the manufacturer was null and void, or that you could not disclose any critisisms of the toaster's operation to others?
Does contract law supercede state or federal law? If so, what are the circumstances? What constitutes an enforcable contract? Can you ignore the terms of a license agreement? Courts need to address these issues before the entanglement of technology and society can move forward.
I have heard in Canada you cannot sign away your statutory rights, they are after all, the law. I recall one particular case involving a local ski hill that claimed the liability waiver you sign before skiing absolved them of whatever liability they may incur. The judge disagreed noting that courts are the arbiters of the law, not the ski hill, and that liability was laid out by statute and could not be removed by signing a waiver.
From my searching on the web for trade secret law, I have found several nuggets of information:
- Trade secret law is generally State enforced, there is a Federal component, but the States by and large enforce trade secrets.
- Reverse engineering is considered a complete defense, that is, if the trade secret was discovered through the author's own efforts then the disclosure of said trade secret disolves the trade secret protection and cannot be considered actionable.
I did not read the court decision, but I am pretty sure from the history of the DeCSS controversy that whatever trade secret protection for DeCSS that existed was extinguished by the discovery and publishing of the DeCSS keys from the unencrypted Xing implementation. Thus, the reverse engineered discovery was entirely legal and entirely disolved whatever trade secret protection existed. I don't see how this could be considered trade secret any longer, given the method of discovery and widespread nature of the information.
If something struck Mars and some material was ejected into space the probability of that material hitting Earth is incredibly small. It does happen as evidenced by the small amounts of Mars rock we have found in Antarctica.
I would not need to calculate the probability given the enormous odds AGAINST such an event occuring. Consider the variables:
- The distance from Earth to Mars. Mars is at perihelion (closest distance to the sun in its orbit) and Earth is at aphelion (farthest distance from sun in its orbit). The distance is still 54 million KM! MILLIONS of Km away!
- The size of whatever material ejected from Mars. Even if some material were ejected, it would most likely be very small and as such either fall back to Mars or enter temporary orbit around the planet. The size of the object that would be required to produce such an event would already be visible to astronomers. Remember comet Shoemaker-Levy? We knews several weeks in advance that the comet was going to strike Jupiter.
These are the first things that popped into my head. You have to realize the incredible distances involved. Even though Mars and Earth are at their closest approaches in 50,000 years, it still amounts to peanuts, astronomically. It would be like saying that you and I are at our closest approach when I drove to work this morning and you were in New York and I was in Los Angeles.
I remember the first versions of IE were pretty terrible compared to Netscape. Then, around version 4.0, it began to make inroads and become a worthy competitor. By version 5.5 Netscape was feeling the pain and IE had become the standard browser.
I imagine the same roadmap for a Microsoft search engine. Intially it will probably suck, but it will have to improve if it is going to overcome Google. Spurred on by the default settings in IE it will probably gain some market share. Microsoft has a huge hurdle to overcome and unless their search engine is USEFUL and actually provides useful search results, no one is going to use it, default or not.
I have real doubts that Microsoft can pull this off. Google has such predominant word of mouth that the word "google" is synonomous with web search.
If Microsoft wants to compete and beat Google then the results of a search will have to be relevant. If they are not, then people will continue to use Google.
Would you continue to use a particular phone book if it failed to supply you with accurate or consistent phone numbers? Of course not and you would tell your friends the same thing. Word of mouth is still the most powerful force the Internet has and if the Microsoft search engine supplies searches with "sponsored" links or sub-quality links that do fuck all for your search then that is going to get around.
Nearly two years ago the Canadian cell companies got together and created a text message centre to allow interoperation of their text messaging services. Now, I can message a Telus, Fido or Rogers customer from anyone of the competing services.
The Wi-Fi move is just another logical step. We have three competing national companies in a market that really only seems able to support two profitably. This is a reality of a country with a small population covering a large geographic area.
"Mr Aldonis' comments came despite the US raising concerns about parallel importation legislation in its 2003 Foreign Trade Barriers report. Parallel importation permits the importation of a product by a person other than the local authorised distributor.
The US Trade Representative warned parallel importation had led to increasing piracy of DVDs and VCDs."
The US maintains that importing identical commerical copies of music or video from another country is equivalent to piracy? What balderdash.
To put this is perspective, if a company in China found a better deal on wheat in the Ukraine than what their "authorised distrubutor" of American wheat in China could offer them, then that company engaged in wheat piracy?
I am of the mistaken belief that free trade was meant to foster GLOBAL trade, not regional cartels.
Authorised Distributor is now another term for MONOPOLY. What a hypocrital nation the US has become.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently you can play AAC/mp4 files in other players, namely Quicktime player. If you change the extension of the Itunes file from .m4a to .mp4 it will play fine in Quicktime player. Although I have not tried it, I would be surprised if you could not then transcode the .mp4 file to mp3 or WMA with DBpoweramp or similar and upload to minidisc, mp3 player, etc.
Can anyone concur?
Thanks to another Slashdot poster for this discovery.
Established that equality includes such things as sexual orientation, so I would be surprised if the same protection did not extend to genetic disposition.
Now, many disagree with the Vriend Decision, but the Supreme Court simply interpreted s.15 (section 15, equality rights) in the broadest sense. It is hard to say that we are all equal when one can discriminate because of sexual orientation, that is, how can you deny housing or employment to homosexuals based solely on that criteria when the same behaviour with respect to age, sex or race is unconstitional. Similarly, we have freedom of speech, yet the Charter does not define what content is protected and what is not.
Already in Canada courts have interpreted our rights regarding genetic testing based on the Vriend decision. I believe CN Rail was ruled against when they attempted to discriminate against an employee based on a genetic test. I cannot recall the specific case.
The film is showing in three Imax theatres in three cities in all of Canada -- Halifax, Winnipeg and London (couple hours west of Toronto). What gives? Famous Players has spent millions placing Imax theatres in just about every Silver City/Metropolis multiplex they've built. Cities like Vancouver and Calgary have more than one Imax theatre, Vancouver alone has four or five of them. So much so that it is common place to see a feature film in an Imax theatre. I recently watched Underworld in an Imax theatre and there are benefits, larger and closer to the screen, generally beefier sound, food is permitted, etc. The movie is projected on the Imax screen with the aspect ratio intact, the film is simply projected on the larger screen in the same width and height.
It is quite common for popular movies to spill over to the Imax theatre when the demand seems to justify it as the most common theatre company here in Canada, Famous Players, has built Imax theatres in most of their multiplex theatre locations. I have seen quite a few movies on an Imax screen because of this policy. I find it bizarre that the film would not be seen on more of these Imax screens initially in more populated cities like Vancouver or Toronto than Winnipeg and Halifax. The Imax web site does point out that more Imax locations will follow the initial release so I look forward to it here in Calgary on Imax eventually.
I completely missed that.
I saw the "Making Of..." special on TV and that was enough for me.
I assume that Newline wanted to keep the length down to allow more screenings per day. More screenings = more revenue. This is a bonus for theatres as well since they will sell more concessions for each screening.
Would have helped if I actually saw the bonus materials, never bothered, I was too hyped to watch the extended versions to care.
I would buy the extended versions in a heartbeat, but I am waiting until all the extended versions will be available as a set, which I assume is a given.
wasn't added to the movie to begin with.
If you're in for a penny you're in for pound, as the saying goes. What difference is 20-30 minutes going to make on a 3 hour movie? Are people simply going to walk out at exactly 3 hours?
The extra footage added to Fellowship really fleshed out the story and brought it closer to the book.
Just my 2 cents.
Liquor regulations in BC were recently amended to permit 4 AM closings from 2 AM, with municipal permission.
Vancouver city council has permitted bars along Granville street to remain open to 4 AM and bar owners are very happy about increased revenue. At the same time they want to be seen as good neighbours and reduce crime related to the later closings. So it is part PR move and part reality check.
I moved to Calgary two years ago now and am quite used to a similar procedure that has been in place at the busier bars such as Cowboys, which can be quite rowdy at times. Not all bars use the license scanning system, but many do, and I have yet to see a pub or lounge that does. A friend of mine had a few too many, caused a disturbance and was barred from Coyote's for a time thanks to the system. Frankly, he deserved it and the system worked. I would assume that the same would apply in Vancouver, the rowdier bars will implement the system while pubs and lounges will not.
Apparently they have metal detectors in some bars in Winnipeg, but none of the bars I visited on my trip had them. Again, probably those places that experience trouble from rowdy guests use them. I have never seen metal detectors in any bar in Canada that I have been to.
What if I play from my CD player to the back of my optical in on my sound card?
Digital copy, no copy protection; or is the copy protection integrated into the music?
?
REQUIRE working models.
I believe at one time USPTO required working models but this requirement was eliminated many years ago; the USPTO rarely makes this request now. The various European patent offices must have similar rules.
Some may argue that requiring a working model will discourage smaller inventors from patenting their ideas. If the requirements were flexible enough to permit a working model to be supplied to the patent office within the patent application time frame of several years then I think that problem would be overcome.
I realize that requiring model models for some patents may seem cumbersome for the patent office, but honestly, I can't think of any other way to weed out patents for such intangibles as one-click purchasing and the like.
From the notebook article:
"Neil MacCORMICK (Greens/EFA, Scotland) warned against possible "leakage" from genuine protection of computer implemented inventions to companies being able to patent computer software. He stated that the present system, where genuine inventions are patentable and software is protected by copyright worked well. The responsibility, he underlined, lay with the Commission to find a balance between over and under protection for inventions."
This is exactly the problem with the directive to begin with. What exactly is the point of "legalizing software patents" if software itself cannot be patented?
I am not asking for software to be patentable, far from it, but I fail to see the need for this entire exercise if the end result will be patent rules that are substantially similar to the current rules with more complicated language.
It is good to see that at least one MEP understands that no matter how persuasive the language, patent applicants will attempt to find ways to patent the supposedly unpatentable. "Systems" and "processes" in a patent will cover such obvious ideas as one click purchasing and on-line auctions. If anything, this entire directive has done nothing but muddy the waters about what is and what is not patentable, something patent inspectors and the public do not want or need.
Will Canada allow shipping through the North-West Passage? I do not believe that the area now covered in sea ice could be considered International Waters. Maybe someone could clarify.
Would Canada want shipping traffic traversing what is becoming one of the last great wilderness areas of the world? The area is already under pressure with mining, oil and gas and loss of habitat.
Is it really economically viable to send goods by ship that can otherwise be sent by rail to Eastern sea ports? Obviously oil from northern sources could potentially be shipped to Europe; do they even ship crude oil from North America to be processed elsewhere? I suppose the greatest benefit would be to ships transporting goods from Europe to Asia and vice versa.
Just some ideas.
Astonomers should embrace the public's irrational fear and push Congress for more funding on the locations of earth intersecting asteroids.
It worked for the PATRIOT act, why not astronomy?
I can offer some opinions on why broadband in Canada is so highly adopted:
- Cable and DSL providers have fought for market share throughout Canada, mainly by leapfrogging the other into markets the other had not. I am consistently surprised at the DSL availibilty here in Alberta, a province with a population density similar to Montana or North Dakota. Dial up simply does not exist anymore with price plans for basic broadband starting from US$15/month (C$25/month) for either cable or DSL. I can have cable broadband installed in seven days or DSL installed in three. Those are actual install windows, not theoretical.
- Regulatory environment that seems to have fostered both competion and wide adoption of broadband services. We have partly deregulated local service, deregulated long distance service and a regulatory equivalent to the FCC (CRTC) that seems genuinely interested in growing broadband services into remote markets.
- The reliance on telecommunications that has become a social phenomenon. I can't remember the last time I used dial up service, it was literally two years ago. EVERYONE has high speed, it's just assumed (and Kazaa). Maybe we have nothing better to do in the colder months than surf the Net for porn and legal MP3s.
- Even with competition the markets in Canada are no where near as fragmented as the US. We really have four or five companies that have divided their territories into Western Canada and Eastern Canada. You will find a major DSL or cable provider in either Western (Telus for DSL, Shaw for Cable) or Eastern Canada (Bell for DSL, Rogers for Cable) but not both. Our geography and population simply cannot support more players, it's just not feasible. Consequently, you have four or five business plans and not fifty or one hundred.
Anyone else?
Audio Cassettes (40 minutes or more in length): 29 cents
CD-R or CD-RW: 21 cents
CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc: 77 cents
So the actual levy on CD-R/RW is 21 cents, not 77 cents.
I believe the Copyright Board is considering a proposed increase in the levy on CD-R/RW to 59 cents per CD and applying the levy to hard drives, blank DVDs and memory cards. No decision has been made and I honestly believe the Copyright board will back down from the proposed levy on hard drives and other computer related media since industry outcry has been substantial. The obvious benefit to the levy is I can legally borrow and make a copy of a friend's CD for my own personal use and know that I am not committing a crime.
Many people in Canada are also not aware that you can apply for an exemption from the levy if your primary use of the levied media falls under certain categories. So companies such as the one I work for have an exemption from the levy since we only use blank CDs for in-house software.
I understand fully that software on its own cannot be patented. What you do not understand is that software as part of a system or process can be patented.
In my case I gave a real world example, a computer controlled saw in a mill. The saw and associated components including the software AS ONE UNIT can be patented. My point in singling out the patent of LZW compression is that there is no accompanying system, so I am at a loss to understand how and why this patent was granted.
...PRESIDENT Cowboy Neal.
Make it happen Slashdotters....
From a website on patent law in Canada:
.
"The difficulty with software is that programs generally centre around the use of mathematics and algorithms. It is clear that a software-related invention must do more than merely perform a calculation and must be more than an algorithm embodied in software. Otherwise, it will fall into the category of a "mere scientific principle or abstract theorem" and therefore be unpatentable.
The test for determining whether a software related invention is patentable was set out in Schlumberger Canada Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents (1981), 56 C.P.R.(2d) 204 (F.C.A.). The test considers, what (if anything), according to the application, has been discovered. The court held that if the invention was merely the discovery that by making certain calculations according to certain formulae, useful information could be extracted from certain measurements, then the application should be refused on the basis that it lacked patentable subject matter under section 2 of the Patent Act. Essentially, the court suggested that if the program interacted with physical objects other than the computer in a novel, useful and inventive way, the invention was patentable. In response to Schlumberger and related decisions, the Patent Office developed new guidelines, used by the Patent Office Examiners to assess the patentability of computer related subject matter. The guidelines are as follows:
1.Computer programs per se are not patentable;
2.Processes which are unapplied mathematical calculations, even if expressed in words rather than in mathematical symbols, are not patentable;
3.A process and/or computer program which merely produces information for mental interpretation by a human being is not patentable, nor does the process or program confer novelty upon the apparatus which uses it;
4.Claims drawn up in terms of means plus function which merely produce intellectual data are not patentable;
5.New and useful processes incorporating a computer program, and apparatus incorporating a programmed computer, are directed to patentable subject matter if the computer related matter has been integrated with another practical system that falls within an area which is traditionally patentable; and
6.The presence of a programmed general purpose computer or a program for such a computer does not lend patentability to, nor subtract patentability from, an apparatus or process."
Thus, if a computer program is used to interact with a system or as part of a process, ie. electronically controlled sawmill machinery, then the software could be patented. Which raises the question on how the LZW algorithm was granted a patent in Canada (patent 1223965) as it clearly is nothing more than an algorithm.
Yes, redudant but I want to to re-inforce what is being said here, these are not diamonds of industrial quality these are full sized manufactured gem quality diamonds. If you had read the article you would have seen a table full of the things, specifically replicas of rare yellow diamonds that were indistguishable from the real thing when assessed by a diamond expert (he was not amused).
The article went on to point out the potential for diamond based circuits, specifically the ability to resist heat, and the possible advance in computer speed this would permit.
Anyone who is anyone is familiar with DeBeers and diamonds, they control most of the market and have managed to fend off the influx of diamonds from Canada, Russia and other countries. Manufactured diamonds would reduce or eliminate the monopoly on diamond distribution that DeBeers uses to create an artifical shortage of diamond supplies to keep prices high.
Forgetting for a second that this is the Sun, one of the bastions of journalistic integrity (sic), let's assume the proposal is legitimate.
First, the monitoring of citizens fundamentally alters the ethos of government, specifically democratic government, since it shifts the base of power away from citizens and places it firmly with the government.
Second, strict enforcement of traffic laws, without consideraton for circumstance, is not justice.
That is the question that springs to my mind regarding licence agreements.
What if your toaster contained a EULA that modified the warranty terms from state law, or you had no warranty, or that any liability on the part of the manufacturer was null and void, or that you could not disclose any critisisms of the toaster's operation to others?
Does contract law supercede state or federal law? If so, what are the circumstances? What constitutes an enforcable contract? Can you ignore the terms of a license agreement? Courts need to address these issues before the entanglement of technology and society can move forward.
I have heard in Canada you cannot sign away your statutory rights, they are after all, the law. I recall one particular case involving a local ski hill that claimed the liability waiver you sign before skiing absolved them of whatever liability they may incur. The judge disagreed noting that courts are the arbiters of the law, not the ski hill, and that liability was laid out by statute and could not be removed by signing a waiver.
What do I know, IANAL, I just play one on TV.
First off, the IANAL blurb.
From my searching on the web for trade secret law, I have found several nuggets of information:
- Trade secret law is generally State enforced, there is a Federal component, but the States by and large enforce trade secrets.
- Reverse engineering is considered a complete defense, that is, if the trade secret was discovered through the author's own efforts then the disclosure of said trade secret disolves the trade secret protection and cannot be considered actionable.
I did not read the court decision, but I am pretty sure from the history of the DeCSS controversy that whatever trade secret protection for DeCSS that existed was extinguished by the discovery and publishing of the DeCSS keys from the unencrypted Xing implementation. Thus, the reverse engineered discovery was entirely legal and entirely disolved whatever trade secret protection existed. I don't see how this could be considered trade secret any longer, given the method of discovery and widespread nature of the information.
My 2 cents.
If something struck Mars and some material was ejected into space the probability of that material hitting Earth is incredibly small. It does happen as evidenced by the small amounts of Mars rock we have found in Antarctica.
I would not need to calculate the probability given the enormous odds AGAINST such an event occuring. Consider the variables:
- The distance from Earth to Mars. Mars is at perihelion (closest distance to the sun in its orbit) and Earth is at aphelion (farthest distance from sun in its orbit). The distance is still 54 million KM! MILLIONS of Km away!
- The size of whatever material ejected from Mars. Even if some material were ejected, it would most likely be very small and as such either fall back to Mars or enter temporary orbit around the planet. The size of the object that would be required to produce such an event would already be visible to astronomers. Remember comet Shoemaker-Levy? We knews several weeks in advance that the comet was going to strike Jupiter.
These are the first things that popped into my head. You have to realize the incredible distances involved. Even though Mars and Earth are at their closest approaches in 50,000 years, it still amounts to peanuts, astronomically. It would be like saying that you and I are at our closest approach when I drove to work this morning and you were in New York and I was in Los Angeles.
I remember the first versions of IE were pretty terrible compared to Netscape. Then, around version 4.0, it began to make inroads and become a worthy competitor. By version 5.5 Netscape was feeling the pain and IE had become the standard browser.
I imagine the same roadmap for a Microsoft search engine. Intially it will probably suck, but it will have to improve if it is going to overcome Google. Spurred on by the default settings in IE it will probably gain some market share. Microsoft has a huge hurdle to overcome and unless their search engine is USEFUL and actually provides useful search results, no one is going to use it, default or not.
I have real doubts that Microsoft can pull this off. Google has such predominant word of mouth that the word "google" is synonomous with web search.
If Microsoft wants to compete and beat Google then the results of a search will have to be relevant. If they are not, then people will continue to use Google.
Would you continue to use a particular phone book if it failed to supply you with accurate or consistent phone numbers? Of course not and you would tell your friends the same thing. Word of mouth is still the most powerful force the Internet has and if the Microsoft search engine supplies searches with "sponsored" links or sub-quality links that do fuck all for your search then that is going to get around.
End of story.
Nearly two years ago the Canadian cell companies got together and created a text message centre to allow interoperation of their text messaging services. Now, I can message a Telus, Fido or Rogers customer from anyone of the competing services.
The Wi-Fi move is just another logical step. We have three competing national companies in a market that really only seems able to support two profitably. This is a reality of a country with a small population covering a large geographic area.
"Mr Aldonis' comments came despite the US raising concerns about parallel importation legislation in its 2003 Foreign Trade Barriers report. Parallel importation permits the importation of a product by a person other than the local authorised distributor.
The US Trade Representative warned parallel importation had led to increasing piracy of DVDs and VCDs."
The US maintains that importing identical commerical copies of music or video from another country is equivalent to piracy? What balderdash.
To put this is perspective, if a company in China found a better deal on wheat in the Ukraine than what their "authorised distrubutor" of American wheat in China could offer them, then that company engaged in wheat piracy?
I am of the mistaken belief that free trade was meant to foster GLOBAL trade, not regional cartels.
Authorised Distributor is now another term for MONOPOLY. What a hypocrital nation the US has become.