As an older slashdotter, I am quite disappointed with the discussion so far. A few have suggested to discuss the topic in question, respectively ZFS. But, as so often, we can make out that people just blindly speak without having read neither the original article, nor about ZFS.
Most of all, to me, I am astonished that almost everyone talks 'virtualisation', VM, QEMU, Xen. When it comes to filesystems, suddenly many seem to want to do everything on their own, on physical platters: partition, volumes/RAID, format. ZFS is a virtual filesystem, where none of such is physically needed. There is a nice http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/demos/ basics/ demo on how to create 100 mirrored filesystem within 5 minutes.
Of course, filesystem should be a black box, an object, instead of the user having to do low-level work. ZFS provides this, and more relevant: of course it needs to be cross-layered therefore.
Snapshots ought to be available easily, at any moment in time, without taking much space. ZFS does so, by only storing the changes and sharing the unmodified data. If you want to do so, you need an abstraction of the hardware. That is, crossing layers. Not to mention writeable snapshots.
Adding new drives without partitioning, slicing, formatting. Just adding to the existing pool. Inclusive striping being adapted automagically. This needs a cross-layer interface, right ?
The transactional filesystem guarantees uncorrupted data at power failures and OS crashes. If you do this across a pool of physical platters, you need operations across layers.
Last ot least, the online checking of all your data ('scrubbing' and 'resilvering') is a valuable feature for Linux (and the home user) as well.
To me it looks like, as of today, that about everyone liked the features of ZFS. Now, as it requires to break some old habits, suddenly we resist change and rather stick to older concepts. As if GPLv2 vs GPLv3 was not enough of a threat to Linux, now we unashamedly permit a new-from-the-bottom-up filesystem to overtake us as well ?
1). Your post is redundant w.r.t. more than a handful of earlier posts pointing out that the same thing has been patented as 7,055,140 on May 30, 2006.
2). You are correct on the specific breakpoint function. Question is, if nobody really has ever had this idea before May 1, 2002.
Ah, see. You change your/etc/rc.conf.local by adding pf=YES. Lost. This is not the default install, and possible vulnerabilities in PF don't contribute to the 'two'. So, you would not know how many vulnerabilities your install had had over the last years. If you are worth your salary, you add time tracking. Lost. This is not the default install, and any vulnerability in ntp/ntpd/ntpdate/rdate/openntpd does not increment the 'two'.
Mmh. I *do* like and prefer the 'you have to enable' philosophy of OpenBSD. No need to lock down any box. But you don't want to tell me that a box running ssh and nothing more and nothing less makes any sense to run, do you ? So what's the point of bragging with this ssh-only box to have so few vulnerabilities ? Again, I'm a fan; except of this aspect, which I still consider embarrassing. But maybe that's only me.
Done it, been there. Guess, this is the first step to approach ZFS, which for some stupid licence reason doesn't seem to have an easy path into the Linux kernel. ZFS does a few, actually a lot, more. But why not write a different solution, for a plurality of choice. May the best win !
Seems I tend to agree somewhat with one of the more offensive posters:
1. Whatever I read on/., the 'daily reboots' of Linux isn't exactly what I remember w.r.t. your 'lots of comments'.
2. If that chap asked a question, why cite what you (wrongly, as is) think that others were saying ? Instead of giving your own opinion and experience ?
3. Finally, it's well known that Linux is not yet ready to used be an 'enterprise' OS with heavy DB access. Is there somehow anything that you know about databases, or are you back in the mere realms of assumption ? The largest databases ('enterprise') could be running DB2 or Oracle. Miraculously, both run on Linux: http://www.oracle.com/technologies/linux/index.htm l http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/db2/linux/
And in this case, I'm not using that as a sarcastic reference to a low number, there really have only been two.
Hmm, sorry, two what ? Two remotely exploitable holes in the default install, or two users running the default install ? (For those not in the know: the default install has - drums rolling - ssh enabled. And SMTP on 127.0.0.1. That's it. Over. No http, no ftp, no pop, nothing else.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm a great OpenBSD fan and run it on my 3 production machines. Still, personally I consider that statement about the two holes more embarassing than impressive.
Mod someone parent up. Almost all of us in here know; but as a result of having been burnt. Any Windows has always tried to take over the complete machine. Often enough I had to witness when an older Windows (DOS) wiped a newer one: You always need to install in historical sequence, Windows first. Then anything else. Nothing (that I ever touched) is as invasive as Windows. Anything else tries to remain with its partition. Also take care with Solaris. It does not know about partitions by default.
We will have to see. There is new case law to be established. At first glance, this part of the second decision sounds quite orthogonal to what we have had to read before:
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
That is quite remarkable, considering that the invention consisted of replacing a mechanical transfer of throttle (pedal position) by an electronic sensor. Something like this used to have good chances for success before. On the silly reasoning that electronics has less wear and tear it could be considered 'advantageous' and non-obvious. With this decision Supreme Court defined that combining an existing system (pedal) with an electronic sensor as 'normal', 'non-inventive'. It explicitely (and I guess intentionally) used the term 'anticipated success', effectively removing hindsight as argument for non-obviousness; as long as the outcome remains 'expected' and does not yield non-anticipatory results. Like the system prducing sliced bread miraculously as well... .
I wonder how the European Patent Office is going to react ? Anyone from there reading/. and has some inside info ?
No. I still have to read the gory details, but in any case: There is no new law here, but the Supreme Court has helped the lower courts with their definition of 'obvious'. At least, next time someone starts to sue for infringement, it is easier to get the patent revoked for obviousness. And the USPTO will sweat about getting the new stand into their guidelines and procedures.
Still, the Supreme Court has not taken any decision about software patents; only on obviousness. In the end it was them who forced the USPTO to grant software patents.
No, not everything is in order from now onwards. It will get slightly less silly.
Not that I could not see good reasons for dumping Linux, but the whole story to me sounds a bit like hastedly buying and setting up x86 hardware, throw Linux at it, and hoping for the best... . Oh, yes, disregarding application quality and support.
Suddenly, you find that the method above is flaky and flimsy ? Fork out real money for real hardware, and be surprised to see it doing real work. To me, I wouldn't be surprised.
Had they asked me as a consultant, I might have suggested SUN and Solaris. And to sack the responsible for bringing in cheap and off-the-shelf solutions in the first place. Still, I think if managed properly, Linux might be able to do the job as well.
Okay, I'll give it a quick shot. Read the non-italic for the 'short version':
1. A system comprising: a display;
obvious until here, okay ?
first and second workspace data structures relating respectively to first and second workspaces that can be presented on the display;
Two different sets of data belonging to two different workspaces that can be displayed on the display.
each of the first and second workspaces including a respective set of display objects; each of the display objects being perceptible as a distinct, coherent set of display features; the display objects of each respective set being perceptible as having spatial positions relative to each other when the respective workspace is presented on the display;
Each of the two workspaces contain useful image information, displayed on specific regions of the display
display object means for generating first and second display objects; the first workspace data structure being linked to the display object means so that the first display object is in the respective set of display objects of the first workspace; the second workspace data structure being linked to the display object means so that the second display object is in the respective set of display objects of the second workspace;
Means to generate the display information from the workspace content
and control means for accessing the first workspace data structure to cause the display to present the first workspace including the first display object;
some way to display the first workspace
the control means further being for accessing the second workspace data structure to cause the display to present the second workspace including the second display object;
some way to display the content of the second workspace
the display object means generating the first and second display objects so that the second display object is perceptible as the same tool as the first display object when the second workspace is presented after the first workspace.
[This is what they perceive as the core of the invention:] It is possible to switch between the two workspaces that belong to a common application.
Public Domain is the ideal license ! in theory - Just like communism is the ideal society ! in theory. In practice we live in the period of unlimited and condoned greed.
If you allow Greed Unlimited (R) to use your public domain software, that you generously donated to mankind, you
- open yourself to being sued by the greedy user for shortcomings; like lost data.
Meaning, that you could end up as a bankrupt.
- invite the greedy industry to suck it up, add a few intelligent lines, and make it proprietary.
Meaning, that your donation is lost; and helps lining the pockets of the already wealthy.
Just don't do it, don't 'public domain' your software. GPL intends to pre-empty these two dangers. Donate to GPL instead !
I don't have access to the prosecution, though from the outside I might side with the examiner. There is so-called production pressure, meaning your promotion goes with the number of cases, not necessarily with the quality. My wild guess is that the chap knew how fishy the application is, argued for anticipation and obviousness (obviously, what else !?); though knowing deep inside that it would be costly in time (too costly) to follow it through. He might have rather shown a brave face, and rejected for sanity instead of being convinced of his success.
'In the light of the description' is usually applied and accepted in cases of different subject matter (have no good example at hand); and.Net doubtlessly infringes the underlying publication. Also with respect to the description; so no 'little helper' or easy way out here.
The continuation - just reading claim 1 for being lazy - seems to focus on that mis-spelled word. You deploy the objects to a framework. Obvious. Think of RPC or agents, deploying copies of a centralised object library out to the organisation, network, whatever. Think thin client, web 2.0, web-based office. And the misery continues...:(
As former patent examiner I am appalled that something like this was granted; or had to be granted:
Claim 1. A method for generating a computer application on a host system in an arbitrary object framework that separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application and a functionality of said computer application, said method comprising: creating arbitrary objects with corresponding arbitrary names of various object types for generating said content of said computer application, said form of said computer application, and said functionality of said computer application; managing said arbitrary objects in an object library; and deploying said arbitrary objects from said object library into a design framework to create said computer application.
This grants the patent owner all rights to royalties to a system that any third party brings to the market within the time frame of validity of this patent, and that uses this method. In technical terms it is obvious; and probably anticipated a few hundred times. In legal terms this is different. As patent examiner you'll find yourself in a quagmire: you may have prior art for the concept, but not for the wording. I agree, that anticipating the concept should be enough. But the vultures of lawyers will pull you apart within minutes, and the chambers and courts of appeal will usually folllow (and your bosses rebuke your rejection of the application). You will be asked for a document to anticipate the wording, and that might not exist. Only in high-profile cases will the parties drill down to the concepts. Why ? Because that is very costly, and if nobody forks out these costs, the average examiner will have to grant. Of course, the wording is overly broad. But try to cite a 'library' against it: would it be a 'object library' ? Is pulling in a function ('printf') pulling in a function of a 'object library' when C is doubtlessly not object oriented ? Let us continue with the 'object framework'; more so one that separates: content - form - functionality. Where in the 'prior art' cited here can we make out 'various object types' (not one, that is !). How do you anticipate the 'managing... objects... in a library'; as well as 'deploying... objects... into a design [!] framework' ? FYI: All this would have to be anticipated in a (usually) single document, before October 1, 1999.
No, I am not all trying to defend the vultures of applicants. This patent ought to never have been granted. But one should keep the following in mind as well: The USPTO was never willing to grant software patents, actually refused to do so, but was - in the 1981 case of Diamond v. Diehr - forced to do so by the U.S. Supreme Court. It was not the - then - P.T.O. that started the insanity. It wasn't your House of Representatives or the Senate. Though the House would be very much encouraged to change the legal framework... !
The boys in Redmond [...] will likely patch it on their own
Exactly. The results will be:
- An ever more broken Windows by adding a hack around this exploit
- A frenzy to hunt for more such exploits, since this can is open now
I rather liken Vista to WinME. But every time I say so, someone chimes in saying Vista is the best thing Microsoft ever did or that Vista sales have set new records here or there or somewhere.
True, amazing and pretty recent. I bet Microsoft has some whores lurking around, being paid for bulwarking criticism of Vista.
I don't even doubt that some users are satisfied with it, but they wouldn't usually sit around just waiting to 'share' their positive experiences with the Slashdot crowd. There are, on the other hand, Apple fanboys who do just that. But MACs are good enough to create a followship, keen on being fanboyish in here. Vista isn't.
There are a finite amount of ways you can assemble words to make a sentence and have the same meaning
You are so right. In theory. I'm checking my students' work regularly, searching phrases in Google. And much more often than (you and) I expect, seemingly 'normal' phrases simply don't show on Google. At times, I am still surprised at the variety of plugging words together.
Thought it was an April's Fool. Wrong. The fools sit - as so often - in the USPTO. They have granted, I repeat *granted* the following claim 1 of US7,027,311:
"1. An apparatus for a wireless power supply comprising: means for receiving a range of RF radiation across a collection of frequencies; and means for converting the RF radiation across the collection of frequencies into DC, the converting means includes an absorbing mechanism which is resonant for a desired band of RF spectrum."
The Microsoft Advisory - whom we all trust - shows that the fuzz here in/. is unnecessary. RTMF (Read The Mitigating Factors) !: In a Web-based attack scenario, an attacker would have to host a Web site that contains a Web page that is used to exploit this vulnerability. An attacker could also attempt to compromise a Web site to have it serve up a Web page with malicious content attempting to exploit this vulnerability. An attacker would have no way to force users to visit a Web site. Instead, an attacker would have to persuade them to visit the Web site, typically by getting them to click a link that takes them to the attacker's site or a site compromised by the attacker.
An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the local user. Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less impacted than users who operate with administrative user rights.
See, much ado about nothing !:
- the attacker would have to host a web site [surely, they couldn't, could they !]
- the attacker could compromise a web site [probably they would not know how to, would they !]
- the attacker has no way to force the user to visit a specific website [see !] Especially the latter gave me complete relief and peace of mind ! I can't be forced, that means I am as good as safe ! Yahoo !
- the attacker would need to persuade us [just told my wife not to answer the phone or door bell]
Not running my web browser as administrator [I don't] seriously limits the potential damage, thanks to Vista's unique feature of unprivileged user accounts.
Thanks, Microsoft, for an informative advisory; and a comprehensive and clear list of mitigating factors ! Thanks, Microsoft, for debunking so-called "extremely critical" vulnerabilities as myth, again !
In principle a good idea. Completely infeasible for one reason, though: DELL needs to support these boxes. We are not talking about selling Windows-Free boxen to Linux Users. Then your suggestion would be simply great. We are talking about selling boxen to Joe Doe, George Grandpa and Aunt Tilly. They have no interest at all in your DVDs. They want a ready install. Running. And when they forget to plug the power cord (and subsequently call DELL support), they cannot even answer "Mam, which distro do you run ?"
Slashdot Mirror
Most of all, to me, I am astonished that almost everyone talks 'virtualisation', VM, QEMU, Xen.
When it comes to filesystems, suddenly many seem to want to do everything on their own, on physical platters: partition, volumes/RAID, format. ZFS is a virtual filesystem, where none of such is physically needed. There is a nice http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/demos
Of course, filesystem should be a black box, an object, instead of the user having to do low-level work. ZFS provides this, and more relevant: of course it needs to be cross-layered therefore.
Snapshots ought to be available easily, at any moment in time, without taking much space. ZFS does so, by only storing the changes and sharing the unmodified data. If you want to do so, you need an abstraction of the hardware. That is, crossing layers. Not to mention writeable snapshots.
Adding new drives without partitioning, slicing, formatting. Just adding to the existing pool. Inclusive striping being adapted automagically. This needs a cross-layer interface, right ?
The transactional filesystem guarantees uncorrupted data at power failures and OS crashes. If you do this across a pool of physical platters, you need operations across layers.
There is an interesting blog on the usage of ZFS for home users. It contains some good arguments, why ZFS is useful for Linux' Desktop Stride. You find it here: http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-zfs-for-ho
Last ot least, the online checking of all your data ('scrubbing' and 'resilvering') is a valuable feature for Linux (and the home user) as well.
To me it looks like, as of today, that about everyone liked the features of ZFS. Now, as it requires to break some old habits, suddenly we resist change and rather stick to older concepts.
As if GPLv2 vs GPLv3 was not enough of a threat to Linux, now we unashamedly permit a new-from-the-bottom-up filesystem to overtake us as well ?
You miss it partially.
1). Your post is redundant w.r.t. more than a handful of earlier posts pointing out that the same thing has been patented as 7,055,140 on May 30, 2006.
2). You are correct on the specific breakpoint function. Question is, if nobody really has ever had this idea before May 1, 2002.
Anyway, here's the link. Methinks this is a non-story. This application seems very specific.
...
Could you be more specific, please, in how this application in your opinion is 'very specific' ?
Honestly, I can't see that
A minor correction: If you scroll down on the freepatentsonline site, you get more than the summary.
Ah, see. You change your /etc/rc.conf.local by adding pf=YES.
Lost. This is not the default install, and possible vulnerabilities in PF don't contribute to the 'two'.
So, you would not know how many vulnerabilities your install had had over the last years.
If you are worth your salary, you add time tracking.
Lost. This is not the default install, and any vulnerability in ntp/ntpd/ntpdate/rdate/openntpd does not increment the 'two'.
So let's leave the 'two' as a marketing hoax.
Mmh. I *do* like and prefer the 'you have to enable' philosophy of OpenBSD. No need to lock down any box.
But you don't want to tell me that a box running ssh and nothing more and nothing less makes any sense to run, do you ?
So what's the point of bragging with this ssh-only box to have so few vulnerabilities ? Again, I'm a fan; except of this aspect, which I still consider embarrassing. But maybe that's only me.
Done it, been there.
Guess, this is the first step to approach ZFS, which for some stupid licence reason doesn't seem to have an easy path into the Linux kernel.
ZFS does a few, actually a lot, more. But why not write a different solution, for a plurality of choice.
May the best win !
Seems I tend to agree somewhat with one of the more offensive posters:
/., the 'daily reboots' of Linux isn't exactly what I remember w.r.t. your 'lots of comments'.
m l
1. Whatever I read on
2. If that chap asked a question, why cite what you (wrongly, as is) think that others were saying ? Instead of giving your own opinion and experience ?
3. Finally, it's well known that Linux is not yet ready to used be an 'enterprise' OS with heavy DB access.
Is there somehow anything that you know about databases, or are you back in the mere realms of assumption ? The largest databases ('enterprise') could be running DB2 or Oracle. Miraculously, both run on Linux:
http://www.oracle.com/technologies/linux/index.ht
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/db2/linux/
milksucks ? Maybe. How about a coffee ? Or was the 'fully bloated' supposed to be funny ? Intentional ?
And in this case, I'm not using that as a sarcastic reference to a low number, there really have only been two.
Hmm, sorry, two what ? Two remotely exploitable holes in the default install, or two users running the default install ?
(For those not in the know: the default install has - drums rolling - ssh enabled. And SMTP on 127.0.0.1. That's it. Over. No http, no ftp, no pop, nothing else.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm a great OpenBSD fan and run it on my 3 production machines. Still, personally I consider that statement about the two holes more embarassing than impressive.
The machine is from, like, 1993. It's a 75MHz Pentium with 16MB of RAM.
Just drop by, I'll have another 16MB of EDO RAM for you; and you'll be fine (the 75 MHz Pentium is very much okay, even on 4.X).
Mod someone parent up.
Almost all of us in here know; but as a result of having been burnt. Any Windows has always tried to take over the complete machine.
Often enough I had to witness when an older Windows (DOS) wiped a newer one: You always need to install in historical sequence, Windows first. Then anything else. Nothing (that I ever touched) is as invasive as Windows. Anything else tries to remain with its partition.
Also take care with Solaris. It does not know about partitions by default.
We will have to see. There is new case law to be established. At first glance, this part of the second decision sounds quite orthogonal to what we have had to read before:
... .
/. and has some inside info ?
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
That is quite remarkable, considering that the invention consisted of replacing a mechanical transfer of throttle (pedal position) by an electronic sensor. Something like this used to have good chances for success before. On the silly reasoning that electronics has less wear and tear it could be considered 'advantageous' and non-obvious.
With this decision Supreme Court defined that combining an existing system (pedal) with an electronic sensor as 'normal', 'non-inventive'. It explicitely (and I guess intentionally) used the term 'anticipated success', effectively removing hindsight as argument for non-obviousness; as long as the outcome remains 'expected' and does not yield non-anticipatory results. Like the system prducing sliced bread miraculously as well
I wonder how the European Patent Office is going to react ? Anyone from there reading
No. I still have to read the gory details, but in any case: There is no new law here, but the Supreme Court has helped the lower courts with their definition of 'obvious'.
At least, next time someone starts to sue for infringement, it is easier to get the patent revoked for obviousness.
And the USPTO will sweat about getting the new stand into their guidelines and procedures.
Still, the Supreme Court has not taken any decision about software patents; only on obviousness. In the end it was them who forced the USPTO to grant software patents.
No, not everything is in order from now onwards. It will get slightly less silly.
Not that I could not see good reasons for dumping Linux, but the whole story to me sounds a bit like hastedly buying and setting up x86 hardware, throw Linux at it, and hoping for the best ... .
Oh, yes, disregarding application quality and support.
Suddenly, you find that the method above is flaky and flimsy ? Fork out real money for real hardware, and be surprised to see it doing real work. To me, I wouldn't be surprised.
Had they asked me as a consultant, I might have suggested SUN and Solaris.
And to sack the responsible for bringing in cheap and off-the-shelf solutions in the first place.
Still, I think if managed properly, Linux might be able to do the job as well.
Okay, I'll give it a quick shot. Read the non-italic for the 'short version':
1. A system comprising:
a display;
obvious until here, okay ?
first and second workspace data structures relating respectively to first and second workspaces that can be presented on the display;
Two different sets of data belonging to two different workspaces that can be displayed on the display.
each of the first and second workspaces including a respective set of display objects; each of the display objects being perceptible as a distinct, coherent set of display features; the display objects of each respective set being perceptible as having spatial positions relative to each other when the respective workspace is presented on the display;
Each of the two workspaces contain useful image information, displayed on specific regions of the display
display object means for generating first and second display objects; the first workspace data structure being linked to the display object means so that the first display object is in the respective set of display objects of the first workspace; the second workspace data structure being linked to the display object means so that the second display object is in the respective set of display objects of the second workspace;
Means to generate the display information from the workspace content
and
control means for accessing the first workspace data structure to cause the display to present the first workspace including the first display object;
some way to display the first workspace
the control means further being for accessing the second workspace data structure to cause the display to present the second workspace including the second display object;
some way to display the content of the second workspace
the display object means generating the first and second display objects so that the second display object is perceptible as the same tool as the first display object when the second workspace is presented after the first workspace.
[This is what they perceive as the core of the invention:]
It is possible to switch between the two workspaces that belong to a common application.
Does this help ?
Public Domain is the ideal license ! in theory - Just like communism is the ideal society ! in theory.
In practice we live in the period of unlimited and condoned greed.
If you allow Greed Unlimited (R) to use your public domain software, that you generously donated to mankind, you
- open yourself to being sued by the greedy user for shortcomings; like lost data.
Meaning, that you could end up as a bankrupt.
- invite the greedy industry to suck it up, add a few intelligent lines, and make it proprietary.
Meaning, that your donation is lost; and helps lining the pockets of the already wealthy.
Just don't do it, don't 'public domain' your software. GPL intends to pre-empty these two dangers. Donate to GPL instead !
As another ex-examiner ...
.Net doubtlessly infringes the underlying publication. Also with respect to the description; so no 'little helper' or easy way out here.
... :(
Welcome to the club ! - Are you in for a drink ?
I don't have access to the prosecution, though from the outside I might side with the examiner. There is so-called production pressure, meaning your promotion goes with the number of cases, not necessarily with the quality. My wild guess is that the chap knew how fishy the application is, argued for anticipation and obviousness (obviously, what else !?); though knowing deep inside that it would be costly in time (too costly) to follow it through. He might have rather shown a brave face, and rejected for sanity instead of being convinced of his success.
'In the light of the description' is usually applied and accepted in cases of different subject matter (have no good example at hand); and
The continuation - just reading claim 1 for being lazy - seems to focus on that mis-spelled word. You deploy the objects to a framework. Obvious. Think of RPC or agents, deploying copies of a centralised object library out to the organisation, network, whatever. Think thin client, web 2.0, web-based office.
And the misery continues
As former patent examiner I am appalled that something like this was granted; or had to be granted:
... objects ... in a library'; as well as 'deploying ... objects ... into a design [!] framework' ?
... !
Claim 1. A method for generating a computer application on a host system in an arbitrary object framework that separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application and a functionality of said computer application, said method comprising: creating arbitrary objects with corresponding arbitrary names of various object types for generating said content of said computer application, said form of said computer application, and said functionality of said computer application; managing said arbitrary objects in an object library; and deploying said arbitrary objects from said object library into a design framework to create said computer application.
This grants the patent owner all rights to royalties to a system that any third party brings to the market within the time frame of validity of this patent, and that uses this method.
In technical terms it is obvious; and probably anticipated a few hundred times. In legal terms this is different. As patent examiner you'll find yourself in a quagmire: you may have prior art for the concept, but not for the wording. I agree, that anticipating the concept should be enough. But the vultures of lawyers will pull you apart within minutes, and the chambers and courts of appeal will usually folllow (and your bosses rebuke your rejection of the application). You will be asked for a document to anticipate the wording, and that might not exist.
Only in high-profile cases will the parties drill down to the concepts. Why ? Because that is very costly, and if nobody forks out these costs, the average examiner will have to grant.
Of course, the wording is overly broad. But try to cite a 'library' against it: would it be a 'object library' ? Is pulling in a function ('printf') pulling in a function of a 'object library' when C is doubtlessly not object oriented ? Let us continue with the 'object framework'; more so one that separates: content - form - functionality. Where in the 'prior art' cited here can we make out 'various object types' (not one, that is !). How do you anticipate the 'managing
FYI: All this would have to be anticipated in a (usually) single document, before October 1, 1999.
No, I am not all trying to defend the vultures of applicants. This patent ought to never have been granted.
But one should keep the following in mind as well: The USPTO was never willing to grant software patents, actually refused to do so, but was - in the 1981 case of Diamond v. Diehr - forced to do so by the U.S. Supreme Court. It was not the - then - P.T.O. that started the insanity. It wasn't your House of Representatives or the Senate. Though the House would be very much encouraged to change the legal framework
Did you notice that they aren't here today? :)
= 18647371
It is a Sunday. They're off to the great cathedral of Redmond, worshipping the Master of The Chairs.
Oh wait, there is an emergency poster around:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=229863&cid
The boys in Redmond [...] will likely patch it on their own
Exactly. The results will be:
- An ever more broken Windows by adding a hack around this exploit
- A frenzy to hunt for more such exploits, since this can is open now
I rather liken Vista to WinME. But every time I say so, someone chimes in saying Vista is the best thing Microsoft ever did or that Vista sales have set new records here or there or somewhere.
True, amazing and pretty recent.
I bet Microsoft has some whores lurking around, being paid for bulwarking criticism of Vista.
I don't even doubt that some users are satisfied with it, but they wouldn't usually sit around just waiting to 'share' their positive experiences with the Slashdot crowd. There are, on the other hand, Apple fanboys who do just that.
But MACs are good enough to create a followship, keen on being fanboyish in here. Vista isn't.
There are a finite amount of ways you can assemble words to make a sentence and have the same meaning
You are so right. In theory.
I'm checking my students' work regularly, searching phrases in Google.
And much more often than (you and) I expect, seemingly 'normal' phrases simply don't show on Google. At times, I am still surprised at the variety of plugging words together.
Thought it was an April's Fool.
P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2F srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7027311.PN.&OS=PN/7027 311&RS=PN/7027311
Wrong.
The fools sit - as so often - in the USPTO. They have granted, I repeat *granted* the following claim 1 of US7,027,311:
"1. An apparatus for a wireless power supply comprising: means for receiving a range of RF radiation across a collection of frequencies; and means for converting the RF radiation across the collection of frequencies into DC, the converting means includes an absorbing mechanism which is resonant for a desired band of RF spectrum."
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
What a fscking invention !
Congratulations, Nguyen; Matthew V., for a witty examination !
The Microsoft Advisory - whom we all trust - shows that the fuzz here in /. is unnecessary.
RTMF (Read The Mitigating Factors) !:
In a Web-based attack scenario, an attacker would have to host a Web site that contains a Web page that is used to exploit this vulnerability. An attacker could also attempt to compromise a Web site to have it serve up a Web page with malicious content attempting to exploit this vulnerability. An attacker would have no way to force users to visit a Web site. Instead, an attacker would have to persuade them to visit the Web site, typically by getting them to click a link that takes them to the attacker's site or a site compromised by the attacker.
An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the local user. Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less impacted than users who operate with administrative user rights.
See, much ado about nothing !:
- the attacker would have to host a web site [surely, they couldn't, could they !]
- the attacker could compromise a web site [probably they would not know how to, would they !]
- the attacker has no way to force the user to visit a specific website [see !]
Especially the latter gave me complete relief and peace of mind ! I can't be forced, that means I am as good as safe ! Yahoo !
- the attacker would need to persuade us [just told my wife not to answer the phone or door bell]
Not running my web browser as administrator [I don't] seriously limits the potential damage, thanks to Vista's unique feature of unprivileged user accounts.
Thanks, Microsoft, for an informative advisory; and a comprehensive and clear list of mitigating factors !
Thanks, Microsoft, for debunking so-called "extremely critical" vulnerabilities as myth, again !
In principle a good idea.
Completely infeasible for one reason, though: DELL needs to support these boxes.
We are not talking about selling Windows-Free boxen to Linux Users. Then your suggestion would be simply great.
We are talking about selling boxen to Joe Doe, George Grandpa and Aunt Tilly. They have no interest at all in your DVDs. They want a ready install. Running. And when they forget to plug the power cord (and subsequently call DELL support), they cannot even answer "Mam, which distro do you run ?"