No need to quarrel about the length.... The very moment SUN gets their stuff - at least kernel && Co - on something like GPL3, it will not only affect Linux, it will also dent the BSDs, and a bit of OSX. The next OSX will come out with ZFS; until now a SunOS-only. Once SUN offers a non-dreadful GUI - sorry - once SUN offers all foundations to compile and run a non-dreadful GUI of your liking; migration will be from Linux to OpenSolaris (or whatever it will be called), as well as from BSD and from OSX [which is just another BSD with a non-dreadful GUI; only pretty costly] to OpenSolaris (or whatever it will be called). Few actually think that the BSD kernel is better than the SUN kernel. The very moment you can use it properly with all freedoms and no fscking registration, quite a number of BSDs will migrate, as well. And within maybe 5 years SunOS will the the de-facto standard for FOSS, except maybe embedded devices. Agreed, they won't make money with it, but they'll be the momentum leader in FOSS. Finally, a brand behind the software, a well-known brand; that helps adaptation in the corporate world. That helps SUN sell the iron to run those software on. And the community will add all those missing drivers and stuff, plus the whole range of GUIs and GPLed software.
I perceive it similar to ESR and his notion of a unique chance for the desktop http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/24/ 1356204 The big ship (SUN) has come into some movement; while at the same time Linus proves to be a non-visionary; and RMS and Eben refine the rules for a free software world. When SUN jumps aboard the freedoms of software, Linux is by default the underdog. If SUN screws up, we'll have an even more balkanised non-Microsoft world, with GPL2 and GPL3, BSDs, ever more Linux distros, OpenSolaris. Most of all, SUN will not have another chance to change history.
Of course, all this is valid under the assumption of a GPL3 only.
it sounds like I don't agree with you about why -- from your post it sounds like you think GPL3 is vapourware.
Uhh, it's not my mothertongue. So, where did I screw up ? I do consider GPL3 as potentially very relevant; especially when the FSF gets their licence holders to migrate. And if those SUNny retards could only understand that they have the kernel in their hands. They only need a good broom to swipe all those SUN-ish attitudes out of the door, license their basics under GPL3; and some nice chap in Portland will finally have plenty of quality time to spare with his family.;)
GPLv3 is a promise. Don't forget the good ol' GPL. RMS has a complete system in place, except of a kernel.
If only those retards at SUN got their licensing house in order, we'd all have our preferred 'Linux'-distro running on a Solaris kernel. At the end of 2007. And ZDNet's Paul Murphy http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/31/018 218 could be proven right.
You must be confusing me. I thought myself as a European, born in Europe, to German parents. Okay, the Third Reich wasn't exactly a nicety from our side, agreed. Quite a lot of Jews lost their lives, before I was born. But I can't find any Indian prime minister in the list of what 'we' did wrong.
I did, however, follow a time in the earlier eighties, that is long before said prime minister was assassinated, when the then Sri Lankan president saw it fit, to stand by when probably a thousand Tamils were slaughtered for being just that, Tamils.
Read my earlier comment. I don't condone or deny any later atrocity. Including assassinating an Indian prime minister (though India had tried to interfere, anxious an independent Tamil in Sri Lanka would stir unrest in Tamil Nadu). It is mainly the Buddhist clergy that tries its best to prevent any reasonable peace process, for fear the country as hosting Buddha's Tooth, might lose importance by being split into two parts.
The Tamil Tigers (LTTE) are a Terrorist Faction, which consists of a minority of Sri Lankans who speak tamil.
And so you believe. Who told you ? The chaps who had phantasised WMDs all over the by now destructed place ?
The terrorists in this case are - I don't expect you to believe me, but I used to live there - the Buddhist clergy and their puppets, the Sri Lankan government. And no, I don't condone the atrocities committed by the Tigers of Eelam at all. But what they do is more on the side of self-defense than terrorism.
Not that I doubt your experiences, but 'an ASUS motherboard' isn't very much. You could have noted which one, in order to get it supported. NICs usually work, even built-in ones. See above: which ? If you really wanted to get it up, a NIC these days os not more than US$ 5. Sure, a cheapo. But not worse than the built-in ones. A basic sound card (see: built-in ones) is available for not much more. I happen to have a bunch lying around, and would pass one to you. In short: for a few bucks you could have had it running. And good luck to get Vista on the Duron, since you consider your experience hit and miss. You might miss and hit.
Somehow it is funny: when we try to be nice and offer you a boot-loader, leaving your existing system fully intact, even adding your existing system to the menu, you don't say 'thank you !', but cry if it doesn't work one time or another. But when Microsoft blatently overwrites anything that was there before, does not even bother to ask about installing its boot-loader into the MBR; of course without adding your other operating system to the menu, you guys don't yell at Bill. You graciously accept as fate what the gods had in mind for you. Don't you think, we could do a syslinux-thingy for you as well ? Not asking, just overwriting your MBR with a sure, direct boot into your new system ? Like Microsoft does ? At least, please measure with the same yardstick.
And I don't suggest Live-CDs, nor even KNOPPIX for such cases. There is a much much smaller utility for all those grub-related problems; one that offers you almost any tool w.r.t. boot-loading, and that is Super Grub Disk. http://supergrub.forjamari.linex.org/ should get you going.
Done. Tried both Belenix and Nexenta. No, I have no shares with them, but both work. Nexenta, though alpha, does a pretty good job, recognises my hardware, inclusive NIC, audio and video, installs, reboots, even auto-checks for 32/64 bit at reboot, configures X almost properly. Everything runs, surely no 'alpha' feeling and there is synaptic to add plenty other packages, included with an update utility. After a few hours, not much different from Ubuntu / Debian. My own, only, personal gripe would be Slowaris: it is slower than the Debian running on the same box. Getting DTrace, ZFS, and SUN, it is not excluded that Nexenta takes some market share. There is the binary blob for NVIDIA, btw. I'll try that next. If Paul happened to see this version of Nexenta on supported hardware, I can imagine where he got his idea from. What makes me doubt the success story, though: Too often decisions are not taken on technical merit.
if you change the kernel describing it as "Linux but with a different kernel" makes me roll my eyes...
I was hoping for 'funny', though.;)
And I had been pondering about "Linux without Linux", or "Linux without Linus"....
Actually, I rather prefer the 'Debian way', and I understand why you say so. What makes you compare Belenix to BSD/gentoo ? (How does this fit together after all, except of source-based ?)
Sun, which will be a problem for them making inroads against linux. They have some things to bring to the table, but is it enough to make the IT industry do major investments to follow them in spite of the current disadvantages technically and business-wise? I doubt it.
I can't be so sure in doubting it. Once they finally, eventually, get the licensing into the right terms, things can look different. Vastly different. In at least 2 perspectives:
1. We still encounter the 'Who the fxxx is Linux !' on the corporate level. SUN is perceived differently.
2. With a bit of sun and traction, we'll get the blobs (IPW) into it rather easily and drivers as well.
At least your last paragraph confirms my 'show-stopper': hardware support.
Actually, one or another card or even controller isn't the worst problem. It would be power management (and that could be SUN), and the - sorry - blobs for ATI and NVIDIA. (I do need the TV out; not the acceleration.)
Thanks for kind of confirming my suspicions; and now the mouth is watery and time has come to start trying a few things of what you mentioned. That would be Nexenta and Belenix; the 'Community Edition' isn't my piece of cake.
Oh well, thanks ! The only contributor until now who might have actually *seen* OpenSolaris. Compared to all those fanboys of whatever, who might be right, but don't know what the're talking about w.r.t OpenSolaris.
OpenSolaris can be open Solaris, but it could as well be Linux with a different kernel: SunOS. Sorry, RMS, GNU/Linux without Linux; that would be GNU/SunOS. No, not yet GNU/Hurd; not in 2007. That's my prognosis, by the way;). No need to sneeze at that kernel, running your favourite Gnome/KDE/wm/XFCE and all the beauty of Linux - sorry, RMS - GNU/GPL; on probably the best file system that money could buy (ZFS); as well as running native Solaris applications. With zones instead of chroots. I repeat: it can in principle run any application that you get through apt-get. It only needed to be re-compiled. The one and only show-stopper in sight could be hardware support. And I'd be the first to get my boxes migrated to GNU/SunOS if hardware support suffices; promised. There are all advantages.
Not that I'd think Paul Murphy was right, but there is something in this prognosis about OpenSolaris of his.
No need for all these un-informed posts of pre-mature conclusions. But we are on/., right ? Sigh...
I am sure you read everything; and I am sure you understood everything. Therefore I am sure that you noticed that I had not written anything, would it not have been about your main argument, when you used part of the description to assess legal aspects. One of the items being preached on Slashdot over the years, is to understand the difference between the claims and description in a patent. Legally binding are only the claims.
Plus, your first sentence started off analytically, and you finished by pointing out three 'evil' aspects. Why the feeling of being obliged ? Convinced or obliged ?
So Microsoft's patented process is nothing new. Most of it can be claimed as prior art.
This leaves me baffled, after your thorough analysis.
Firstly, it is not patented; though that's minor.
What I'd like to know, though, is your 'Most'. What is novel in the application ? Is it patentable ? Do you think it is 'nothing new' or 'most not new' ? And no, I am not counting peanuts. That's how patent life is.
You're a good guy. You try your best. You also don't understand the patent system. It is *not* a patent. Yet. The decription is irrelevant, still you bold a passage from there.
Your 'evil ones' are spot on, though. Nothing to do with being on/.
For the I-never-read-the-source-luke-department members, I add here what I deposited on the original site; hoping to clarify the matter:
"Second of all, from my reading anyway, Microsoft is not patenting RSS, but RSS within Vista/IE7. Of course I'm not a patent lawyer, I could be wrong about that."
I am very unclear what makes the author of the blog think this ? I read the claims - and that is what counts in a patent, only - and can't find anything that points to Vista. The only technical feature the claims talk about is the feature mentioned mainly in claim 10: reading RSS by an application that generically cannot read it. That is meant with the plurality of applications in claim 1.
Therefore what the patent proposes is *not* to patent RSS, but to patent the rocket-science-like concept of getting the RSS as is (that is, again, *not* patenting it), and miraculously translate it ('API') to be used in other applications. To me, the patent is written very clearly and rather concisely. If you now read the blog again, alas, it doesn't really hit the problem and the consequences right between the eyes.
The question are basically two: 1. For patentability, it must be made sure, that nobody has proposed to use RSS for a plurality of 'drains', applications, that do not natively 'speak' RSS, before the filing date, June 21, 2005. 2. For business reasons, one needs to evaluate the value of a patent that prevents others from using RSS for other applications; like importing it into a media player. Obviously, there is a nice stranglehold that the patent offers to the owner against competitors.
And let me add some more remarks here for Slashdot raeders:
Sure, the whole thing is probably crap. As much crap as the Slashdot title "Microsoft Applies to Patent RSS in Vista". AFAIK, there are browsers (claim 19), media players (claim 20) and e-mail (claim 18) in non-Microsoft products as well;) Dave Winer is wrong just as well; there is no single attack on RSS in the patent. Anyone who just reads RSS in an RSS-reader will be able to do so in future. But beware the patent is granted (and I bet the dimwits in USPTO will grant it), and you write and sell an application that extracts RSS feeds into a set of hierachical folders (claim 8), that reside on the machine and are queried by a browser, media player or e-mail client; and you'll be tossed. Actually, the only thing that I personally find 'clever' in this application (and I am *not* an RSS person), is the setup of these hierarchical folders. Because one can mirror RSS-content locally, any content, within topical folders, and then query these folders for content; like media player for latest on movies (and then offer the movie through your media player); browser for news (and then offer the news feeds contained in the RSS); and so forth.
We're driving an old car that probably nobody feels like stealing voluntarily. Often enough I don't even lock it. If we were in MY, from next year on I couldn't sleep well at night without glueing, welding and chaining the plates to the venerable car. Why ? Because - I bet - chances are exorbitant that in the next morning I'll own a car without plates; something that will be *a lot* of hassle, to explain, drive, and whatnot. Why? Because a car thief finds quite a value in the plates: Sticking them to a brand-new freshly stolen Merc.
I can't follow the logic how RFIDs will prevent theft.? Sure, if RFID readers combined with cameras scanned the highway, and evaluated that that red runner actually was supposed to be a blue heavyweight, could trigger an alarm. Even the automatic identification of the brand from a camera image is not possible. So if the stolen car is a blue BMW and my vintage a blue Volvo ? What makes that BMW pop up as 'stolen' ? As far as I can make out, nothing; *except* if a human looked at the image of the BMW and compared it with the extracted characteristics of the RFID it carries: 1986 Volvo 240.
Take a break and a deep breath. Let's continue: Except of the outer appearance, that blue (recently stolen brand new) BMW has one and only one feature that identifies the illegal change of ownership: it doesn't look like a blue (vintage) Volvo. And, no, contrary to what some state in this topic, adding the brand to the RFID doesn't help at all: Though the RFID will emit 'Volvo' (which the database will deliver within less than a second in any case), the crucial point is, that it still requires human intelligence to make out that the car in question isn't. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to spot stolen cars, someone would need to observe all cars passing by and compare them with a pop-up displaying what the database says about their respective RFIDs.? Does it help to identify the theft *after* having been pulled over by police ? Also there, I can't make out a lot of difference. Once the driver pops out licence and IC, it is quite easy to establish that no brand-new blue BMW is registered under her name. The chassis of which has been registered as missing, as well. Oh, well, time for jail term. No need for RFID in the number plate, here, neither.
The only 'advantage' that I can make out is - and this applies to any government, not only the Malaysian - that it is very easy to automatically scan all passing vehicles at each mile and build up just as automatically a profile of where the car (that is, the owner) moves about in his time, 24/7.
True, and thanks for pointing a few things out.
One thing, though, is IMHO overdone:
So if you're not sending the equivalent of key presses and on/off hook states over the IP link, again, you're outside the bounds of the patent.
Now think hard and tell me - for a system with TCP/IP in between - how to start-stop the communication (that is logon-logoff) if not by a key press / mouse click ?
Fantastic ! Thanks for pointing out a lot of reasonable items. (to the unwashed masses of/.) One thing, though, I can't follow your logic of going back two years. Priority is claimed for February 26, 1999. Where do you get the other one year from ?
Fine, so.
Read the f***** claims: TCP/IP over PBX. Your serial modem doesn't cut it. You send anything (graphics, claim !) over TCP/IP ? I guess not. I rather assume the signals are synchronous phone signals.
Hell, the question isn't what it does, but if you have prior art for their combination of PBX and TCP/IP. Refer to the claims, please !
I guess I'll be modded redundant, but this is what the thing claims, and not what you write: An apparatus, comprising: an interface to connect to a synchronous digital link and to send and receive digital signals to and from a telephone switch over the synchronous digital link; a controller to generate graphical display information and events based on the digital signals received over the interface; and logic to communicate over an asynchronous digital link, to convert the digital signals to an asynchronous format, and to transmit the digital signals and the graphical display information and events over the asynchronous digital link, wherein the logic is arranged to receive key press and hook state commands over the asynchronous digital link.
Which would exactly make it patentable.
That doesn't mean that there is any sound reason to dish one out, but your argument shows exactly that you don't understand the patent system.
You simply have too much common sense for patents !;)
A patent abstract may contain any crap of someone's liking.
I simply wished, that after so many reminders as dished out by myself and others, the editors finally understood (and referenced) the independent claims (or maybe the claims, if independent sounds too difficult), please ?!
There is enough 'itsatrap' and FUD around. Let's be professional on/. and cite claims instead of crap.
Even though this might be redundant after so many comments, it might be summarized again that the good prof has not broken RSA. Actually, the vulnerability has little to nothing to do with RSA.
The whole thing - as critical as it is - spies on the processes running on the machine. It is an indirect attack, checking on the resources used while performing some not broken algorithmic calculations. When you disable pipelining and cache while doing the calculations, there is not much to spy on and nothing to gain. Just prevent the wanna-be intruder from seeing cache, pipelines, CPU from working makes you safe. The problem is, that this isn't very practical.
I wished the editors used less misleading headlines. There is no vulnerability in RSA cryptography per se. It is rather that you observe Men At Work and from what you see you can guess what the're doing.
And in principle this applies to any other cryptography just as well. Inclusive DRM (which makes me giggle).
Slashdot Mirror
No need to quarrel about the length ....
/ 1356204
The very moment SUN gets their stuff - at least kernel && Co - on something like GPL3, it will not only affect Linux, it will also dent the BSDs, and a bit of OSX. The next OSX will come out with ZFS; until now a SunOS-only. Once SUN offers a non-dreadful GUI - sorry - once SUN offers all foundations to compile and run a non-dreadful GUI of your liking; migration will be from Linux to OpenSolaris (or whatever it will be called), as well as from BSD and from OSX [which is just another BSD with a non-dreadful GUI; only pretty costly] to OpenSolaris (or whatever it will be called). Few actually think that the BSD kernel is better than the SUN kernel. The very moment you can use it properly with all freedoms and no fscking registration, quite a number of BSDs will migrate, as well. And within maybe 5 years SunOS will the the de-facto standard for FOSS, except maybe embedded devices.
Agreed, they won't make money with it, but they'll be the momentum leader in FOSS. Finally, a brand behind the software, a well-known brand; that helps adaptation in the corporate world. That helps SUN sell the iron to run those software on. And the community will add all those missing drivers and stuff, plus the whole range of GUIs and GPLed software.
I perceive it similar to ESR and his notion of a unique chance for the desktop http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/24
The big ship (SUN) has come into some movement; while at the same time Linus proves to be a non-visionary; and RMS and Eben refine the rules for a free software world. When SUN jumps aboard the freedoms of software, Linux is by default the underdog. If SUN screws up, we'll have an even more balkanised non-Microsoft world, with GPL2 and GPL3, BSDs, ever more Linux distros, OpenSolaris. Most of all, SUN will not have another chance to change history.
Of course, all this is valid under the assumption of a GPL3 only.
Uhh, it's not my mothertongue. So, where did I screw up ? I do consider GPL3 as potentially very relevant; especially when the FSF gets their licence holders to migrate. And if those SUNny retards could only understand that they have the kernel in their hands. They only need a good broom to swipe all those SUN-ish attitudes out of the door, license their basics under GPL3; and some nice chap in Portland will finally have plenty of quality time to spare with his family.
a little bit out of touch. DRM is a threat.
8 218 could be proven right.
GPLv3 is a promise. Don't forget the good ol' GPL. RMS has a complete system in place, except of a kernel.
If only those retards at SUN got their licensing house in order, we'd all have our preferred 'Linux'-distro running on a Solaris kernel. At the end of 2007.
And ZDNet's Paul Murphy http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/31/01
You must be confusing me. I thought myself as a European, born in Europe, to German parents. Okay, the Third Reich wasn't exactly a nicety from our side, agreed. Quite a lot of Jews lost their lives, before I was born. But I can't find any Indian prime minister in the list of what 'we' did wrong.
I did, however, follow a time in the earlier eighties, that is long before said prime minister was assassinated, when the then Sri Lankan president saw it fit, to stand by when probably a thousand Tamils were slaughtered for being just that, Tamils.
Read my earlier comment. I don't condone or deny any later atrocity. Including assassinating an Indian prime minister (though India had tried to interfere, anxious an independent Tamil in Sri Lanka would stir unrest in Tamil Nadu).
It is mainly the Buddhist clergy that tries its best to prevent any reasonable peace process, for fear the country as hosting Buddha's Tooth, might lose importance by being split into two parts.
Over from my side.
And so you believe. Who told you ? The chaps who had phantasised WMDs all over the by now destructed place ?
The terrorists in this case are - I don't expect you to believe me, but I used to live there - the Buddhist clergy and their puppets, the Sri Lankan government.
And no, I don't condone the atrocities committed by the Tigers of Eelam at all. But what they do is more on the side of self-defense than terrorism.
Not that I doubt your experiences, but 'an ASUS motherboard' isn't very much. You could have noted which one, in order to get it supported.
NICs usually work, even built-in ones. See above: which ?
If you really wanted to get it up, a NIC these days os not more than US$ 5. Sure, a cheapo. But not worse than the built-in ones.
A basic sound card (see: built-in ones) is available for not much more. I happen to have a bunch lying around, and would pass one to you.
In short: for a few bucks you could have had it running.
And good luck to get Vista on the Duron, since you consider your experience hit and miss. You might miss and hit.
Somehow it is funny: when we try to be nice and offer you a boot-loader, leaving your existing system fully intact, even adding your existing system to the menu, you don't say 'thank you !', but cry if it doesn't work one time or another. But when Microsoft blatently overwrites anything that was there before, does not even bother to ask about installing its boot-loader into the MBR; of course without adding your other operating system to the menu, you guys don't yell at Bill. You graciously accept as fate what the gods had in mind for you.
Don't you think, we could do a syslinux-thingy for you as well ? Not asking, just overwriting your MBR with a sure, direct boot into your new system ? Like Microsoft does ?
At least, please measure with the same yardstick.
And I don't suggest Live-CDs, nor even KNOPPIX for such cases. There is a much much smaller utility for all those grub-related problems; one that offers you almost any tool w.r.t. boot-loading, and that is Super Grub Disk. http://supergrub.forjamari.linex.org/ should get you going.
Done. Tried both Belenix and Nexenta. No, I have no shares with them, but both work. Nexenta, though alpha, does a pretty good job, recognises my hardware, inclusive NIC, audio and video, installs, reboots, even auto-checks for 32/64 bit at reboot, configures X almost properly. Everything runs, surely no 'alpha' feeling and there is synaptic to add plenty other packages, included with an update utility. After a few hours, not much different from Ubuntu / Debian.
My own, only, personal gripe would be Slowaris: it is slower than the Debian running on the same box.
Getting DTrace, ZFS, and SUN, it is not excluded that Nexenta takes some market share. There is the binary blob for NVIDIA, btw. I'll try that next. If Paul happened to see this version of Nexenta on supported hardware, I can imagine where he got his idea from.
What makes me doubt the success story, though: Too often decisions are not taken on technical merit.
I was hoping for 'funny', though.
And I had been pondering about "Linux without Linux", or "Linux without Linus"
Actually, I rather prefer the 'Debian way', and I understand why you say so. What makes you compare Belenix to BSD/gentoo ? (How does this fit together after all, except of source-based ?)
Sun, which will be a problem for them making inroads against linux. They have some things to bring to the table, but is it enough to make the IT industry do major investments to follow them in spite of the current disadvantages technically and business-wise? I doubt it.
I can't be so sure in doubting it. Once they finally, eventually, get the licensing into the right terms, things can look different. Vastly different. In at least 2 perspectives:
1. We still encounter the 'Who the fxxx is Linux !' on the corporate level. SUN is perceived differently.
2. With a bit of sun and traction, we'll get the blobs (IPW) into it rather easily and drivers as well.
At least your last paragraph confirms my 'show-stopper': hardware support.
Actually, one or another card or even controller isn't the worst problem. It would be power management (and that could be SUN), and the - sorry - blobs for ATI and NVIDIA. (I do need the TV out; not the acceleration.)
Thanks for kind of confirming my suspicions; and now the mouth is watery and time has come to start trying a few things of what you mentioned. That would be Nexenta and Belenix; the 'Community Edition' isn't my piece of cake.
Oh well, thanks !
;).
/., right ? Sigh ...
The only contributor until now who might have actually *seen* OpenSolaris. Compared to all those fanboys of whatever, who might be right, but don't know what the're talking about w.r.t OpenSolaris.
OpenSolaris can be open Solaris, but it could as well be Linux with a different kernel: SunOS.
Sorry, RMS, GNU/Linux without Linux; that would be GNU/SunOS. No, not yet GNU/Hurd; not in 2007. That's my prognosis, by the way
No need to sneeze at that kernel, running your favourite Gnome/KDE/wm/XFCE and all the beauty of Linux - sorry, RMS - GNU/GPL; on probably the best file system that money could buy (ZFS); as well as running native Solaris applications. With zones instead of chroots. I repeat: it can in principle run any application that you get through apt-get. It only needed to be re-compiled. The one and only show-stopper in sight could be hardware support.
And I'd be the first to get my boxes migrated to GNU/SunOS if hardware support suffices; promised. There are all advantages.
Not that I'd think Paul Murphy was right, but there is something in this prognosis about OpenSolaris of his.
No need for all these un-informed posts of pre-mature conclusions. But we are on
I am sure you read everything; and I am sure you understood everything. Therefore I am sure that you noticed that I had not written anything, would it not have been about your main argument, when you used part of the description to assess legal aspects. One of the items being preached on Slashdot over the years, is to understand the difference between the claims and description in a patent. Legally binding are only the claims.
Plus, your first sentence started off analytically, and you finished by pointing out three 'evil' aspects. Why the feeling of being obliged ? Convinced or obliged ?
This leaves me baffled, after your thorough analysis.
Firstly, it is not patented; though that's minor.
What I'd like to know, though, is your 'Most'. What is novel in the application ? Is it patentable ? Do you think it is 'nothing new' or 'most not new' ? And no, I am not counting peanuts. That's how patent life is.
You're a good guy. You try your best. You also don't understand the patent system.
/.
It is *not* a patent. Yet.
The decription is irrelevant, still you bold a passage from there.
Your 'evil ones' are spot on, though. Nothing to do with being on
For the I-never-read-the-source-luke-department members, I add here what I deposited on the original site; hoping to clarify the matter:
;)
"Second of all, from my reading anyway, Microsoft is not patenting RSS, but RSS within Vista/IE7. Of course I'm not a patent lawyer, I could be wrong about that."
I am very unclear what makes the author of the blog think this ? I read the claims - and that is what counts in a patent, only - and can't find anything that points to Vista. The only technical feature the claims talk about is the feature mentioned mainly in claim 10: reading RSS by an application that generically cannot read it. That is meant with the plurality of applications in claim 1.
Therefore what the patent proposes is *not* to patent RSS, but to patent the rocket-science-like concept of getting the RSS as is (that is, again, *not* patenting it), and miraculously translate it ('API') to be used in other applications.
To me, the patent is written very clearly and rather concisely. If you now read the blog again, alas, it doesn't really hit the problem and the consequences right between the eyes.
The question are basically two:
1. For patentability, it must be made sure, that nobody has proposed to use RSS for a plurality of 'drains', applications, that do not natively 'speak' RSS, before the filing date, June 21, 2005.
2. For business reasons, one needs to evaluate the value of a patent that prevents others from using RSS for other applications; like importing it into a media player. Obviously, there is a nice stranglehold that the patent offers to the owner against competitors.
And let me add some more remarks here for Slashdot raeders:
Sure, the whole thing is probably crap. As much crap as the Slashdot title "Microsoft Applies to Patent RSS in Vista". AFAIK, there are browsers (claim 19), media players (claim 20) and e-mail (claim 18) in non-Microsoft products as well
Dave Winer is wrong just as well; there is no single attack on RSS in the patent. Anyone who just reads RSS in an RSS-reader will be able to do so in future. But beware the patent is granted (and I bet the dimwits in USPTO will grant it), and you write and sell an application that extracts RSS feeds into a set of hierachical folders (claim 8), that reside on the machine and are queried by a browser, media player or e-mail client; and you'll be tossed.
Actually, the only thing that I personally find 'clever' in this application (and I am *not* an RSS person), is the setup of these hierarchical folders. Because one can mirror RSS-content locally, any content, within topical folders, and then query these folders for content; like media player for latest on movies (and then offer the movie through your media player); browser for news (and then offer the news feeds contained in the RSS); and so forth.
Can someone hit me with a clue-stick, please ?
We're driving an old car that probably nobody feels like stealing voluntarily. Often enough I don't even lock it.
If we were in MY, from next year on I couldn't sleep well at night without glueing, welding and chaining the plates to the venerable car. Why ? Because - I bet - chances are exorbitant that in the next morning I'll own a car without plates; something that will be *a lot* of hassle, to explain, drive, and whatnot.
Why? Because a car thief finds quite a value in the plates: Sticking them to a brand-new freshly stolen Merc.
I can't follow the logic how RFIDs will prevent theft.? Sure, if RFID readers combined with cameras scanned the highway, and evaluated that that red runner actually was supposed to be a blue heavyweight, could trigger an alarm.
Even the automatic identification of the brand from a camera image is not possible. So if the stolen car is a blue BMW and my vintage a blue Volvo ? What makes that BMW pop up as 'stolen' ? As far as I can make out, nothing; *except* if a human looked at the image of the BMW and compared it with the extracted characteristics of the RFID it carries: 1986 Volvo 240.
Take a break and a deep breath. Let's continue: Except of the outer appearance, that blue (recently stolen brand new) BMW has one and only one feature that identifies the illegal change of ownership: it doesn't look like a blue (vintage) Volvo.
And, no, contrary to what some state in this topic, adding the brand to the RFID doesn't help at all: Though the RFID will emit 'Volvo' (which the database will deliver within less than a second in any case), the crucial point is, that it still requires human intelligence to make out that the car in question isn't.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to spot stolen cars, someone would need to observe all cars passing by and compare them with a pop-up displaying what the database says about their respective RFIDs.?
Does it help to identify the theft *after* having been pulled over by police ? Also there, I can't make out a lot of difference. Once the driver pops out licence and IC, it is quite easy to establish that no brand-new blue BMW is registered under her name. The chassis of which has been registered as missing, as well. Oh, well, time for jail term. No need for RFID in the number plate, here, neither.
The only 'advantage' that I can make out is - and this applies to any government, not only the Malaysian - that it is very easy to automatically scan all passing vehicles at each mile and build up just as automatically a profile of where the car (that is, the owner) moves about in his time, 24/7.
Scary.
One thing, though, is IMHO overdone:
So if you're not sending the equivalent of key presses and on/off hook states over the IP link, again, you're outside the bounds of the patent.
Now think hard and tell me - for a system with TCP/IP in between - how to start-stop the communication (that is logon-logoff) if not by a key press / mouse click ?
Fantastic ! /.)
Thanks for pointing out a lot of reasonable items. (to the unwashed masses of
One thing, though, I can't follow your logic of going back two years. Priority is claimed for February 26, 1999. Where do you get the other one year from ?
Fine, so. Read the f***** claims: TCP/IP over PBX. Your serial modem doesn't cut it. You send anything (graphics, claim !) over TCP/IP ? I guess not. I rather assume the signals are synchronous phone signals.
Feb. 26, 1999
is the priority date. So, forget 2000. What is needed is prior art, published, yes, on or before Feb. 25, 1999.
I guess I'll be modded redundant, but this is what the thing claims, and not what you write:
An apparatus, comprising: an interface to connect to a synchronous digital link and to send and receive digital signals to and from a telephone switch over the synchronous digital link; a controller to generate graphical display information and events based on the digital signals received over the interface; and logic to communicate over an asynchronous digital link, to convert the digital signals to an asynchronous format, and to transmit the digital signals and the graphical display information and events over the asynchronous digital link, wherein the logic is arranged to receive key press and hook state commands over the asynchronous digital link.
You have prior art for this ?
Which would exactly make it patentable. ;)
That doesn't mean that there is any sound reason to dish one out, but your argument shows exactly that you don't understand the patent system.
You simply have too much common sense for patents !
A patent abstract may contain any crap of someone's liking.
/. and cite claims instead of crap.
I simply wished, that after so many reminders as dished out by myself and others, the editors finally understood (and referenced) the independent claims (or maybe the claims, if independent sounds too difficult), please ?!
There is enough 'itsatrap' and FUD around. Let's be professional on
The whole thing - as critical as it is - spies on the processes running on the machine. It is an indirect attack, checking on the resources used while performing some not broken algorithmic calculations.
When you disable pipelining and cache while doing the calculations, there is not much to spy on and nothing to gain. Just prevent the wanna-be intruder from seeing cache, pipelines, CPU from working makes you safe.
The problem is, that this isn't very practical.
I wished the editors used less misleading headlines. There is no vulnerability in RSA cryptography per se. It is rather that you observe Men At Work and from what you see you can guess what the're doing.
And in principle this applies to any other cryptography just as well. Inclusive DRM (which makes me giggle).
In my experience, it is native english speakers that make that mistake the most, including people I know *personally*.
If these were not in agreement, there is no agreement. But of course, we are on Slashdot, and not here to agree. ;)
Meaning, that we agree. A rare occasion on Slashdot.