"PCs are not selling to the lower end of the population in China and India. People buying machines there are relatively affluent. So...should the prices be lower? Not really. Until government and situational factors reduce piracy...those affluent people cannot pay, so they don't pay," Ballmer said.
Huh?
This makes absolutely no sense. Though, if you look closely at most things Ballmer says, they don't make any sense either.
Langan's a very interesting guy. I think quite a few/.'ers will find his writings intriguing. You can download one of his free ebooks at this Mega Foundation site.
Don't worry. This is only a design patent, which is fundamentally different than a "utility" patent.
According to the PTO web site:
In general terms, a "utility patent" protects the way an article is used and works, while a "design patent" protects the way an article looks...A design for an article of manufacture that is dictated primarily by the function of the article lacks ornamentality and is not proper statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 171. Specifically, if at the time the design was created, there was no unique or distinctive shape or appearance to the article not dictated by the function that it performs, the design lacks ornamentality and is not proper subject matter. In addition, 35 U.S.C. 171 requires that a design to be patentable must be "original." Clearly a design that simulates a well-known or naturally occurring object or person is not original as required by the statute.
So, it doesn't cover any functionality. In fact, if the design relates closely to functionaly, then that weakens the patent. In this case, I'd say the design of the garbage can icon pretty precisely relates to the functionalty of throwing away files.
With this in mind, it seems that it's probably a pretty toothless patent. Don't lose any sleep over it.
FYI: It appears that the target date for prior art on their earliest one is March 24, 1993, since the 1999 patent is a continuation of a 1994 application.
Any prior art will have to predate, by more than 1 year, the filing date of the original application.
There's no reason to wring your hands about this patent. Tcl-DP is prior art for claim 1, and it existed prior to 1995. This places it before Microsoft even knew what the Internet was, though it appears that any prior art predating 7/10/2000 will kill this one.
Claim 1 reads:
1. A software architecture for a distributed computing system comprising: an application configured to handle requests submitted by remote devices over a network; and an application program interface to present functions used by the application to access network and computing resources of the distributed computing system.
Tcl-DP provided an application configured to handle requests submitted by remote devices over a network (the RPC server), and an application program interface to present functions used by the application to access network and computing resources of the distributed computing system (the dp_RPC command protocol). The client application mentioned in the dependent claims is provided by any application configured as an RPC client.
Has anybody explained why they couldn't have done a spacewalk to inspect the damage from the insulation strike? All I've heard is that it wouldn't have made any difference if they had done one, since they weren't equipped to repair it.
I just don't buy the assertion that they wouldn't have had any options if they had discovered the damage. Once they knew of the problem, they could have worked out some sort of rescue plan, perhaps getting them out to the ISS, where they could have stayed until Endeavor could have been launched to go pick them up. Columbia could have been left at the ISS until a later mission could go out to repair it.
In the words of our fearless leader, I still think they "misunderestimated" the situation.
Has anybody explained why they couldn't have done a spacewalk to inspect the damage? All I've heard is that it wouldn't have made any difference if they had done one, since they weren't equipped to repair it.
I just don't buy the assertion that they wouldn't have had any options if they had discovered the damage. Once they knew of the problem, they could have worked out some sort of rescue plan, perhaps getting them out to the ISS, where they could have stayed until Endeavor could have been launched to go pick them up. Columbia could have been left at the ISS until a later mission could go out to repair it.
In the words of our fearless leader, I still think they "misunderestimated" the situation.
You're right. I was wrong about the docking. I was responding to a mistaken report by the ABC news anchor this morning, who commented that the ISS crew and the Shuttle crew "had just spent time together." I guess he meant time in space, not in the same ship.
I've just listened to a report from someone at a California observatory that they saw somethng bright flying away from the shuttle as it passed over the Sierra Nevadas. Then they had the NASA flight director saying that quite a while later, in the final few minutes of communication with the craft, that they first lost the signal in a temperature sensor in the left wing. Shortly after that they noticed a sharp increase in both temperature and pressure in the left landing gear tire and hydraulics. Then they lost signal from those sensors as well. Just as the crew was acknowledging that, they lost contact.
It seems pretty clear that what probably happened was that the insulation that hit the left wing during takeoff must have dislodged one or more of the heat-shield tiles, and that these started coming off as the Shuttle was passing from California to Nevada during reentry. This must have compounded to the point where there was a sudden spike in temperature in the vicinity of the first sensor loss, and then spread to the landing gear area. The heat buildup there first caused the spike in temperature and pressure that was reported, then probably melted everything, killing the sensors. At that point, the aluminum airframe in that wing was probably soup. The resultant loss of attitude would then have led to the breakup of the craft that was filmed over Texas.
It seems that we are likely to find that there is blame to place here, and that it ultimately lies with the flight director. It was his call not to take any extraordinary measures, such as a space walk, to inspect the area of the insulation collision and resultant left wing damage.
They were docked at the Space Station for a time during this mission. They therefore had all the resources that they would have needed to identify and correct the problem. This didn't happen because the insulation strike was written off as "inconsequential."
I expect that heads will eventually roll on this one.
The SBC patent covers page-dependent modification of the GUI to allow navigation controls that remain visible no matter what portion of the document is being viewed.
Although the primary way this functionality is implemented today is through frames, the SBC application appears to pre-date frames appearing in Navigator. Remember, they had up to 1 year from the time of their work in order to apply for the patent in the first place. This pre-frames software, released in September of 1995 but well known far before that, shows all of the features claimed in the SBC patent, through use of LINK and GROUP tags. This should be all that's needed to invalidate the SBC patent, which was applied for in May of 1996.
"available on Unix" ? Au contraire. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Tcl developers distribute their apps for Windows these days, though those apps will typically run on just about any platform without changing a line of Tcl code.
A brief list of cross-platform Starkits available is at http://mini.net/sdarchive/ though the Starkit system makes it trivially easy to package and distribute complete applications for multiple platforms.
For an impressive display of what can be with a Tcl Starkit, you can check out Kitten, which is "a tclkit collection of [over 100] Tcl/Tk extensions aimed at reducing the work a developer has to do while developing a starkit. It contains script and compiled extensions like tcllib, BWidgets, expat, Expect, incr Widgets, mclistbox, mpexpr, narray, a tcl parser, an sgml parser, tclSOAP, stooop, Supertext, tdom, Tix, Tktable, tclXML, tkHtml, ClassyTk and others."
If you're talking about true cross-platform compatibility, combined with ease of development and deployment, then Tcl can't be beat. It's always been good, but recent developments, such as the Starkitpackaging and runtime system, make it a hands-down winner.
You don't need frames to invalidate this patent. See the above-linked discussion of a 1995 browser's use of the <LINK> tag:
"Most Web designers try to build in some sort of navigation system into their documents, usually at the top of the page. The problem arises when the user scrolls down the page and suddenly the navigation GUI is no longer visible. WebRouser's
<LINK> command allows the Web document to place a button bar at the top of the screen, as a part of the WebRouser GUI. When the user scrolls down the document, the navigation buttons remain in place. Since the document drives the definition of the buttons' functions, each Web site can have its own Netscape-style "What's New," "What's Cool," etc. button bar pointing to their own content, not to some hard-coded browser company location, such as in other browsers."
This, if it's for real, will make mesh topologies a real threat to the existing landline-based ISPs. Effective inter-node range has always been the biggest barrier to the potential acceptance of mesh systems. With this kind of range, only a few people in a community would need to run mesh routers in order to provide access to the whole community.
If you're stupid enoough to pay for the Click-n-Run versions of apps, then you get what you deserve. You can just download and install the apps yourself: Mozilla, Opera, Apache, you name it. The Click-n-run business model depends on idiots not realizing that they can just bypass Lindows and get the software from Sourceforge, or wherever.
Hmm. I bought one of those too. I threw it on an existing KVM switch, so I didn't need a monitor. I just ignored the auto-installer and downloaded and installed the standard x86 binaries for Opera and Infocetera (www.infocetera.com), and now have a very nice little collaboration server, that only cost me $300. It's been running like a champ for 2 months with nary a problem so far. Not a bad deal, I'd say.
The laches defense, applicable where the patent holder didn't defend against a known infringer, only applies to specific infringers that can prove that the patent holder knew about their specific case of infringement. It doesn't help other infringers that can't prove that the patent holder knew about them. Also, the patent holder has 6 years to take action against an infringer that they know about, before laches takes effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh?
This makes absolutely no sense. Though, if you look closely at most things Ballmer says, they don't make any sense either.
No problem, Puppy Linux also allows you to boot off of a floppy, then run everything from the USB flash drive.
Correction: Langan's ebook costs $10. Several others here can be downloaded for free. The one by William Sidis is definitely worth a look.
Langan's a very interesting guy. I think quite a few /.'ers will find his writings intriguing. You can download one of his free ebooks at this Mega Foundation site.
According to the PTO web site:
So, it doesn't cover any functionality. In fact, if the design relates closely to functionaly, then that weakens the patent. In this case, I'd say the design of the garbage can icon pretty precisely relates to the functionalty of throwing away files.
With this in mind, it seems that it's probably a pretty toothless patent. Don't lose any sleep over it.
Hmm. I thought scripting *was* programming.
Any prior art will have to predate, by more than 1 year, the filing date of the original application.
Claim 1 reads:
Tcl-DP provided an application configured to handle requests submitted by remote devices over a network (the RPC server), and an application program interface to present functions used by the application to access network and computing resources of the distributed computing system (the dp_RPC command protocol). The client application mentioned in the dependent claims is provided by any application configured as an RPC client.
Has anybody explained why they couldn't have done a spacewalk to inspect the damage from the insulation strike? All I've heard is that it wouldn't have made any difference if they had done one, since they weren't equipped to repair it. I just don't buy the assertion that they wouldn't have had any options if they had discovered the damage. Once they knew of the problem, they could have worked out some sort of rescue plan, perhaps getting them out to the ISS, where they could have stayed until Endeavor could have been launched to go pick them up. Columbia could have been left at the ISS until a later mission could go out to repair it. In the words of our fearless leader, I still think they "misunderestimated" the situation.
I just don't buy the assertion that they wouldn't have had any options if they had discovered the damage. Once they knew of the problem, they could have worked out some sort of rescue plan, perhaps getting them out to the ISS, where they could have stayed until Endeavor could have been launched to go pick them up. Columbia could have been left at the ISS until a later mission could go out to repair it.
In the words of our fearless leader, I still think they "misunderestimated" the situation.
You're right. I was wrong about the docking. I was responding to a mistaken report by the ABC news anchor this morning, who commented that the ISS crew and the Shuttle crew "had just spent time together." I guess he meant time in space, not in the same ship.
It seems pretty clear that what probably happened was that the insulation that hit the left wing during takeoff must have dislodged one or more of the heat-shield tiles, and that these started coming off as the Shuttle was passing from California to Nevada during reentry. This must have compounded to the point where there was a sudden spike in temperature in the vicinity of the first sensor loss, and then spread to the landing gear area. The heat buildup there first caused the spike in temperature and pressure that was reported, then probably melted everything, killing the sensors. At that point, the aluminum airframe in that wing was probably soup. The resultant loss of attitude would then have led to the breakup of the craft that was filmed over Texas.
It seems that we are likely to find that there is blame to place here, and that it ultimately lies with the flight director. It was his call not to take any extraordinary measures, such as a space walk, to inspect the area of the insulation collision and resultant left wing damage.
They were docked at the Space Station for a time during this mission. They therefore had all the resources that they would have needed to identify and correct the problem. This didn't happen because the insulation strike was written off as "inconsequential."
I expect that heads will eventually roll on this one.
Sorry, it's "make, use or sell."
Although the primary way this functionality is implemented today is through frames, the SBC application appears to pre-date frames appearing in Navigator. Remember, they had up to 1 year from the time of their work in order to apply for the patent in the first place. This pre-frames software, released in September of 1995 but well known far before that, shows all of the features claimed in the SBC patent, through use of LINK and GROUP tags. This should be all that's needed to invalidate the SBC patent, which was applied for in May of 1996.
A sampling of companies heavily reliant on Tcl can be seen at http://www.tcl.tk/customers/success/
The Tcler's Wiki is probably the hub of the most activity: http://mini.net/tcl/0
A brief list of cross-platform Starkits available is at http://mini.net/sdarchive/ though the Starkit system makes it trivially easy to package and distribute complete applications for multiple platforms. For an impressive display of what can be with a Tcl Starkit, you can check out Kitten, which is "a tclkit collection of [over 100] Tcl/Tk extensions aimed at reducing the work a developer has to do while developing a starkit. It contains script and compiled extensions like tcllib, BWidgets, expat, Expect, incr Widgets, mclistbox, mpexpr, narray, a tcl parser, an sgml parser, tclSOAP, stooop, Supertext, tdom, Tix, Tktable, tclXML, tkHtml, ClassyTk and others."
If you're talking about true cross-platform compatibility, combined with ease of development and deployment, then Tcl can't be beat. It's always been good, but recent developments, such as the Starkitpackaging and runtime system, make it a hands-down winner.
http://www.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1995q 3/0566.html
You don't need frames to invalidate this patent. See the above-linked discussion of a 1995 browser's use of the <LINK> tag:
This, if it's for real, will make mesh topologies a real threat to the existing landline-based ISPs. Effective inter-node range has always been the biggest barrier to the potential acceptance of mesh systems. With this kind of range, only a few people in a community would need to run mesh routers in order to provide access to the whole community.
And WallsRSolid works for who? ...either Microsquat or one of their numerous PR firms, of course.
Richard Suchenwirth has already done this in Tcl.
If you're stupid enoough to pay for the Click-n-Run versions of apps, then you get what you deserve. You can just download and install the apps yourself: Mozilla, Opera, Apache, you name it. The Click-n-run business model depends on idiots not realizing that they can just bypass Lindows and get the software from Sourceforge, or wherever.
Hmm. I bought one of those too. I threw it on an existing KVM switch, so I didn't need a monitor. I just ignored the auto-installer and downloaded and installed the standard x86 binaries for Opera and Infocetera (www.infocetera.com), and now have a very nice little collaboration server, that only cost me $300. It's been running like a champ for 2 months with nary a problem so far. Not a bad deal, I'd say.
Actually, the "chunkier" was referring to the Archos box, not the Zaurus.
The laches defense, applicable where the patent holder didn't defend against a known infringer, only applies to specific infringers that can prove that the patent holder knew about their specific case of infringement. It doesn't help other infringers that can't prove that the patent holder knew about them. Also, the patent holder has 6 years to take action against an infringer that they know about, before laches takes effect.
No it is not. The old rules were 17 years after the patent issues.