That would still send it back to Congress, if a patent law were found unconstitutional. It would be up to Congress to pass a new law that was constitutional. It is possible that it could happen this way, but it's highly improbable, due to the nature of the claim. The appeal itself is fairly narrow, and is not claiming that the law itself is unconstitutional. Rather, the grounds for the appeal are that a lower court did not use a proper test to determine the validity of a patent, i.e., the test for obviousness. In this case, the defendant is claiming that using off the shelf parts to create a brake pedal is an obvious idea to someone in the trade, and therefore not patentable. If they prevail, this will have far reaching implications, to be sure. But it's highly doubtful that the court will rule broadly on this issue, especially because the claim itself is fairly narrow. Don't expect the patent system to be turned on its ear.
It wouldn't necessarily apply to any patents that we might think of as obvious, unless those patents were the subject of litigation before a court, and it might only apply to patents that involve off the shelf components. Yes, this is important, but even if the defendant wins, it's just one chip out of many we need to reform the patent system. It would be a great victory, but it's effects will still be limited.
In any case, I believe that the court is going to rule narrowly. Chief Justice Roberts spoke recently on the subject of broad and narrow rulings, and said he preferred narrow rulings. One reason for this was that narrow rulings tend to get greater consensus among the Supremes rather than split decisions. Consensus implies validity while a divided court implies controversy, i.e., the matter isn't settled with finality.
The changes to the patent system itself that you suggest will only happen thru an act of Congress. While the courts can overturn a patent office decision, they can't impose their will directly on the patent office.
All the Supremes can do is rule on this particular case, which will give guidance and a precedent for lower courts to follow. Unless the patent office itself were to be brought before the court (somehow), the court cannot dictate to it. That would be infringing on the Executive Branch, which operates the patent office (according to the laws enacted by Congress).
In fact, the new Chief Justice what's-his-name recently spoke about the desirability of narrow rulings. A byproduct of narrow rulings is a court that can achieve consensus and consensus reinforces the validity of the interpretation.
Just out of curiosity, are you using them in a RAID for redundancy? Are you using Firewire? E-Sata? SCSI? Removable ATA bays? NAS with gigabit? Inquiring minds want to know!
By "work", I mean has the "War on Drugs" successfully reduced drug use or reduced drug trafficking into and within the US (let alone stop it). And the answer is clearly no. Drug use and trafficking have gone up. How you expect a "War on Unauthorized Copying" to actually reduce unauthorized copying is beyond me.
I'm not saying that there won't be innocent victims, as there have been in the "War on Drugs". But if you think that we'll see an equivalent increase in law enforcement power to accommodate the "War on Unauthorized Copying", I wonder what sort of drugs you are on (or what music you're copying). =)
Fair enough. But note that I did say that the NSA would only expend the effort on those they consider high priority, and that all others would blend in as use of encryption increases.
Thanks for the clear and concise explanation of the mathematical breakthrough required for a shortcut.
I don't think the problems are as simple to solve as that, but not doubt what you suggest would improve both systems.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I actually admire Mexican corruption (outside of the corruption due to drug trafficking). It seems so egalitarian compared to the corruption we see in the US (again, outside of drug trafficking). In the US, you have to already be extremely wealthy, powerful, or connected to participate in corruption, while in Mexico, corruption seems available to a much broader swath of society.
Of course, once we look at the drug trade, we have to start looking at how demand and law enforcement policy in the US is creating the current environment of narco-terrorism and corruption in Mexico to a large degree. And that doesn't even begin to consider the role of US policy in Central America in the creation of groups like the Maras.
I guess the point of this is that a lot of the fucked up things in our countries are inextricably bound, whether people admit it or not.
Actually, here is a better article that describes some of the problems in Mexican politics with vote buying. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Plus, DVD was playable on existing technology. You didn't need to go buy a $2000+ monitor to enjoy watching a DVD or appreciate the advance in quality and new features.
Maybe there will be a demand for HD DVD and Blu Ray when HD sets are a lot more common, but not until then.
About the only compelling thing in these new formats for me is data storage and back up, and I'm still not sure that they will be more cost effective than cheap raids or even external HDs.
Sorry, no source handy, but I do remember reading it. I'm not pulling the figure out of my ass, honest! Since I don't have a link for you, take it with whatever measure of salt you require.
Even though I think of myself as a fiscal conservative, I've come to realize two things. One, the individual does obligations to society since that society has provided him with opportunities; and two, there are some problems that are more effectively fixed collectively, while to ignore them ends up costing both society and the individual more in the long run. Which is not to say that private enterprise doesn't have a role to play in such solutions (the obvious example being subsidies for rent, rather than the government buying properties and becoming the landlord).
I'm not against the inheritance tax above a certain level. If you're a multi-millionaire, how many unearned millions do your children really need to get along comfortably in life? Cap inheritances at 10 million per child, and we'd see a substantial rise in revenues as well as a substantial rise in charitable giving. This might be a way to pay for more tax cuts for the living (although we still need to pay for the current tax cuts first!). Anyway, social programs are important, but we need to be able to pay for them! If we can't afford them, we need to cut the least necessary/lower priority ones.
The GOP has been a big disappointment since Bush came to power in too many ways to mention.
Re:paranoia?
on
PGP & GPG
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
My guesses include:
* They've coerced the author to build in a backdoor (a la clipper). * They've spent enough billions on serious hardware that they can brute-force it in a reasonable time. * They've got some very clever mathematician to figure out a viable attack.
I think you can safely scratch #1, while also safely assuming #2. The trick is how timely, and how much encrypted traffic there is overall. If you or your message has been flagged as a high priority decrypt, then they're likely to throw a lot of crunch at it.
However, if you're not flagged and more people start to use encryption, you're more likely to get lost in the noise.
Your #3, I have no idea. I don't really have enough math knowledge to have a good grasp on the difficulties such a mathematician would face.
I buy O'Reilly books just for the cute animal pictures on the covers. I'm hoping they'll come out with a Cocker Spaniel book on some aspect of Mac programming. =)
I honestly don't know; my personal research hasn't gone that in depth. It might be because rents are so much higher in NYC that landlords discourage the practice or aren't eligible for it, it might vary state to state (since these programs are administered at the state level AFAIK), or you might just be right, the program as a whole is badly administered.
Well, the really important part of the GGP was that he actually used an Internet analogy to describe cars and roads. Was that a slashdot first, or is he from Soviet Russia?
There's a real danger in the coming years for an `entertainment' platform (XBox, etc.) to become more common than the PC---the platform will support web-browsing, email, word processing, etc., and play movies and games. Those platforms, unlike the PC, can (and -will-) be restricted to run some particular OS that you cannot change.
I think you overestimate this danger. Someone will find a way to run Linux on it. I'd lay money on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes! Exactly!
Think of the children!!
Er, wait, that's the problem to begin with . . .
(It's an oldie but a goodie, folks!)
That would still send it back to Congress, if a patent law were found unconstitutional. It would be up to Congress to pass a new law that was constitutional. It is possible that it could happen this way, but it's highly improbable, due to the nature of the claim. The appeal itself is fairly narrow, and is not claiming that the law itself is unconstitutional. Rather, the grounds for the appeal are that a lower court did not use a proper test to determine the validity of a patent, i.e., the test for obviousness. In this case, the defendant is claiming that using off the shelf parts to create a brake pedal is an obvious idea to someone in the trade, and therefore not patentable. If they prevail, this will have far reaching implications, to be sure. But it's highly doubtful that the court will rule broadly on this issue, especially because the claim itself is fairly narrow. Don't expect the patent system to be turned on its ear.
It wouldn't necessarily apply to any patents that we might think of as obvious, unless those patents were the subject of litigation before a court, and it might only apply to patents that involve off the shelf components. Yes, this is important, but even if the defendant wins, it's just one chip out of many we need to reform the patent system. It would be a great victory, but it's effects will still be limited.
In any case, I believe that the court is going to rule narrowly. Chief Justice Roberts spoke recently on the subject of broad and narrow rulings, and said he preferred narrow rulings. One reason for this was that narrow rulings tend to get greater consensus among the Supremes rather than split decisions. Consensus implies validity while a divided court implies controversy, i.e., the matter isn't settled with finality.
It is difficult to extrapolate in what way would a solid move, by giving the patient a liquid.
I wonder if anyone has bothered to patent barium Jello.
Awwwwwwwww!
OK, I take it back! Er, wait . . . . =)
Sorry if that caused you pain.
The changes to the patent system itself that you suggest will only happen thru an act of Congress. While the courts can overturn a patent office decision, they can't impose their will directly on the patent office.
All the Supremes can do is rule on this particular case, which will give guidance and a precedent for lower courts to follow. Unless the patent office itself were to be brought before the court (somehow), the court cannot dictate to it. That would be infringing on the Executive Branch, which operates the patent office (according to the laws enacted by Congress).
In fact, the new Chief Justice what's-his-name recently spoke about the desirability of narrow rulings. A byproduct of narrow rulings is a court that can achieve consensus and consensus reinforces the validity of the interpretation.
I heard that he didn't die, but that he woke up to find Jar Jar's severed head in his bed.
Just out of curiosity, are you using them in a RAID for redundancy? Are you using Firewire? E-Sata? SCSI? Removable ATA bays? NAS with gigabit? Inquiring minds want to know!
By "work", I mean has the "War on Drugs" successfully reduced drug use or reduced drug trafficking into and within the US (let alone stop it). And the answer is clearly no. Drug use and trafficking have gone up. How you expect a "War on Unauthorized Copying" to actually reduce unauthorized copying is beyond me.
I'm not saying that there won't be innocent victims, as there have been in the "War on Drugs". But if you think that we'll see an equivalent increase in law enforcement power to accommodate the "War on Unauthorized Copying", I wonder what sort of drugs you are on (or what music you're copying). =)
Fair enough. But note that I did say that the NSA would only expend the effort on those they consider high priority, and that all others would blend in as use of encryption increases.
Thanks for the clear and concise explanation of the mathematical breakthrough required for a shortcut.
I don't think the problems are as simple to solve as that, but not doubt what you suggest would improve both systems.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I actually admire Mexican corruption (outside of the corruption due to drug trafficking). It seems so egalitarian compared to the corruption we see in the US (again, outside of drug trafficking). In the US, you have to already be extremely wealthy, powerful, or connected to participate in corruption, while in Mexico, corruption seems available to a much broader swath of society.
Of course, once we look at the drug trade, we have to start looking at how demand and law enforcement policy in the US is creating the current environment of narco-terrorism and corruption in Mexico to a large degree. And that doesn't even begin to consider the role of US policy in Central America in the creation of groups like the Maras.
I guess the point of this is that a lot of the fucked up things in our countries are inextricably bound, whether people admit it or not.
Here's a better article about the current use of the time honored practice of vote buying in Mexican political campaigns.
(Note: I'm not saying Mexico is better or worse than the U.S. or Canada in terms of political corruption.)
Actually, here is a better article that describes some of the problems in Mexican politics with vote buying. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Downloading Star Wars before it even films doesn't benefit society.
That's a neat trick. How do you download something before it's been created?
Plus, DVD was playable on existing technology. You didn't need to go buy a $2000+ monitor to enjoy watching a DVD or appreciate the advance in quality and new features.
Maybe there will be a demand for HD DVD and Blu Ray when HD sets are a lot more common, but not until then.
About the only compelling thing in these new formats for me is data storage and back up, and I'm still not sure that they will be more cost effective than cheap raids or even external HDs.
I saw a doctor about my depression, and he said my Seropian levels were too low. He prescribed Prozac and now I'm not too depressed to play games!
[rimshot]
Sorry, no source handy, but I do remember reading it. I'm not pulling the figure out of my ass, honest! Since I don't have a link for you, take it with whatever measure of salt you require.
Even though I think of myself as a fiscal conservative, I've come to realize two things. One, the individual does obligations to society since that society has provided him with opportunities; and two, there are some problems that are more effectively fixed collectively, while to ignore them ends up costing both society and the individual more in the long run. Which is not to say that private enterprise doesn't have a role to play in such solutions (the obvious example being subsidies for rent, rather than the government buying properties and becoming the landlord).
I'm not against the inheritance tax above a certain level. If you're a multi-millionaire, how many unearned millions do your children really need to get along comfortably in life? Cap inheritances at 10 million per child, and we'd see a substantial rise in revenues as well as a substantial rise in charitable giving. This might be a way to pay for more tax cuts for the living (although we still need to pay for the current tax cuts first!). Anyway, social programs are important, but we need to be able to pay for them! If we can't afford them, we need to cut the least necessary/lower priority ones.
The GOP has been a big disappointment since Bush came to power in too many ways to mention.
My guesses include:
* They've coerced the author to build in a backdoor (a la clipper).
* They've spent enough billions on serious hardware that they can brute-force it in a reasonable time.
* They've got some very clever mathematician to figure out a viable attack.
I think you can safely scratch #1, while also safely assuming #2. The trick is how timely, and how much encrypted traffic there is overall. If you or your message has been flagged as a high priority decrypt, then they're likely to throw a lot of crunch at it.
However, if you're not flagged and more people start to use encryption, you're more likely to get lost in the noise.
Your #3, I have no idea. I don't really have enough math knowledge to have a good grasp on the difficulties such a mathematician would face.
I buy O'Reilly books just for the cute animal pictures on the covers. I'm hoping they'll come out with a Cocker Spaniel book on some aspect of Mac programming. =)
is it really stable and guaranteed?
I honestly don't know; my personal research hasn't gone that in depth. It might be because rents are so much higher in NYC that landlords discourage the practice or aren't eligible for it, it might vary state to state (since these programs are administered at the state level AFAIK), or you might just be right, the program as a whole is badly administered.
Well, the really important part of the GGP was that he actually used an Internet analogy to describe cars and roads. Was that a slashdot first, or is he from Soviet Russia?
There's a real danger in the coming years for an `entertainment' platform (XBox, etc.) to become more common than the PC---the platform will support web-browsing, email, word processing, etc., and play movies and games. Those platforms, unlike the PC, can (and -will-) be restricted to run some particular OS that you cannot change.
I think you overestimate this danger. Someone will find a way to run Linux on it. I'd lay money on it.
Bah. The Hanso Foundation has already been conducted research like this for years.