I think the generality of the patents is part of IBM's plan - the more general the patent, the more costly it'll be for SCO to mount a defence to the claims.
Personally, I fell about laughing when I saw the counterclaim, because it's just IBM saying to SCO that they can tie them up needlessly until they run out of lawters fees.
I would agree, but for one thing - there appears to be no evidence that the guy actually tried to profit from his patent, other than suing Ebay.
Now if he'd set up an online auction house, and his business was being damaged by Ebay infringing his patent, or if (in 1995) he had tried to market his 'invention' to online auction houses, for reasonable license fees, then he'd have a case.
Not a good case, because patenting the bleeding obvious shouldn't be possible, but a case all the same.
On the available evidence, it looks like he just waited until Ebay was a juicy enough target for legal action, and used the courts to extort money from them.
I hope they win on appeal and send the bugger to the poorhouse.
Nah - a blag along the lines of 'it fitted better on the design', or (better) 'it's to provide a geek talking point - think of it as a conversation piece...' would have been believable;)
I wouldn't discount him, because he may have given us a new perspective on time.
But the problem with Zeno's paradox is that Zeno didn't ever make it clear that the time intervals he was considering also decreased geometrically, so he wasn't in fact considering 'forever' as his paradox implies, but was only ever thinking about the fixed interval between Achilles starting and his catching the tortoise, divided and subdivided into ever decreasing chunks.
There is such a fixed interval, and it will be reached - the Zeno paradox results from treating this interval as the totality of time, due to the infinite sum involved.
I'd like to read some of Lynd's original work, though - it may provide another way to look at the universe.
If so, it fits with a prejudice I've had since O-levels (don't know what grade that represents in the US, but they were normally taken at 16 in the UK until they were downgraded to the current GCSE 'Janet and John' levels a few years ago).
I always thought that for symmetry's sake, space and time should both have three dimensions, but never spent enough time and effort trying to justify my prejudice.
If you can use 3 of each of position and momentum coordinates, then effectively you have three time coordinates - since momentum contains time as one of its components.
I'd love a link to the 6-d phase space explanation, if you have one.
That law (RIPA) is (so far) untested in the courts.
When it is, it will be found wanting, since you can legitimately refuse to give up physical keys to physical locks, and this is merely an extension of that to the electronic arena.
Also, it wasn't so much a law passed by the clear will of Parliament as a series of executive orders produced by the Home Office.
I'd happily use this, and trust to the common sense of a judge to throw any RIPA nonsense out - we have a reasonable right to protect our privacy, and this sort of technology does not go beyond that right.
They reckon that they'll have the costs down to $0.05 per KW/h soon.
That's comparable with coal powered generators, and they're working on an expected 30 year lifespan for the storage system.
True, Spain is the first target because of a preferential price being given to solar power, but if you can contract to build a production plant with a reasonable guarantee of profit, then it's effectively free R&D for the system.
They've had prototypes up and running since 1996, so I guess they've figured out any mirror issues by now.
And it's probably a lot cheaper than having to invade countries to steal their oil...
Because there is presently no economic incentive to produce power this way in the US.
The first production plants are in countries where an effective subsidy is being given to solar energy, principally in order to try to meet the targets agreed in Kyoto.
Bush refused to ratify Kyoto on taking office, and with the oil connections in the Government I don't expect to see subsidies for clean energy anytime soon.
Still, thanks to Scandia, Bechtel and Boeing, the rest of the world will have clean energy.
Nope - if IBM signed a contract with AT&T, it certainly did not contain an enforceable clause allowing AT&T or its successors rights over 'derivative works'.
IBM is a business, not a computer company. IBM didn't get where it is by innovation, by smart tech ideas, or by pretty products. IBM got where it is by making safe kit, safe operating systems, and above all, safe decisions.
SCO can rant and rave about its percieved 'property rights' all it wants, but that doesn't change the fact that IBM, when it signed the original contract with AT&T, knew that any rights to 'derivative works' would be assigned to IBM by any reasonable judge.
Moreover, IBM has enough cash to squash SCO on appeal, should any judge prove to be foolish.
But they are still distributing the code, despite being aware of whatever infringements they claim.
Moreover, they are still distributing it under the GPL, so they automatically renounce any claims to whatever IP they wish to appropriate from Sequent/IBM/whoever.
No - they'd agree to it all right, then file for Chapter 13 as soon as they are proven to be the liars we all know they are, but after they have spent the money you gave them for the license.
Sorry, but it's still a pump and dump scheme, when viewed from this side of the Atlantic.
No - only that the laws themselves should only interfere with the workings of the market for reasons that are generally accepted as 'good'.
For example - anti-trust laws are against strict definitions of a free market, but they are accepted as good because they promote innovation through competition. Limited copyright laws are also good, because they give an incentive to innovate.
But copyright is not an inherent right - it is a privilege granted for the purpose of promoting invention. It is, without a doubt, a distortion of the free market, and needs to be justifiable in its extent and its application.
What about someone with access to technology that allows them to duplicate carriages at will?
Should a government automatically protect the monopoly of the horse carriage manufacturer?
In a truly free market, the carriage duplicator would be free to make as many copies as he wanted, and the carriage maufacturer would be forced to innovate (making better or cheaper carriages) and keep his market that way.
The purpose of copyright/patents is to allow the carriage manufacturer a reasonable time in which to profit from his innovation, not to grant him a perpetual right to such profits.
Current US copyright law is verging on the obscene - the original term of 14 years was reasonable law made by reasonable men, not bad law made by payola politicians.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I fell about laughing when I saw the counterclaim, because it's just IBM saying to SCO that they can tie them up needlessly until they run out of lawters fees.
Nice work, IBM.
It looks and sounds like a proper motorcycle should - perhaps the only thing that sounds better is a Ducati 916.
Bet you ride some flimsy Jap poseurs bike without real handlebars.
And I'm not even an American, I'm a Brit.
Still, back in the old 386 days, running Oracle 6 at ring 0 was blindingly fast, and it hardly ever crashed (unlike Oracle 7 on NT).
Now if he'd set up an online auction house, and his business was being damaged by Ebay infringing his patent, or if (in 1995) he had tried to market his 'invention' to online auction houses, for reasonable license fees, then he'd have a case.
Not a good case, because patenting the bleeding obvious shouldn't be possible, but a case all the same.
On the available evidence, it looks like he just waited until Ebay was a juicy enough target for legal action, and used the courts to extort money from them.
I hope they win on appeal and send the bugger to the poorhouse.
It's regarded as a bit of a myth, but there is some evidence to support it.
Sheesh!
Thanks for the funniest read I have had in ages.
Or are you another Plastic Paddy?
Having said that, I saw Georgie Fame in concert last night, and he was excellent.
Plagiarist and cartel founder, Edison is the direct philosophical ancestor of Bill Gates.
It was my reward for getting into grammar school, and my biggest regret is that I haven't got it anymore.
Surely someone is old enough to have had an earlier calculator?
But the problem with Zeno's paradox is that Zeno didn't ever make it clear that the time intervals he was considering also decreased geometrically, so he wasn't in fact considering 'forever' as his paradox implies, but was only ever thinking about the fixed interval between Achilles starting and his catching the tortoise, divided and subdivided into ever decreasing chunks.
There is such a fixed interval, and it will be reached - the Zeno paradox results from treating this interval as the totality of time, due to the infinite sum involved.
I'd like to read some of Lynd's original work, though - it may provide another way to look at the universe.
Does that imply 3 time dimensions?
If so, it fits with a prejudice I've had since O-levels (don't know what grade that represents in the US, but they were normally taken at 16 in the UK until they were downgraded to the current GCSE 'Janet and John' levels a few years ago).
I always thought that for symmetry's sake, space and time should both have three dimensions, but never spent enough time and effort trying to justify my prejudice.
If you can use 3 of each of position and momentum coordinates, then effectively you have three time coordinates - since momentum contains time as one of its components.
I'd love a link to the 6-d phase space explanation, if you have one.
When it is, it will be found wanting, since you can legitimately refuse to give up physical keys to physical locks, and this is merely an extension of that to the electronic arena.
Also, it wasn't so much a law passed by the clear will of Parliament as a series of executive orders produced by the Home Office.
I'd happily use this, and trust to the common sense of a judge to throw any RIPA nonsense out - we have a reasonable right to protect our privacy, and this sort of technology does not go beyond that right.
That's comparable with coal powered generators, and they're working on an expected 30 year lifespan for the storage system.
True, Spain is the first target because of a preferential price being given to solar power, but if you can contract to build a production plant with a reasonable guarantee of profit, then it's effectively free R&D for the system.
They've had prototypes up and running since 1996, so I guess they've figured out any mirror issues by now.
And it's probably a lot cheaper than having to invade countries to steal their oil...
The first production plants are in countries where an effective subsidy is being given to solar energy, principally in order to try to meet the targets agreed in Kyoto.
Bush refused to ratify Kyoto on taking office, and with the oil connections in the Government I don't expect to see subsidies for clean energy anytime soon.
Still, thanks to Scandia, Bechtel and Boeing, the rest of the world will have clean energy.
IBM is a business, not a computer company. IBM didn't get where it is by innovation, by smart tech ideas, or by pretty products. IBM got where it is by making safe kit, safe operating systems, and above all, safe decisions.
SCO can rant and rave about its percieved 'property rights' all it wants, but that doesn't change the fact that IBM, when it signed the original contract with AT&T, knew that any rights to 'derivative works' would be assigned to IBM by any reasonable judge.
Moreover, IBM has enough cash to squash SCO on appeal, should any judge prove to be foolish.
Moreover, they are still distributing it under the GPL, so they automatically renounce any claims to whatever IP they wish to appropriate from Sequent/IBM/whoever.
Looks pretty clear to me...
Sorry, but it's still a pump and dump scheme, when viewed from this side of the Atlantic.
For example - anti-trust laws are against strict definitions of a free market, but they are accepted as good because they promote innovation through competition. Limited copyright laws are also good, because they give an incentive to innovate.
But copyright is not an inherent right - it is a privilege granted for the purpose of promoting invention. It is, without a doubt, a distortion of the free market, and needs to be justifiable in its extent and its application.
Should a government automatically protect the monopoly of the horse carriage manufacturer?
In a truly free market, the carriage duplicator would be free to make as many copies as he wanted, and the carriage maufacturer would be forced to innovate (making better or cheaper carriages) and keep his market that way.
The purpose of copyright/patents is to allow the carriage manufacturer a reasonable time in which to profit from his innovation, not to grant him a perpetual right to such profits.
Current US copyright law is verging on the obscene - the original term of 14 years was reasonable law made by reasonable men, not bad law made by payola politicians.