Difference: IMHO, Professional Inventors actually try to market their ideas- turn them into something useful- help people- build a profitable business. Think of Edison, Bell, etc. They invented and then put it out there so everyone benefited from their creativity. These guys make the patent, then hide out monitoring the market, until they find an "infringer", and then call out the lawyers. That's no benefit to anyone except themselves & the BSV attorneys.
BTG creates value by investing in intellectual property and technology development, and in early stage ventures. We realize value through technology licensing, patent assertion and sale of equity investments.
This company does nothing but suck the blood of companies that actually produce profitable products.
1. Brainstorm interesting ideas.
2. Patent them, or buy other interesting patents from others.
3. Wait on somebody to use the idea in the mass market.
4. Sue for profit.
Wolfram's A new kind of science changed my life. It made me realize I want to stay away from ego-centric technophiles and hang around people with a little common sense and courtesy.
On a serious note, Men of Mathematics, by E.T. Bell is quite inspiring. That, and The Phantom Tollbooth.
Primary author's homepage here http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~eb296/research.shtml
The algorithm appears only to be available in the Journal of the Optical Society of America. Membership required to access.
Unfortunately, not. Once the patent is granted, your only recourse is to wait to be sued. However, if you know someone else is being sued, you could certainly volunteer any relevant info. In this case, however, it is so obvious (at least to me), that the big boys should have no trouble. IANAL, but I've dealt with a few, some even human beings.
I saw a fellow in Dallas a while back who had in huge red letters on the back of his car, "COURTESY SAVES LIVES". He always had a big space in front of him, where anybody could merge, and a smile on his face if you passed him. And, I still try to emulate his attitude. He made a difference in the traffic each day he drove, and in the attitudes of many people who saw and followed his advice.
IANAL, but the only item that really matters is claim #1. It states specifically "items containing information", not audio and video. If prior art can be shown to invalidate claim #1, all the other claims fall, too. I can think of so many items prior to 1992 that kill this claim, I'm sure that any good IP attorney could do the same. Little companies may give in because the legal costs outweigh the licensing fee. The big guys can stand up to this and kill it dead.
One big example comes to mind: Project Gutenberg. They stored their text files (ordered data files maintained in a library, transmitted via ftp) in a compressed format, IIRC.
These guys are IP terrorists, and you can neither negotiate nor give in to terrorists. If you do, it only encourages more terrorism, and next time, it'll be bigger and badder.
Say, does anybody know what ever happened with Karmarkar's algorithm? The early press releases when it came out said it was going to revolutionize Operations Research (specifically replacing Simplex). It doesn't appear this has happened. What's the scoop?
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
All these proposals are in the legal realm. However, legal solutions require laws being passed in every jurisdiction from which e-mails can be sent. It's untenable at least. The solution must be a technical one. Best I've seen so far is proposals to alter SMTP so there's a challenge-response for authentication of the source, coupled with some opt-in or approved-sender mechanism. Laws and treaties take too long and would probably be out of date by the time they get passed. Real technical innovation is the only answer.
Most of the issues related to threading can be mitigated using the new java.util.concurrent library coming in Java 1.5. With semaphores and message queues, multi-threading gets easier. Without the right tools, most any mundane job would be hard.
Slashdot Mirror
Difference: IMHO, Professional Inventors actually try to market their ideas- turn them into something useful- help people- build a profitable business. Think of Edison, Bell, etc. They invented and then put it out there so everyone benefited from their creativity. These guys make the patent, then hide out monitoring the market, until they find an "infringer", and then call out the lawyers. That's no benefit to anyone except themselves & the BSV attorneys.
BTG creates value by investing in intellectual property and technology development, and in early stage ventures. We realize value through technology licensing, patent assertion and sale of equity investments.
This company does nothing but suck the blood of companies that actually produce profitable products.
1. Brainstorm interesting ideas.
2. Patent them, or buy other interesting patents from others.
3. Wait on somebody to use the idea in the mass market.
4. Sue for profit.
These guys are what SCO aspires to be.
Wolfram's A new kind of science changed my life. It made me realize I want to stay away from ego-centric technophiles and hang around people with a little common sense and courtesy.
On a serious note, Men of Mathematics, by E.T. Bell is quite inspiring. That, and The Phantom Tollbooth.
Primary author's homepage here http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~eb296/research.shtml The algorithm appears only to be available in the Journal of the Optical Society of America. Membership required to access.
Unfortunately, not. Once the patent is granted, your only recourse is to wait to be sued. However, if you know someone else is being sued, you could certainly volunteer any relevant info. In this case, however, it is so obvious (at least to me), that the big boys should have no trouble. IANAL, but I've dealt with a few, some even human beings.
I saw a fellow in Dallas a while back who had in huge red letters on the back of his car, "COURTESY SAVES LIVES". He always had a big space in front of him, where anybody could merge, and a smile on his face if you passed him. And, I still try to emulate his attitude. He made a difference in the traffic each day he drove, and in the attitudes of many people who saw and followed his advice.
IANAL, but the only item that really matters is claim #1. It states specifically "items containing information", not audio and video. If prior art can be shown to invalidate claim #1, all the other claims fall, too. I can think of so many items prior to 1992 that kill this claim, I'm sure that any good IP attorney could do the same. Little companies may give in because the legal costs outweigh the licensing fee. The big guys can stand up to this and kill it dead. One big example comes to mind: Project Gutenberg. They stored their text files (ordered data files maintained in a library, transmitted via ftp) in a compressed format, IIRC. These guys are IP terrorists, and you can neither negotiate nor give in to terrorists. If you do, it only encourages more terrorism, and next time, it'll be bigger and badder.
So, I avoid doing business with liars. Especially ones that want to trick us into believing their philanthropists when they have ulterior motives.
I use a spreadsheet (Excel at work) with one page for currently active. When completed, I cut/paste to a completed page. It's not elegant, but works.
Fluency in Hindi.
Say, does anybody know what ever happened with Karmarkar's algorithm? The early press releases when it came out said it was going to revolutionize Operations Research (specifically replacing Simplex). It doesn't appear this has happened. What's the scoop?
All these proposals are in the legal realm. However, legal solutions require laws being passed in every jurisdiction from which e-mails can be sent. It's untenable at least. The solution must be a technical one. Best I've seen so far is proposals to alter SMTP so there's a challenge-response for authentication of the source, coupled with some opt-in or approved-sender mechanism. Laws and treaties take too long and would probably be out of date by the time they get passed. Real technical innovation is the only answer.
Most of the issues related to threading can be mitigated using the new java.util.concurrent library coming in Java 1.5. With semaphores and message queues, multi-threading gets easier. Without the right tools, most any mundane job would be hard.