In 1997 the following paper was presented at the 6th International Python Conference:
"Persistent Storage of Python Objects in Relational Databases" by Joel Shprentz (http://www.python.org/workshops/1997-10/proceedin gs/shprentz.html)
This paper describes exactly what the Firestar patent claims to invent. Appears that the patent office is: A) Lazy, B) un-informed, C) unable to keep up with the imense amount of discovery that is going on, and/or D) an out of touch wreck that is going to destroy inovation in the civilized world.
I am a small software developer that was recently forced to abandon a very promising project that I spent 2 years on. This, brought about by a patent troll in NY city. I could not afford the $Millions they wanted or the cost of defending myself against an absurd patent that they bought from the ashes of a bankrupt company. My attorney sugested that I just let it go and not bring my product to market. Oh yes! The patent office is promoting inovation left and right.......in the field of creative litigation.
Perhaps, instead of changing the patent office, we should elect people to office that can change the court system in this country to force the people who file un-warrented law suits to pay the legal costs of the defendants, should the suit be shown to be without merit.
It appears that the telcos are a bit two faced about all of this. Let us not forget that the when the telco was approached by the US Defense Department regarding the development of packet switching networks in the late 1950's, they were not interested, as their beloved circuit switched networks we just fine thank you very much. So, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency hired civilian engineering firms to develop it. Fast forward 40 years and the DARPA is giving away the Internet (thanks Al Gore!), it's growing at an astonishing rate and now the telco is VERY INTERESTED (can you spell "big profits?"). They are currently wringing profits out of both ends of each data pipe, and trying to figure out how to make more money on the value of the content that THEY ARE NOT CREATING. I think that I would like to have congress repeal the communications act of 1934 so that I can start charging for the content that is traversing the AIR SPACE THAT I OWN! I own 1/2 acre in a small South Western town, and there are cell phone conversations, AM/FM/XM radio broadcasts traversing my air space, as well as my neighbors satellite reception crosing my property. All of the Cellcos need to be paying my for the conversations that are going on over my airspace. I also want to be paid by the TV networks a percentage of their profits based upon the ratings of the shows that my neighbor is watching over my property. What do think congress, Can I squeeze a little too? I will cut you in on the action!
It appears that both sides ff this issue are about the protection of business models. The net neutrality fans are for protecting the new business models, and the anti-net netrality proponents are all about protecting old business models. No where do I see anyone interested in protecting what is best for the citizens of the US. As the matter is being brought before the US congress, it would appear that our representatives have a responsability to protect what is in the best interests of the majority of US citizens.......but alas, when has that recently been the motivating factor behind congressional decision making?
I prefer my brain to perform my filtering for me. When I find an interesing article with commentary that runs on about the poster.....I just move on. Over the years I have developed a pretty good sense for what is important to me. I let peoples code/work/writting etc speak for them. I really have no interest in what others think about them. I also try NOT to spread gosip for the same reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
In 1997 the following paper was presented at the 6th International Python Conference: "Persistent Storage of Python Objects in Relational Databases" by Joel Shprentz (http://www.python.org/workshops/1997-10/proceedin gs/shprentz.html)
This paper describes exactly what the Firestar patent claims to invent. Appears that the patent office is: A) Lazy, B) un-informed, C) unable to keep up with the imense amount of discovery that is going on, and/or D) an out of touch wreck that is going to destroy inovation in the civilized world.
I am a small software developer that was recently forced to abandon a very promising project that I spent 2 years on. This, brought about by a patent troll in NY city. I could not afford the $Millions they wanted or the cost of defending myself against an absurd patent that they bought from the ashes of a bankrupt company. My attorney sugested that I just let it go and not bring my product to market. Oh yes! The patent office is promoting inovation left and right.......in the field of creative litigation.
Perhaps, instead of changing the patent office, we should elect people to office that can change the court system in this country to force the people who file un-warrented law suits to pay the legal costs of the defendants, should the suit be shown to be without merit.
It appears that the telcos are a bit two faced about all of this. Let us not forget that the when the telco was approached by the US Defense Department regarding the development of packet switching networks in the late 1950's, they were not interested, as their beloved circuit switched networks we just fine thank you very much. So, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency hired civilian engineering firms to develop it. Fast forward 40 years and the DARPA is giving away the Internet (thanks Al Gore!), it's growing at an astonishing rate and now the telco is VERY INTERESTED (can you spell "big profits?"). They are currently wringing profits out of both ends of each data pipe, and trying to figure out how to make more money on the value of the content that THEY ARE NOT CREATING. I think that I would like to have congress repeal the communications act of 1934 so that I can start charging for the content that is traversing the AIR SPACE THAT I OWN! I own 1/2 acre in a small South Western town, and there are cell phone conversations, AM/FM/XM radio broadcasts traversing my air space, as well as my neighbors satellite reception crosing my property. All of the Cellcos need to be paying my for the conversations that are going on over my airspace. I also want to be paid by the TV networks a percentage of their profits based upon the ratings of the shows that my neighbor is watching over my property. What do think congress, Can I squeeze a little too? I will cut you in on the action!
It appears that both sides ff this issue are about the protection of business models. The net neutrality fans are for protecting the new business models, and the anti-net netrality proponents are all about protecting old business models. No where do I see anyone interested in protecting what is best for the citizens of the US. As the matter is being brought before the US congress, it would appear that our representatives have a responsability to protect what is in the best interests of the majority of US citizens.......but alas, when has that recently been the motivating factor behind congressional decision making?
I prefer my brain to perform my filtering for me. When I find an interesing article with commentary that runs on about the poster.....I just move on. Over the years I have developed a pretty good sense for what is important to me. I let peoples code/work/writting etc speak for them. I really have no interest in what others think about them. I also try NOT to spread gosip for the same reasons.