IIRC DPA is a subset of sideband analysis (or attack!). When I first came across this in a patent spec I thought "awesome" you can hack systems based solely on how much power is drawn??!!
The bar is set too low.. the amount of disclosure considered enough for someone to "work" the invention is too little.
Companies are getting their monopoly with not enough information disclosed. If it doesn't allow for interoperability, then they've not disclosed enough in my view. This is a contract between the people and the corporation, we should be demanding more.
If it's a cell-shading algo for a video card, in my view the spec should divulge (or refer to public docs that give) enough info that you can send the docs to a chip-maker and they can recreate the working hardware. At this level of disclosure drivers should be a no-brainer for these super-genius reverse engineering Linux d00dz.
DW is OK but it's really frustrating as it has alot of things missing. Number 1 has to be a reasonable rendering engine. I design standards compliant XHTML / CSS with quite a bit of PHP. Even allowing for the PHP none of the pages look at all like any current rendering engine... this is the latest version (MX2004)!
It doesn't even have PHP syntax checking! Every other text editor does code highlighting. I need bracket highlighting and syntax checking... like JEdit or PHP Editor. DW often screws up on the PHP in html situation too and (like alot in Win) relies too much on file names... so no PHP highlighting in.html files!
I've turned to JEdit more recently (as I prefer a Linux environment and it's portable). It's a little slow but has cool features via plugins. XML and PHP syntax checking (on-the-fly!). XSLT features. A comprehensive search and replace; programmability via very basic scripting allowing (eg) wrapping tags around multiple lines (but you can do that with the column highlighting!);...
Basically, other than the "WYSIWYG" which is massively borked, JEdit has nearly everything I find useful in DW.
JEdit could learn from the ftp interface for DW and the locking and commenting features
The CSS sucks a big one... I use the web-editor extension in Firefox. That's how DW should work!
If there's an app like DW that does what it's supposed to and produces standards compliant XHTML with CSS using divs (not tables) for non-tabular layout that can add-in some cross-browser hacks and has a code-locking feature like DW (for collaborative dev) LET ME KNOW!
[I come from using pico on Unix and notepad on Win95 when I started out...]
I am not a trademark lawyer (or examiner) but as an ex-patent examiner in the UK I occassionally had to raise trademark issues.
I gather that only one registration in any one class is allowed otherwise the origin of goods under the mark in that class would be unclear. If I sell software for accounting labelled "firefox" (RTM) (eg "Best Accounts from Firefox") and you want to sell other software labelled "firefox" then a consumer might think that your goods originate at my quality software house. You'd be trading on my name.
So, if there are class 9 registrations (see http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/notices/regular/classn ov04.htm and note that's the class for computer stuff) that have been granted then I don't see how Mozilla can make another class 9 registration for the same name.
Of course, if Mozilla have been using the mark for trading for an established term preceding the registration then I gather that they have rights to continue to use that mark (in a limited way?). This is all mute... looking at the dates... the E42007607 (Feb 2005) was filed 8 months later than Mozilla's application (June 2004). So it doesn't look threatened...
But like I said, I don't really know much about RTM.
I found it interesting that Time Warner previously had rights to the trademark (expired 1982).
I'd summarise the problems with patents as being that compensation is good to stimulate innovation. There should be reward too. However, this has grown out of all proportion and it is no longer the innovators themselves that are profiting - instead it is share holders and executives. Also there should be some hindrance to filing for non-innovative stuff.
One can argue that those that fund R&D are stimulating innovation and so should be rewarded. To a point that's perhaps true. But there's no evidence to say that a system of fat-cats increases innovation (and much to suggest it doesn't).
In software patents a cap on profits of 10 times the country of origins annual wage should be more than sufficient. Anything more than that hurts innovation as it encourages innovators to leave the industry and party!
As far as stopping patent phishing (filing everything even if it is clearly not innovative) perhaps there should be a sliding scale for patent filings. You can file say 100 applications at the basic fee level, for every additional application you pay a huge fee ($20k or so, not that much compared to patent attorney costs and the like, but enough to stop companies like HP filing a few thousand applications on the off chance that they might have something in them!). If your patent succeeds to grant and remains in force for one year then you get a refund of the additional monies paid.
You're right of course. Patents are for ideas. The parent is an ignoramus (sp?!).
But, companies do try to patent (and often succeed) each pill and jet turbine. If they can get a patent covering ostensibly the same thing but in a different enough way to encourage the patent examiner that "in balance there's probably something new in the patent application" then you get extra years out of your invention.
The point for software patents is that compensation is good for inventors. There should be reward too. In software patents a cap on profits of 10 times the country of origins annual wage should be more than sufficient. Anything more than that hurts innovation as it encourages innovators to leave the industry and party!
I took http://ict.open.ac.uk/courses/t223/ at the Open University (the largest UK based university!). They do world-wide correspondence courses - sadly I don't think the hardware courses are available outside the EU, but this may help someone else here.
It seems (M)T223 has been stopped now, but you may find something else there that is useful. The replacement is http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?C01T224 (ie T224) in the school of informatics.
T223 was a top down look at microprocessors starting with the C programming language, then look at compilation, instructions, microcode and logic to understand how programs are converted to impulses. The course used a serial (RS232) connected thermometer to aid study of some of the hardware aspects.
If you know software then it might be a little basic for you - but you could try for a level-3 course.
If there's only a few of you I'd have thought that a group library of n x $400 would be enough resource to keep you reading for the year. Maybe about 8 people would have to club together.
Also libraries here in the UK will get books for you if you order them. They can order from other libraries or will buy if necessary. I think you have to pay a small fee to show willing. But it's small compared to the cost of buying the books.
>>>"I almost cut and paste into google and report the findings and get modded up as informative"
I imagine that's because most of us have no real deep incite into the subject but comment anyway and so degrade the signal-to-noise level.
With a google you can get comments like "use Z-product it has this feature". With experience you get "while Z-product has this feature that should save hours of work, I found that unless I did X-action first it took twice as long".
Google is great but knowledge does not equal wisdom.
If you're going to skip over CSS why not send them to look at http://www.csszengarden.com/ for homework. It illustrates well the separation of the interface from the engine... a good point in a HCI class.
I think we are born omnivorous.. that's our design (hence the incisors and the molars). We can choose to be vegetarian or have it imposed on us. We don't need to choose to be omnivorous. We simply are until we choose to be something else.
At this point we are by nature omnivores, but our actions are vegetarian. We would then be known as vegetarian.
I think the parallels are clear, and yes I can spot some problems with this analogy too.
Slashdot Mirror
>>> Kids have always used objects to entertain themselves - they're usually called toys.
... None of your poncey toys for us, pick-axes, that's all a child needs ... :0)>
In my day we went down the coal mine from age 5, and we liked it
that's why you get 30-to-life for stealing penny-chews (cheap chewing candy) from your brothers room
(and no that's not justice!)
Just because you are a moral relativist doesn't mean I don't believe in absolute truth.
IIRC DPA is a subset of sideband analysis (or attack!). When I first came across this in a patent spec I thought "awesome" you can hack systems based solely on how much power is drawn??!!
... try http://uspto.gov/ or http://ep.espacenet.com/
That's what I call 1337!!1111
Did you notice the clue on a useful source of technical data
>>> It's "Master's," not "Masters." See wikipedia entry.
Perhaps he stole his degree from Mr.Master???
I think that's what the Japanese call it too, a "handy phone" (at least in patent docs).
You got it wrong about patent disclosures.
.. the amount of disclosure considered enough for someone to "work" the invention is too little.
The bar is set too low
Companies are getting their monopoly with not enough information disclosed. If it doesn't allow for interoperability, then they've not disclosed enough in my view. This is a contract between the people and the corporation, we should be demanding more.
If it's a cell-shading algo for a video card, in my view the spec should divulge (or refer to public docs that give) enough info that you can send the docs to a chip-maker and they can recreate the working hardware. At this level of disclosure drivers should be a no-brainer for these super-genius reverse engineering Linux d00dz.
Lot's of apps include tidy integration, I think this is in Quanta and Bluefish and it's certainly in JEdit (my current choice).
With JEdit I get suggestions from tidy everytime I save a file.
Don't forget bluefish too ... http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/
DW is OK but it's really frustrating as it has alot of things missing. Number 1 has to be a reasonable rendering engine. I design standards compliant XHTML / CSS with quite a bit of PHP. Even allowing for the PHP none of the pages look at all like any current rendering engine ... this is the latest version (MX2004)!
... like JEdit or PHP Editor. DW often screws up on the PHP in html situation too and (like alot in Win) relies too much on file names ... so no PHP highlighting in .html files!
...
... I use the web-editor extension in Firefox. That's how DW should work!
...]
It doesn't even have PHP syntax checking! Every other text editor does code highlighting. I need bracket highlighting and syntax checking
I've turned to JEdit more recently (as I prefer a Linux environment and it's portable). It's a little slow but has cool features via plugins. XML and PHP syntax checking (on-the-fly!). XSLT features. A comprehensive search and replace; programmability via very basic scripting allowing (eg) wrapping tags around multiple lines (but you can do that with the column highlighting!);
Basically, other than the "WYSIWYG" which is massively borked, JEdit has nearly everything I find useful in DW.
JEdit could learn from the ftp interface for DW and the locking and commenting features
The CSS sucks a big one
If there's an app like DW that does what it's supposed to and produces standards compliant XHTML with CSS using divs (not tables) for non-tabular layout that can add-in some cross-browser hacks and has a code-locking feature like DW (for collaborative dev) LET ME KNOW!
[I come from using pico on Unix and notepad on Win95 when I started out
So is that a yes?!
I am not a trademark lawyer (or examiner) but as an ex-patent examiner in the UK I occassionally had to raise trademark issues.
n ov04.htm and note that's the class for computer stuff) that have been granted then I don't see how Mozilla can make another class 9 registration for the same name.
... looking at the dates ... the E42007607 (Feb 2005) was filed 8 months later than Mozilla's application (June 2004). So it doesn't look threatened ...
I gather that only one registration in any one class is allowed otherwise the origin of goods under the mark in that class would be unclear. If I sell software for accounting labelled "firefox" (RTM) (eg "Best Accounts from Firefox") and you want to sell other software labelled "firefox" then a consumer might think that your goods originate at my quality software house. You'd be trading on my name.
So, if there are class 9 registrations (see http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/notices/regular/class
Of course, if Mozilla have been using the mark for trading for an established term preceding the registration then I gather that they have rights to continue to use that mark (in a limited way?). This is all mute
But like I said, I don't really know much about RTM.
I found it interesting that Time Warner previously had rights to the trademark (expired 1982).
Ok, but I reckon of the people that drop out, your list of 10 is "a few people".
/ 0,9830,1315791,00.html). As UK uni's awarded half a million (http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/graduati on/story/0,12760,1387845,00.html) qualifications last year that would appear to be about 70,000 drop-outs. If say 3-4,000 of those dropped out because they were too smart I'd call that more than a few.
:0)>
In the UK (as of 2004) 14% of students drop out (see http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story
Of course one needs to define "smart" here. Presumably we're talking pure intelligence and not business sense.
The counterpoint is that I often thought I'd have been better off _financially_ not going to Uni. In any case - I'll wait for your list.
I'd summarise the problems with patents as being that compensation is good to stimulate innovation. There should be reward too. However, this has grown out of all proportion and it is no longer the innovators themselves that are profiting - instead it is share holders and executives. Also there should be some hindrance to filing for non-innovative stuff.
One can argue that those that fund R&D are stimulating innovation and so should be rewarded. To a point that's perhaps true. But there's no evidence to say that a system of fat-cats increases innovation (and much to suggest it doesn't).
In software patents a cap on profits of 10 times the country of origins annual wage should be more than sufficient. Anything more than that hurts innovation as it encourages innovators to leave the industry and party!
As far as stopping patent phishing (filing everything even if it is clearly not innovative) perhaps there should be a sliding scale for patent filings. You can file say 100 applications at the basic fee level, for every additional application you pay a huge fee ($20k or so, not that much compared to patent attorney costs and the like, but enough to stop companies like HP filing a few thousand applications on the off chance that they might have something in them!). If your patent succeeds to grant and remains in force for one year then you get a refund of the additional monies paid.
>>> "Since very few residential customers in the city get billed for water usage, this would be a PERFECT solution"
... but do you Americans ever look beyond the dollar cost of anything?
I think you need to check your definition of perfect there. Wasting water has huge environmental impacts.
Not wanting to make huge stereotyping statements
You're right of course. Patents are for ideas. The parent is an ignoramus (sp?!).
o pb16_globalhealth.htm and others that you can google for yourself.
But, companies do try to patent (and often succeed) each pill and jet turbine. If they can get a patent covering ostensibly the same thing but in a different enough way to encourage the patent examiner that "in balance there's probably something new in the patent application" then you get extra years out of your invention.
Extra years = extra $$$ (Profit!!).
And terms are way too long.
In the UK we have SPC's (extra long terms for drugs companies). But drugs companies spend alot more on marketing than on R&D. Go figure. http://www.egagenerics.com/gen-phrmapatents.htm and http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/health/
The point for software patents is that compensation is good for inventors. There should be reward too. In software patents a cap on profits of 10 times the country of origins annual wage should be more than sufficient. Anything more than that hurts innovation as it encourages innovators to leave the industry and party!
I took http://ict.open.ac.uk/courses/t223/ at the Open University (the largest UK based university!). They do world-wide correspondence courses - sadly I don't think the hardware courses are available outside the EU, but this may help someone else here.
4 (ie T224) in the school of informatics.
It seems (M)T223 has been stopped now, but you may find something else there that is useful. The replacement is http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?C01T22
T223 was a top down look at microprocessors starting with the C programming language, then look at compilation, instructions, microcode and logic to understand how programs are converted to impulses. The course used a serial (RS232) connected thermometer to aid study of some of the hardware aspects.
If you know software then it might be a little basic for you - but you could try for a level-3 course.
HTH
pbhj
>>>"I'm not being glib."
Who else read that as "g-lib"?
If there's only a few of you I'd have thought that a group library of n x $400 would be enough resource to keep you reading for the year. Maybe about 8 people would have to club together.
...
Also libraries here in the UK will get books for you if you order them. They can order from other libraries or will buy if necessary. I think you have to pay a small fee to show willing. But it's small compared to the cost of buying the books.
The books24x7 thing sounds great for reference material (http://marketing.books24x7.com/browseabout.asp) but if you want to read something
>>>"I almost cut and paste into google and report the findings and get modded up as informative"
I imagine that's because most of us have no real deep incite into the subject but comment anyway and so degrade the signal-to-noise level.
With a google you can get comments like "use Z-product it has this feature". With experience you get "while Z-product has this feature that should save hours of work, I found that unless I did X-action first it took twice as long".
Google is great but knowledge does not equal wisdom.
Also an excellent way to sell a honeypot to unsuspecting slashdotters.
Probably a nice move for recruiting hackers actually.
Or maybe not?
If you're going to skip over CSS why not send them to look at http://www.csszengarden.com/ for homework. It illustrates well the separation of the interface from the engine ... a good point in a HCI class.
Yahoo! can now charge extra for advertising in any of the result streams that is partially blended with informational results.
Presumably if one wants an ad in the information-only (!) section one has to pay an extreme premium.
That's why blend the results!
I'm just suprised that they don't charge users for the information-only results.
I think we are born omnivorous .. that's our design (hence the incisors and the molars). We can choose to be vegetarian or have it imposed on us. We don't need to choose to be omnivorous. We simply are until we choose to be something else.
At this point we are by nature omnivores, but our actions are vegetarian. We would then be known as vegetarian.
I think the parallels are clear, and yes I can spot some problems with this analogy too.
Fruit juice is quite healthy (as part of a balanced diet of course!).
What marketeers call "juice" often isn't.
Don't confuse reality with mega-corp marketing.