This language has always confused me. It sounds like false legaleese.
Is there some capacity that they would not have, but for having stated a "reservation of right"?
And if it's really a right, they wouldn't need to reserve it, would they?
It sounds to me like a rhetorical device where the speaker tries to sucker the listener into believing that some course of action is a "right" (i.e., undeniable), no merely a planned course of action.
If their antitrust judgement forces them to let other people's code interact with their OS's, then even if this patent is granted, they might have to let everyone use it anyway as an EU patent.
Or not. We'll see if the EU has any backbone still, or if they're too excited to merge their patent systems with the U.S.'s.
I was talking with my wife about this the other day...
I think that programming draws many intelligent people as a profession. However, that same intellect that qualified the person also leads programming to become boring after a while.
In my case, everything new in software engineering (regardless of language, architecture, etc.) just starts being a rehash of stuff you're already familiar with.
Eventually you realize that the "innovations" in computer science are either (a) not innovative, people just don't remember very well, or (b) degenerate to mathematics/philosophy.
Sure, you can get into brand new application domains, such as medical imaging. But that's not novel computer science, just a novel application of computer science.
That's why I'm probably gonna' bag it in a few years and (not kidding) study to teach philosophy.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.autoidcenter.org/aboutthetech_identifyi ng.asp
Companies are working very hard to make it cheap to make EPC tags, where each tag has a unique serial #.
BTW, is there much difference between having an absolutely unique ID, and wearing a set of tags that only matches 3 people in a million?
Is there some capacity that they would not have, but for having stated a "reservation of right"?
And if it's really a right, they wouldn't need to reserve it, would they?
It sounds to me like a rhetorical device where the speaker tries to sucker the listener into believing that some course of action is a "right" (i.e., undeniable), no merely a planned course of action.
GCC's website (http://www.fsf.org/software/gcc/releases.html) lists 3.2.2 as the latest release.
Because effectively, it's fining a class of people because some of them might commit a certain crime.
We had two products: Dynabase, and Engenda, which did *exactly* what this describes.
Hell, we even used ObjectStore (unquestionably and object repository) to store content.
Maybe RedBridge Interactive, which now owns those assets and competes with Interwoven, should sue Interwoven for unfair competition?
Or not. We'll see if the EU has any backbone still, or if they're too excited to merge their patent systems with the U.S.'s.
There must be some way to make it so that an ISP doing this kind of analysis becomes a DMCA violation of the customer. Any ideas?
`Cuz if it is, strictly speaking, there is only one computer connected to the ISP's network.
I think that programming draws many intelligent people as a profession. However, that same intellect that qualified the person also leads programming to become boring after a while.
In my case, everything new in software engineering (regardless of language, architecture, etc.) just starts being a rehash of stuff you're already familiar with.
Eventually you realize that the "innovations" in computer science are either (a) not innovative, people just don't remember very well, or (b) degenerate to mathematics/philosophy.
Sure, you can get into brand new application domains, such as medical imaging. But that's not novel computer science, just a novel application of computer science.
That's why I'm probably gonna' bag it in a few years and (not kidding) study to teach philosophy.